Updated date:

Charles Darwin Made a Monkey out of Me

James A. Watkins is an entrepreneur, musician, and a writer with four non-fiction books and hundreds of magazine articles read by millions.

Charles Darwin's Ancestor

Charles Darwin's Ancestor

The Great Divide

The Theory of Evolution was not altogether new. Ancient pagans in India, Egypt, and Polynesia believed the whole world evolved from an egg. Charles Darwin (1809-1882) concluded that all life forms were engaged in a struggle for survival, which meant the contest to reproduce. As observed in nature, such a battle naturally produces winners and losers. Of course, there is no morality or religion in nature or among animals. To Darwin, purely physical forces explain the whole history of the Cosmos and will shape the future. As pertains to living creatures, this would be brute force.

Many thinkers realized pretty quickly what becomes of the human race if everybody becomes a Darwinist. Man would lack any sense of spirituality and morality. Now before this, there was no battle between religion and science. After Darwin, there was, with Darwinists insisting that everything happened by pure chance and Christians arguing that our lives have meaning, human beings have a purpose, and so does the Cosmos.

The Descent of Man?

The Descent of Man?

You Must Decide Whom You Believe

Charles Darwin suffered from a cornucopia of psychological and physical ailments. Among them were depression, insomnia, hallucinations, vertigo, heart palpitations, muscle twitches, tremors, colic, nocturnal flatulence, nervous exhaustion, skin blisters, sensations of loss of consciousness, tinnitus, shortness of breath, chronic headaches, bloating, constant cramps, spasms, dizziness, vomiting, trembling, fainting spells, uncontrollable shaking spells, anxiety, double vision, nausea, shortness of breath, inordinate fear of death, and agoraphobia. In his own testimony, he was virtually incapacitated as a consequence of mental illness by the time he was twenty-eight-years-old.

Besides all that, Darwin was a twisted, strange man, and a sadist. His favorite thing was to kill birds by smashing their heads with his hammer. As a young man, he loved to kill animals just for the sheer delight of killing them. He also admitted that he enjoyed torturing animals. As a child, he beat puppies, as he wrote, "simply from enjoying the sense of power."

You must decide whom you believe about the Cosmos you find yourself in: the most beautiful person who ever lived, Christ Jesus, or this man Charles Darwin, who bore the marks of demon possession, such as psychosis. Darwin himself wondered if his writings were "the cause of the main part of the ills which my flesh is heir to."

Karl Popper on the Theory of Evolution

Karl Popper on the Theory of Evolution

The Accidental Animal

Darwin’s tutor was Satan, who knew that if a person were led to believe in the Theory of Evolution, it would, in his mind and heart, torpedo confidence in Biblical Creation as revealed in Genesis. That would also sabotage belief in the Fall of Mankind, and therefore in God’s plan of redemption through the Cross. Thus, in one masterstroke, Lucifer could do away with the foundational historical facts that point to the verity of man’s rebellion against his Maker, and our desperate need for salvation.

Anyone who teaches the Theory of Evolution could be considered a priest of a terrible satanic religious system. You see, the Prince of Darkness intended it to be a religion. That is because it was ingeniously devised to convince individuals so that they would choose to disqualify themselves from Heaven—by rejecting their Creator.

Charles Darwin’s father taught him that there was no Creator God; Creation had created itself. His mentor at school was a militant atheist. Charles worked hard to eliminate any vestige of Christianity from his thinking. In his autobiography, he flatly says that the Christian Faith "is manifestly false."

While it is impossible to disprove God's existence, Darwin planned to come up with an intellectual explanation of how there could be a world without God. So, he came up with a hypothesis to take God out of the picture. His strategy was to render the Creator obsolete in the minds of others.

Darwin mistakenly concluded that monotheism 'evolved' from polytheism. That was the key to his explanation of the existence of religion. According to Darwin, Christianity is nothing more than "superstition" that humanity ought to leave behind. His belief was that man is alone in the Universe and that we are 'evolving' into a higher creature. His explanation of The Descent of Man is sheer speculation without a shred of historical evidence. But according to science textbooks foisted on our schoolchildren, he was an impartial, entirely objective scientist with no agenda, with no ax to grind.

