Introduction to the Evidence
I have often thought how
little I should like to have to prove organic evolution in a court
of law. (Errol White, presidential address, "A Little on
Lungfishes," proceeding of the Linnean Society of London)
Evolutionists tell us that the evidence for evolution can be found in
numerable scientific disciplines. Consider two examples: A National
Academy of Sciences official statement declares, "Evidence for
relation by common descent [evolution] has been provided by
paleontology, comparative anatomy, biogeography, embryology,
biochemistry, molecular genetics, and other biological disciplines."1
for Democratic and Secular Humanism, in another official statement
further alleges, "Physico-chemical development paved the way for the
origin of life about four billion years ago. Subsequent organic
evolution is now documented by empirical evidence from geology,
paleontology, biogeography, anthropology, and genetics as well as
comparative studies in taxonomy, biochemistry, embryology, anatomy,
denies that the evolutionists see evidence for evolution everywhere.
No one disagrees that a vast amount of data has been assembled
offering alleged evidence for evolution. The problem is not the data,
the facts themselves, but how one interprets the data and the critical
spirit one brings to one’s scientific reading. As Isaac Manly, M.D.
comments, when one looks critically at the evidence for evolution, its
logic breaks down: "There is even a certain amount of ‘logic’ to the
evidence cited unless one looks at the evidence critically and with
basic understanding of biological processes."3
Richard Dreyfuss made the following comment on "The Galapagos Islands"
on the WENT/Nature program for February 26, 1997. With emotion, he
described a spectacular display of sea lions surfing the waves on the
very islands whose name is so frequently associated with Charles
Darwin. As he watched in amazement he commented, "I’m trying to
understand the science of evolution. But right now, all I can see is a
initial hunch was more valid, as the program progressed, and Dreyfuss
discussed more and more of the "evidence" for evolution, the case for
evolution was made to seem plausible by the explanation of vast time
periods and micromutations leading to vital changes so that new
species could be produced. By the end of the TV program, Dreyfuss was
informing viewers as to how eminently reasonable belief in evolution
evolutionists like biologist Edward O. Dodson, co-author of Evolution:
Process and Product, say there is "a vast array of evidence for
evolution," one must be aware of the necessary interpretive lenses
placed on the data to arrive at the conclusion.4 When a
creationist such as Dr. Kurt Wise declares that, "Macroevolution is a
powerful theory of explanation for a wide variety of physical data"5
one must understand this as a credible statement only if evolution is
possible. Something that never happened can’t explain anything.
Frankly, as we will show, we think the impossibility of evolution
makes all such alleged evidences and explanatory powers irrelevant. As
Dr. Heribert-Nilsson points out, it is rather pointless to discuss
"the digestion or the brain functions of a ghost."
In his book,
Darwin on Trial, U.C. Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson
relates a remarkable lecture given by evolutionist Colin Patterson at
the American Museum of Natural History in 1981. Patterson is the
senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and the
author of that museum’s general text on evolution. He asked his
audience one simple but key question which reflected his own doubts
about much of what has been thought to be secure knowledge about the
process of evolution. Here is what he asked his audience of expert
"Can you tell me anything
you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?" I tried that
question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History
and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of
the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a
very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was
silence for a long time but eventually one person said, "I do know
one thing—it ought not to be taught in high school."6
believes that, viewed strictly from the point of view of logic and the
accepted canons of scientific research, the Darwinian theory is
severely lacking in confirmatory evidence. He shows how scientists
have put the cart before the horse, prematurely accepting Darwin’s
theory as fact and then scrambling to find evidence for it. In the
process, Darwinism itself has become a pseudo-science held by its
devotees in spite of, rather than because of, the evidence.7
lack of evidence has led philosophers such as Karl Popper to state: "I
have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable
scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme—a possible
framework for testable scientific theories…. I do not think that
Darwinism can explain the origin of life. I think it quite possible
that life is so extremely improbable that nothing can ‘explain’ why it
Increasingly, evolutionary scientists are dissatisfied today: they
think evolution is true, but are more and more confronted by the
necessity for faith.9
popular evidences cited in favor of evolution are logical,
philosophical, and scientific. One of the alleged logical arguments is
this: hundreds of thousands of scientists worldwide simply cannot all
be so wrong as to have accepted a genuinely false theory—not in the
twentieth and twenty-first centuries, the world’s most productive era
of modern science.
technological advancement and evolutionary theory are not the same
thing. Further, the argument from the majority is itself a logical
fallacy. The number of proponents accepting a given theory doesn’t
prove anything. The proof is in the weight of the evidence. The
majority can be wrong.
