Our second speaker is Dr. Fabrizio Fratus. He is an Italian sociologist.

His doctoral thesis was on "Scientific Creationism" and "New scientific discoveries about the origin of life and men." Dr. Fratus is the founder of the Anti-Evolutionist Committee in Italy.

He has authored 5 books on this issue. Some of his books are as follows:

 

“God or Darwin? Evolution: A Myth or a Fact?”, “The Lie of Evolution”, “Science and Faith”

His activities include raising public awareness about moral corruption in society,

the family institution becoming increasingly degraded, and the increasing loneliness of people.  He is an activist. He carries out these works together with his young team.

Dr. Fabrizio Fratus will deliver his speech with the title:

“Evolution: A myth or a Fact? Floor is yours. Thank you.

Good morning.

 

The first thing I want to say is that I personally think that Darwin's theory is a lie, a falsehood. I will start from the question: Is it myth or reality? To give an answer to this question we must first know if Darwinism is science.

So let's try to understand in a simple way what science is. Science must be observable, repeatable and testable. We must be able to verify that an experiment produce an effect that cannot be falsified. In this regard, it is very important to understand Karl Popper's theory. In an attempt to epistemologically understand what Darwin's theory was and how it has evolved, Karl Popper tried to find out a proof that could confute the theory itself. At some point, Karl Popper came to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable theory but it is just a metaphysical research program. This means that Karl Popper, an atheist philosopher, described Darwin's theory as a metaphysical theory that has nothing to do with science.

Antonino Zichichi, president of the World Physics Association in Italy, wrote a book entitled Colui Che Ha fatto Il Mondo in which, by explaining what the credibility of a scientific theory is, he said that the evolution of the human species remains below the level of scientific credibility because Darwin's theory does not pass the test of reproducibility and, since it is not possible to study events that are not reproducible, it is also impossible to observe an effect that have occurred only once. So, Antonino Zichichi thinks that Darwin's theory is not science, to and therefore it is not observable, it is not repeatable and not testable. This is an important point because it means that when we speak about Darwinism, we are not talking about science. Therefore, the science system must reject this hypothesis.

Let's now talk about what Darwinism produces. Let’s see the definition of the word "race" found in Italian vocabularies. A race is a human population locally or globally located, distinguished as a group more or less differentiated by genetically transmitted physical characteristics. So this is the definition of “race”. We know that anthropologists classify the four existing races in: Australians, Negroide, Mongols, and Caucasians. What does Darwinism say instead? Darwinism says that races have developed independently, and that some of them have developed better than others. This is an important point to understand.

In 1833 Darwin wrote, referring to the inhabitants of Terra del Fuoco: “These were the most abject and miserable creatures I anywhere beheld. Viewing such men, one can hardly make oneself believe that they are our fellow-creatures.” In 1871, speaking about the descendants of man, he said that non-white races simply cannot elevate entirely to the level of civilized human beings, and that they are mentally and morally at a lower level, in a way they are stuck at a previous stage of the biological evolution of human species. This means that they are inferior. That's what Darwin said. Darwinism creates racism. When we talk about Darwin we talk about racism.

Why are there big differences between races? The human beings body contains melanin, and this applies to all human populations. Depending on the decrease or increase of the level of melanin, the skin color is lighter or darker. So dark skin people, i.e. Negroid, have high levels of melanin and light skin people i.e. Caucasian, have lower levels of melanin. When there is a low level of melanin and a very sunny weather, the consequence will be skin cancer, when there is low level of melanin and a little sunny weather the consequence will be a vitamin D deficiency. We all know that for the northern populations it is very difficult to sunbath because their skin become red easily under the sun.

Let's now explain the eyes’ differences: why do some populations have almond-shaped eyes while others have eyes with a different shape? For a simple reason: it depends on the fat quantity present in the part above the eye. The greater the fat quantity is in this part, the more the eye will have an almond shape. So, in this case, it is not a breed difference but just an encoded feature. The DNA contains everything that represents human being.

The entire codes necessary for man is found on the DNA. Just as our colleague explained before, all are registered on the DNA in the form of codes. How tall we are, the size of our nose, the size of our feet, if we are fat or thin, these are ciphered on the DNA. Actually, DNA’s are long sequences of information and inherited from one generation to another. Genes are smaller parts of the DNA. Mutations are errors that occur during reproduction and are generally harmful. It is important to understand this, because Darwinists claim that new generations emerge through mutations. This has never been proven, and it is mere manipulation.

We see different genes here and look into the difference between genes in various races. This is the Negroid race, and here is the mixture of the white and black people. According to this, no Caucasian parent could give birth to a Negroid child. In a similar way, no Negroid parent could give birth to a Caucasian child. Darwinism says that natural selection would eliminate these children. But, the truth is not like this, it is different. I am repeating again, this is only manipulation.