You can make a good case that Charles Darwin is the devil most responsible for the collapse of Western Civilization, or ‘Christendom’ as it was once called. He was committed to the 'murder of God.' His theory was communicated to him by spirit beings for the express purpose of opposing what he called “the doctrines until held now by Christians.”

Darwin admitted that his motivation for writing The Origin of Species was "to disprove the belief in the separate creation of species." He would add, “I can entertain no doubt that the view that each species has been independently created is erroneous.”

He proclaimed, "In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some apelike creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term ‘man’ ought to be used.”

He decided that all life, including man, had evolved from lower life forms. Now Darwin had no evidence that humans had ever evolved; he only surmised his theory based on anatomical similarities. He sought to destroy belief in Adam and Eve.

His theory also rejects any essential distinction between human beings and animals. If Man is nothing more than an accidental animal, what moral basis is there to oppose rape or infanticide? How can humans have any code of morality if we are nothing more than random chemicals that come together for a brief time? We kill chickens and cattle by the billions, why not people? That is what led to the thinking of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot. What are a few million people anyway? Just a bunch of molecules, right? All we are in this view is instinct and animal behavior. Who can say that anything is wrong?

Change My Mind

Change My Mind

Artificial Selection & the Elimination of the Unfit

The idea of Natural Selection is that the environment changes the form of living creatures. For instance, if, for a few years, all the leaves on the trees are uncommonly high, only the long-necked giraffes will be able to reach them. The shorter-necked giraffes will starve to death, and only the long necks will live to reproduce. So in time, all giraffes will have longer necks than they had before. Such notions came from man's long history of breeding horses and cattle to purposefully achieve particular characteristics, which is not natural but artificial selection.

One significant factor was ignored regarding the human race, and that is that a man will get massive biceps from working as a blacksmith, but his male baby will not be born with them.

Just because men are physical beings does not mean that it is all we are. And it makes no sense to insist that we are nothing but Matter because we are alive! And most Matter isn’t. Life remains a mysterious force. When you view a corpse at the funeral home, it still has the molecules. We are still recognizable, but it is decidedly missing the life force.

The earth-shattering thing about Darwin’s big idea was that it dispensed with the idea of a Creator altogether. All of life was explained as “eat or be eaten.” Individuals that survived had developed natural capabilities to catch their prey and escape those who hunted them.

The part of Darwin's idea that indeed made no sense was that over enough time brand new kinds of living creatures would appear. There is no proof that this has ever happened. But those who latched onto it as gospel did so because they wanted the world to be godless so they would not have to answer for their immorality. And to appear smarter than everybody else—more advanced.

Now what came next was the idea that if all living creatures, including human beings, 'evolved,' everything else in the world must evolve, such as religions, political systems, technology, etc. With technology, that is demonstrably true. That does not mean it must be valid for everything. Part of this idea was that anything lost was not worth having, or it would have survived the selection process, and whatever is new must be automatically better. So Man began to crave novelty, loving the new just because it was new.

Darwin missed the boat because 'the survival of the fittest' only explains the elimination of the unfit from the gene pool. It cannot account for the production of new characteristics, or anything new, such as a new species. In other words, long-necked giraffes did not become long-necked by natural selection; the short necks just died out. Still, there arose generations of people eager to get rid of any transcendent purpose for our lives.

The Theory of Evolution Violates Science

The Theory of Evolution Violates Science

Christian Charity Must Go

Right on the heels of Darwin came other thinkers who decided that—because of Darwin's Natural Selection—disease, famine, and war were natural things, neither good nor bad but necessary to check population growth, mainly to weed out the weak ones. Therefore, Christianity was in the crosshairs because it had established a colossal system of charity.

Wherever Christians went in the world, they would feed the hungry, clothe the cold and naked, house those without shelter, set up hospitals for the sick, take care of the mentally ill and physically disabled. All of which was artificially thwarting Darwinism, and therefore artificially propping up the weakest members of the race that ought to be dying off for the betterment of our species. And worse: Allowing those weak ones to breed more of the same. Starvation, pestilence, and bloodshed were nature’s way of making the human race stronger.