common argument for evolution is that it’s the only possible
explanation for our existence. Since we exist, and evolution is the
only way we could have gotten here, evolution must be true. But this
is another logical fallacy, known as faulty dilemma—limiting options
when other legitimate explanations exist.
are persuaded by the alleged scientific evidence—origin of life
experiments that allegedly indicate that precursors to life could
randomly form and evolve; mutations and natural selection as the
apparent mechanism of evolution (mutations do occur; natural selection
is alleged to demonstrate evolution); the fossil record with its
history of past life in such a fashion that it supposedly shows
evolutionary ascent; comparative anatomy/biochemistry/genetics
physiology which purport to reveal evolutionary similarity and common
descent; biogeography, the geographical distribution of plants and
animals which allegedly demonstrate evolutionary relationships; the
study of hominid fossils (the remains of man-like primates from which
humans supposedly evolved), and so on.
If these key
evidences are valid, then evolution may be considered demonstrated. If
they are found wanting, then any additional evidence for evolution,
major or minor, should also be considered suspect.
Evolutionists say that the proof of evolution can be found in the
fossil record, natural selection, comparative anatomy, fossil man, and
biogeography. But we are convinced that not only is there no proof in
any of these areas—there is not even good evidence. This is why we are
unable to trust evolutionary scientists when they say there is proof
of evolution in other areas as well. The truth is that, when examined
critically, all these alleged evidences break down. In fact, we can go
further and declare that virtually all such evidence supports special
creation, either directly or indirectly.10
must be made that if evolution is biologically and mathematically
impossible, then no evidence exists for it anywhere because it never
happened. If it never happened, then the logical, experimental, and
evidential dilemmas faced by evolutionists today are only to be
expected. Further, theists of any persuasion cannot be accused of
being dogmatic or narrow-minded when they simply allow the facts of
science to speak for themselves.
only is there no credible and/or demonstrable evidence for evolution
in the areas evolutionists cite in favor of evolution, it could never
happen to begin with. So, our conclusion is that evolution is accepted
for reasons other than legitimate scientific data.
because of how they interpret nature, evolutionists do believe the
scientific evidence is compelling. If this really isn’t the case, why
then do evolutionists believe as they do? We think this is explained
by several factors: 1) they may not have looked at the data
objectively (i.e., they assume the evidence is good without critical
analysis); 2) they may have a personal bias in favor of naturalism
(they choose to accept evolution on faith, look at the data
selectively, and convince themselves the evidence is good); 3) they
may have never been exposed to the weight of the evidence against
evolution (like that found in the volumes by Bird, Denton, Behe,
Milton, MacBeth, Moorhead and Kaplan, Gentry, Grasse, Shute and others11)
and/or given it a fair hearing; or 4) they just aren’t thinking
clearly. In fact we have talked with many people committed to
evolution whose basic problem is simply that they fail to think
and Logical Fallacies
reads evolutionary literature, one discovers evolutionary faith is
replete with an acceptance of logical fallacies. The examples below
fallacy known as "invincible ignorance" happens when a person adopts a
particular viewpoint, rigidly maintaining it despite all evidence to
the contrary. Regardless of mounting, even definitive, evidence, the
person’s faith in his particular point of view remains.
of provincialism is when one sees things solely from the perspective
of one’s own particular group (in this case the evolutionary
establishment). Other viewpoints, especially those with religious
implications, are simply not accepted or tolerated. Thus, dogmatism is
a strong component of modern evolutionary belief. Proponents also
engage in special pleading—they selectively accept data supporting
their position while rejecting data that does not support it. In fact,
they support their position with a confidence entirely out of
proportion to the evidence.
In his book
on logical fallacies, Don’t You Believe It, A. J. Hoover summarizes 30
common logical fallacies.12
Significantly, almost all of them are applicable to how evolutionists
deal with the data or how they respond to creationism. Consider a few
Generalization—basing a general statement on too small a sample;
building general rules from accidental or exceptional situations.
(Microevolution is evidence of macroevolution; origin of life
experiments in the laboratory can be extrapolated to the actual
evolution of life in the primitive oceans, alleged transitional
forms [Archaeopteryx, Semouria, etc.] prove evolution.)
the Question (petitio principii)—reasoning in a circle, using your
conclusion as a premise, assuming the very thing to be proved as
proof of itself. (Natural selection; paleoanthropology; geologic
of Authority—attempting to prove a conclusion by appealing to a real
or alleged authority in such a way that the conclusion does not
necessarily follow. (All competent scientists declare evolution is a
of Analogy—trying to prove something by improper use of a parallel
case. (Hominid fossils prove evolution.)