Here below, we can see various probabilities, which show the combinations of genes. The combinations from the egg, and the sperm may occur differently. Let me give you an example from the Anglo-Saxon race. A couple gives birth to twins, and one is white and the other is black. Because this was coded on their DNA before, this is not new information. Yet, newspapers and media culture outlets regard this to be a mutation. However, the situation is different here, we can only talk about the information coded on the DNA right from the start. 

Now, I am going to give another example. In a Newsweek article dated 1988, they made research on Adam and Eve. This research was carried out using placenta from 147 women with claims that the DNA of the mitochondria was not the product of the mixing. They named this to be “mitochondrial DNA.” This date caused more problems for evolutionists because they presumed that man had appeared millions of years ago. They had no agreement on the date of man’s origin. And only 10 years after this in 1998, Science magazine wrote about mitochondrial DNA saying it changed faster than expected. This fact raises doubts on the history of evolutionary claims since evolutionists are concerned because of the effects of a more rhythmic mutation. Evolutionists thus proved that research made 10 years ago was in fact invalid. It mentions of a faster mutation here and claim in the Science magazine that Eve’s age is only 6000 years. And that is a scientific research held by Darwinists, the supporters of evolution theory. However, the author of the article kept on with his manipulations saying that nobody could think like him and only his allegations were the facts. For them this evolution did not occur through millions of years, but only in thousands of years.

Now, let me mention of evolutionist propaganda that is so influential in the media. From magazines to cinemas, there is strong indoctrination and pressure on people. If we mention of textbooks used for education, Haeckel’s drawings are included. Haeckel produced some embryo drawings that would indicate evolution according to his suppositions. In brief from fish to salamander, salamander to frog, frog to rabbit, and rabbit to man, he came up with a strange theory. Even though these fallacies were disclosed many times, this error is repeated over and over again in textbooks.

And there is the truth about Lucy that we all know very well. In Italy, we still see Lucy introduced as a chimpanzee with long arms, jaw and thighbone structure, hands and brain size. The Australopithecus were monkeys. The Australopithecus we’ve heard about in the last decades are irrevocably not part of the history of the evolution of human bipedalism. This should create doubts about the traditional representations of man's evolution in textbooks. This is what a paleontologist has written.

Another very important case is that of the Neanderthal man found for the first time in 1856. In Italian textbooks, the Neanderthal man is described as the man who precedes Homo sapiens.

About the Neanderthal man, it has been discovered that he used to bury the deaths, wear jewels, create paintings, he used an advanced communication language, used to play musical instruments, and that he lived in the same era as the modern man. Neanderthal man's DNA analysis revealed that there is no difference between the Neanderthal man and us. But in the textbooks it is said that the Neanderthal man is the man who preceded the Homo sapiens. The Neanderthal man fossils analysis has revealed that there is no difference between the Neanderthal man and us. But in textbooks it is said that the Neanderthal man is the man who preceded the Homo sapiens.

We cannot rely on anatomy and fossil record to reconstruct the evolutionary connections. Despite everything, paleontologists continue to use the same methodology. They know they are wrong, but they carry on with their works because they want to keep telling us about these lies. Let’s now speak about a topic that is very dear to me since I am carrying out studies on it. We describe the free will as a denial of materialism and therefore of Darwinism.

In Darwin's theory, we know that nature is a continuous war for survival, a battle that every living being must constantly fight against his own kind and other species. This is the interpretation of evolutionists and not the reality. It is clear that, if man believes he descended from the monkeys, he will believe in values ​​that would be different from the values ​​he believed in if he knows that he is created by God. We can have societies based on the accumulation of money and materialistic, or a system of completely different values ​​if based on the existence of the Lord. Darwin's theory teaches us that man is perpetually in competition to survive and that his survival depends on his ability to choose what is best for him, inside the system in which he lives. This is the environmental adjustment. The Western system is capitalistic and therefore based on the accumulation. He, who accumulates more money and power, in the eyes of Darwinian, is better and the others have failed. This is Darwin's theory applied to the social system.

Solidarity is against Darwin's logic. Donating and sacrificing oneself is the empirical testimony that man has a conscience that cannot be explained through materialistic interpretations. Evolutionist psychology has no satisfying answers that can explain how man can donate without asking for anything in return. This is free will. If analyzed with the materialistic model, many man's choices are incomprehensible, and according to Darwin's theory, it is not possible to understand some of man's choices. But these choices can be understood by interpreting them with a completely different way of thinking.

Let’s try to apply man choices that in our system are considered irrational, to the model represented in Thomas More's book. We will then understand that we live in a fictitious system, that we organize this world ourselves but that, at the same time, it does not care about all the spiritual needs we have. We will encounter different things when we read this book. The relationship of man with nature in the postmodern world is not healthy. He can be manipulated socially and turn out to be a slave of a system that does not belong to him. However, man has a very precious value, which is free will. Yet, in a postmodern society man has lost his connection with his true perceptions and thus turned out to be easily manipulated socially. Free will is the direct and unequivocal testimony of the lack of validity of the materialistic hypotheses. Man is not the son of chance, he is not a mistake, but he is a perfect being and so are all the living things on earth. The Designer cannot be other than God. Thank you.