Evolution became a religion to some. The first definition of 'religion' is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose [or lack of purpose] of the Universe.” They felt everything should be subsumed under their new God: Science. They began to declare that the theory of man descending from a single-celled ancestor was a fact. One that could be easily observed by anyone smart enough to see that rain falls from the sky. There is a problem. To quote Jacques Barzun: "If you make Chance your creator, you are likely to get nothing but monstrosities as your creatures; you cannot make an alarm clock by whirling bits of scrap iron in a closed box."

Promoters of science have convinced many that whatever some scientists say is the end-all-be-all of truth. You can see it in the way they frame statements: “Science now says,” or “We now know.” But among all scientists, their presuppositions inform their results.

The majority of scientists followed Darwin. Not because his ideas were proven, far from it. They assumed them to be true because they wanted it to be true that living creatures had not been separately created; that man had descended from an apelike animal; that the supernatural did not exist; that everything is reducible to particles. That is scientific materialism, a philosophy/religion masquerading as scientific fact.

Scientific materialism, or scientism, would be used to justify some pretty abhorrent behaviors in subsequent decades. After all, should not the strong put the weak out of their misery and end their bloodlines to make the whole human race more robust and create a new, improved civilization without the defectives? Would this not advance evolution?

The story of insect and animal life is one of chase, capture, and death. Nature is cruel. Darwin had believed that not only were some individuals further evolved than others but so were whole races of people more highly developed or woefully primitive and savage. All kinds of schemes were proposed to remedy that situation, biological segregation, sterilization of inferiors, mass reproduction by the fittest, selective breeding—and instigating wars. It did not cross their minds that it is the most robust, not the unfit that are usually killed off in wars. Our best warriors go into battle; the weak, the feeble-minded, the disabled, and the elderly stay home.

The famous atheist philosopher T. H. Huxley served as the guru to a generation of college students in Europe as the 19th century wound down. He could be counted on to lead the way in bashing the Bible, scorning Christians, preaching that nothing is real except sensations, and worshipping the scientist as the new priest of the enlightened.

In response, American historian Henry Adams predicted wars were coming on an enormous scale because, having declared that God is dead, European intellectuals had embarked on a course of cultural decadence, which would feature corruption, perverse art and literature, widespread mental problems, and homosexual behaviors. Since Darwin had shown ‘might is right,’ there was nothing wrong with taking what you want, including another man’s wife, children, or property. Cheating people, if you can, will prove they are inferior to you. Wiping out your neighbor by violence, brutalizing and degrading others, proves your superiority.

How Charles Darwin got the Theory of Evolution

How Charles Darwin got the Theory of Evolution

Eugenics and Euthanasia

Natural Selection can help us see what life forms survived but not how those life forms came to be. Perhaps the ‘Origin of Variations' might be a better term, to borrow from Samuel Butler. He also wrote that human beings do what they do because they want to, at least above the involuntary stages such as digestion, etc. In other words, people's physical actions, except for pure reflex, are expressions of mental activities. People make efforts; they endeavor with purposes first formed in their minds.

But Darwin had banished the mind from the Cosmos. Since minds could not be scientifically measured, they must not exist, except as mere Matter moving around at random. However, we all know that life is more than a box of atoms. Darwin said that our thoughts are nothing more than secretions of the brain. But as George Roche points out, “Thinking is something we do, not something that happens to us.”

After his death, Charles Darwin's son Major led the movement. Major Darwin declared: "The unfit amongst men are no longer necessarily killed off by hunger and disease, but are cherished with care, thus being able to reproduce their own kind, however bad that kind might be."

Major proposed an end to Christian Charity because bad breeding would lead to a ruined civilization. Darwin's cousin Francis Galton launched a religious crusade to save the world through selective breeding. He proposed meticulous physical examinations of all human beings before they were allowed to breed, and forced labor camps for the unfit.

German scientist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) took the baton next. He would preach eugenics, as well as abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, and finally, the forced liquidation of weaker races.

Haeckel and his acolytes made Darwinism a pantheist neo-pagan nature-worshiping religion. He proclaimed that to believe humans were different from animals, that a Creator God exists, that Heaven exists, and that Jesus is more than a myth, is to be duped by “the ideas of uneducated people.”

Exterminate the decrepit was his proposal, stating, “What good does it do for humanity to maintain artificially the thousands of cripples, deaf-mutes, idiots, etc., who are born each year?”

Darwin and Haeckel both thought it would be best if “the possibility of transmitting their injurious qualities by inheritance would be taken from those degenerate outcasts.” That is a long way from the Gospel.

Charles Darwin famously wrote: "With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws, and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

Eugenics is applying science to the breeding of human beings, something that Darwin obviously thought would be a good thing. He preached that the unfit are a burden on society, and Christian compassion only exacerbates the problem. That is just one link between Darwin’s theory and the ideology of the Nazis.

In Darwinism, we see that God is excluded, as is the belief that human beings have an immortal soul and an afterlife. Therefore, since nature has created itself somehow, it can be neither good nor evil; all morality is relative, meaning nothing more than a matter of opinion, like your favorite flavor of ice cream.

Darwin observed that human beings selectively breed for various attributes in dogs, horses, and cattle. He figured that such variations are limitless, and thought maybe animals also would vary so much that over time they could become an entirely different kind of beast altogether. He wrote, "We see nothing of these slow changes in progress." That is why the whole human race has been fooled into thinking dogs have always come from other dogs and horses from other horses and people from other people. To believe his theory takes tremendous faith. It is to trust something is happening right before our very eyes that no one can see or have ever been able to see.

Although his followers today are reluctant to admit it, Charles Darwin is the father of Eugenics and Social Darwinism. His theory was created to refute the beliefs of the Christians that surrounded him in his society. Ernst Haeckel expanded Darwin's theory into ‘Moral Darwinism.' Margaret Sanger and Alfred Kinsey would expand it into sexual hedonism.

Darwin was a great admirer of Haeckel. Both agreed that there is no clear distinction between living things and non-living things (if you can imagine that). Haeckel believed that modern Europe, or at least modern Germany, should emulate the ancient Spartans. "They killed any members of their society who were weak, sickly, or disabled, and only the perfectly healthy and strong children were allowed to live. They alone afterward propagated the race."

The books of both Darwin and Haeckel were best-sellers in Germany. Both were enormously influential in forming the ideology of the Nazis, especially Haeckel's recommendation of a state euthanasia program for "hundreds and thousands of incurables, lepers, people with cancer, etc., who are kept alive without the slightest profit to themselves or society."

The problem was Christianity, which was behind the charity programs that cared for such folks.

The Nazis would begin by euthanizing a couple hundred thousand mental patients and disabled persons. Next came euthanizing children who were crippled, retarded, orphans, troublemakers, or mixed race. Abortion and infanticide offered society the best chance to get rid of undesirables early before becoming costly to support.

Law of Biogenesis

Law of Biogenesis

Either Way, We Don't See It

A scientific fact is something that can be observed. Evolutionists love to claim that their explanation of life is ‘a fact.' That is not so. Science does not show it to be so. It is a worldview dressed up as science. To Darwinists, it must be true. That is why a famous atheist such as Richard Dawkins writes that our ancient ancestors must have had a very simple eye. Since there isn't any proof they did, he adds, “We don’t need any evidence for this. It has to be true.”

Nobel Prize-winning geneticist Thomas Hunt Morgan said: "Selection has not produced anything new, but only more of certain kinds of individuals. Evolution, however, means producing new things, not more of what already exists."

Science is about what we can see and measure, as Tom Bethell says. But Darwinists make up things that they then call facts. For instance, we can all see that human beings, like many other creatures, have two eyes, two ears, and a nose. The Darwinist adds, “Because we all share a common ancestor.” But that is something for which there is zero evidence—we do not see it. It is made up and presented as fact.

Jonathan Wells, a doctor of molecular and cellular biology, writes:

"Darwin thought the strongest evidence for his theory was that vertebrate embryos are most similar in their earliest stages; the problem is, they're not. Faked embryo drawings are still used in some modern biology textbooks as 'evidence' for Darwin’s theory. Although all species are supposedly descended from other species through natural selection and variation, no one has observed the origin of even one species by this process.”

The American Association for the Advancement of Science will make statements such as, “100 million fossils have been identified that prove evolution beyond any doubt whatsoever.” That is not true. Fossils do not tell us all living creatures evolved from a common ancestor. As a senior editor for Nature magazine comments: "Fossils are mute; their silence gives us the unlimited license to tell their stories for them. It is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way. Everything we think we know has been invented by us, after the fact."

You can claim “vertebrates evolved from invertebrates” and “mammals evolved from reptiles” and "humans evolved from non-humans," but your claim cannot be proved. There is no evidence that a reptile ever turned into a mammal or gave birth to a mammal. There is no evidence there ever was a half-reptile half-mammal either. As Donn Rosen of the American Museum of Natural History says, "Darwin said evolution happened too slowly for us to see it. Stephen Jay Gould said it happened too quickly for us to see it. Either way, we don't see it."

The Eye did not Evolve

The Eye did not Evolve

Do Bacteria Evolve?

The world's foremost expert on bacteria, Richard Lenski, has been observing them since 1988 without stopping. That is equal to a million human years. Science magazine calls him “The man who bottled evolution,” and “proved how mutation and selection shape living things.” Discover magazine claimed Lenski’s bacteria "have been evolving in all sorts of interesting ways," enabling us "to reconstruct the history of that evolution in great detail." Richard Dawkins even chimed in with "a beautiful demonstration of evolution in action."

I hate to burst anybody’s bubble, but the truth is the bacteria are still bacteria, even after trillions of reproductions over 60,000 generations. They have acquired zero new genetic functions.

As scientist Alan Linton writes of his field: "Throughout 150 years of bacteriology science, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. Since there is no evidence for species change between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution throughout the whole array of multicellular organisms."

Weighing Creationism vs Evolution

Weighing Creationism vs Evolution

But What Does C. S. Lewis Have To Say?

C. S. Lewis wrote: “If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. A theory that explained everything else in the whole Universe but made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid, that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument which proved that no argument was sound—proof that there are no such things as proofs—which is nonsense."

Lewis also wrote, “What Darwin really accounted for was not the origin, but the elimination of species.”

Evolution is a Religion

Evolution is a Religion

Darwin's Beef Was With God

Bill Gates says, "DNA is like a computer program, but far more advanced than any software we've ever created." We all know that programmers only create programs. They do not create themselves.

As Tom Bethell writes in Darwin’s House of Cards, "Admitting design in biology would immediately overthrow Darwin's theory. Its whole thrust from the beginning was to eliminate the need for a designer—to persuade us that nature could construct organisms without any 'input’ from a designer.”

The study of biology does not need the Theory of Evolution, which has become a quasi-religion based entirely on faith, not facts. Common descent has never been proved; natural selection does not create new species; no organism departs from its original type.

Biologist William B. Provine is honest about what the Theory of Evolution teaches: "There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans."

Darwin’s beef was with God: “Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but it was at last complete. I have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true.”

Richard Dawkins pronounces, “Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end.” Another famous atheist scientist, Francis Crick, signer of the Humanist Manifesto, called for a new religion of Secular Humanism to replace belief in Christ. Because once Christianity was demolished, "we could get down to the serious problem of trying to find out what the world is all about."

Crick supported eugenics and infanticide. He proclaimed that an elite group should decide who is born, suggesting that since human beings are just animals, we should breed them.

Many atheists do believe in extraterrestrials. Carl Sagan said he "believed in superior beings in space, creatures so intelligent, so powerful, as to resemble gods." Richard Dawkins: "It's highly plausible that in the Universe, there are god-like creatures." Sagan: "There are a million technical civilizations in the Milky Way."

What such men share with Darwin most is hostility towards Christianity. Darwin called it "a manifestly false history of the world, attributing to God the feelings of a vengeful tyrant." Adding, “The Bible is no more to be trusted than the beliefs of any barbarian.”

Evolution is Evil

Evolution is Evil

A Fairy Tale

One of Darwin’s key points was that some human beings, the “savages” and “barbarians," are mentally closer to apes than they were to sophisticated men such as himself. He thought it was arrogance that made anyone think human beings were exceptional creatures; "our admiration of ourselves," he called it.

As he admitted, his object was "to show that there are no fundamental differences between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties." Thomas Huxley agreed that man “stands nearer the ape than the ape does to the dog.” Stephen Jay Gould capped it with this: “Educated people now accept the evolutionary continuity between humans and apes.”

Evolution is a fairy tale. Scientists speculate philosophically about what might have happened and then present their speculations to the public as if whatever they imagine happened. As paleontologist Colin Patterson offered, "It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.”

T.H. Huxley, a big promoter of evolution, admitted that “an act of philosophical faith” is required to believe in it.

Evolution is sold as a 'scientific discovery' when it is nothing of the sort. Darwin admitted he had zero empirical evidence that natural selection had ever produced a new species. Nobel prize-winning scientist Ernst Chain pronounced that the Theory of Evolution rests on such flimsy assumptions it can hardly even qualify as a theory nonetheless a fact. "I would rather believe in fairy tales than in such wild speculation."

Famous geneticist Richard Lewontin goes far enough to proclaim that the “vast weight of empirical evidence” weighs in against it being authentic. As George Roche points out, “Evolution is virtually immune to scientific testing, so nothing much will ever be known about it.”

The atheist German Geneticist Gunther Theissen asserts that within the scientific community, "It is dangerous to raise attention to the fact that there is no satisfying explanation for macroevolution."

Science philosopher Jerry Fodor, also an atheist, adds: "More than one of our colleagues have told us that even if Darwin was substantially wrong to claim that natural selection is the mechanism for evolution, nonetheless we shouldn’t say so. Darwinism goes literally unquestioned. A view that looks to contradict it, either directly or by implication, is ipso facto rejected, however plausible it may otherwise seem.”

Scientists have failed to show an evolutionary connection from any lower life form to human beings. Genetic studies on modern humans point to the truth of the biblical account. According to the archaeological record, man does not gradually appear on Earth—he explodes on the scene. Humanity spread around the planet from our first two parents from either in or near Israel.

"The general scientific world has been bamboozled into believing that evolution has been proved. Nothing could be further from the truth." - Sir Fred Hoyle, famous atheist scientist

Comments

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on September 09, 2021:

Oscar Jones ~ I sincerely appreciate you reading my writings. Thank you for your gracious compliments on my work. I must confess, I had not heard that Darwin had a come to Jesus moment on his deathbed. I'll have to look into that.

I love that little poem! It is new to me. In particular, I enjoyed the ending: "at least we know where the professors come from, But us regular folk are created by God, is what I believe still."

Thanks again for your correspondence.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on September 07, 2021:

T ~ Always a pleasure to hear from you. Thank you for reading such a long piece. There was much ground to cover. Sadly, this Hub has been flagged as being 'low quality' without an explanation. :(

Oscar Jones from Monroeville, Alabama on September 06, 2021:

"It is dangerous to raise attention to the fact that there is no satisfying explanation for macroevolution." -there is no bonafide "missing link"?

Reading this story makes it hard to accept the claim of some that CD recanted on his deathbed.

The youth at school when asked what he thought. " First there was a microbe a new age to begin, which became a tadpole learning how to swim, then came the monkey swinging from the tree, now he's a professor with a PHD!" at least we know where the professors come from, But us regular folk are created by God, is what I believe still.

As usual, I'm impressed with the depth and the style of this writer!

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on September 06, 2021:

Awdur ~ I cannot overstate what a distinct pleasure it is to hear from you again. Thank you very much for taking the time to read my work. Your needful encouragement and your lovely laudations have made my day.

Awdur from Chicago on September 06, 2021:

Excellent article.... love the little "tidbits"! Your thorough research shines through!

Related Articles