Chronological Snobbery (argumentum ad futuris)—attempting to refute
an idea merely by dating it, usually dating it very old.
(Creationism was refuted long ago.)
to Future—trying to prove something by appealing to evidence that
might be turned up in the (unknown) future. (As science progresses,
proof of evolution will eventually be forthcoming.)
Poisoning the Wells—attempting to refute an argument by discrediting
in advance the source of the evidence for the argument.
(Creationists are "know-nothings" opposed to modern science; they
get their arguments mostly from the book of Genesis.)
to Force (argumentum ad baculum)—substituting force or the threat of
force for reason and evidence. (Evolutionists’ intimidation of
creationist students and professors.)
to the People (argumentum ad populum)—trying to establish a position
by appealing to popular sentiments instead of relevant evidence.
(Everybody believes in evolution, therefore it must be true.)
Fallacy of Extension—attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version
of your opponent’s position, i.e., to attack a "straw man."
(Creationism is only the religious doctrine of a small but vocal
Hypothesis Contrary to Fact—arguing from "what might have been,"
from a past hypothetical condition. (The fossil record.)
Ultimate Fallacy: Pigheadedness—refusing to accept a proposition
even when it has been established by adequate evidence. (That
evolution is false is established by the law of biogenesis,
probability considerations, thermodynamics, etc.)
Professor Marvin Lubenow is quite correct when he writes, "As one
studies evolutionist literature, one cannot help but notice in its
practitioners both a lack of logic and an inability to weigh evidence
properly. Legal experts have also noted this."13
Indeed, when considering the alleged evidences for evolution, weighing
the conclusions of legal experts—those trained to weigh evidence—is
and the Law
quoted Errol White as stating that he had often thought about how
little he would like to have to attempt to prove organic evolution in
a court of law. It’s no wonder.
evolutionary scientist anywhere could prove evolution in a legal
forum, given competent cross-examination. It is significant that in
recent years a number of well-argued texts have been written by expert
lawyers critiquing evolution based on the application of the laws of
evidence. One is by Harvard trained Norman MacBeth. In Darwin Retried,
he argued that not only was the evidence for evolution of insufficient
quality to stand up in a modern court of law but that evolution itself
had become a religious faith.14
University of California law professor Phillip E. Johnson wrote Darwin
on Trial, which is one of many significant critiques of evolution in
recent years. He argues forcefully what is evident to everyone who has
studied this issue objectively: 1) that evolution is ultimately a
religious faith; 2) that if evolution were a true scientific
hypothesis, an objective rigorous examination of the evidence would
have caused it to be discarded a long time ago; 3) that it is not
grounded on scientific facts but on the philosophy of naturalism; and
4) that it is an illusion that a great body of empirical evidence can
be marshaled in support of the truth of evolution.15
example is by W. R. Bird, a Yale Law School graduate who argued the
major case on the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court. W. R. Bird is a
member of the most prestigious legal organization, The American Law
Institute, and is listed in the most selective directory, Who’s Who in
the World. His definitive critique of evolution, The Origin of Species
Revisited, is a masterful analysis of evidential reasoning showing
that evolution is without significant evidence and that the theory of
abrupt appearance (roughly parallel to creationism) is a better
if evolution is a fact of science, how do legal experts trained in
evaluating evidence declare it is without evidence? Or, how do
scientists like Dave Nutting deliver lectures at national conferences
with titles like "Fifty scientific reasons why evolution is wrong"?
and the Classroom
This kind of
critical information almost never gets into the classroom, where it is
most needed, and, in fact should be expected. This explains why,
according to Klein, a Regent Emerita of the New York State Board of
Regents, "The theory of evolution continues to be presented in
textbooks, encyclopedias, and research papers as if it were a proven
and verifiable scientific fact."17
according to one court opinion, "Presently, the concepts of
evolutionary theory… permeate the public school textbooks," at least
in biology and for some texts in other fields. "Evolution receives an
average of 14,055 words in each of eight major biology textbooks
published between 1980 and 1982, and seven devote at least 11,000
words to evolution. By contrast, neither the theory of abrupt
appearance nor the theory of creation receives more than a paragraph
in any but one of the roughly 30 textbooks for public school biology,
neither is mentioned in most, and neither is mentioned in the rest
except in criticism."18
Unfortunately, educators generally have no idea that they are legally
permitted to criticize evolution—regardless of what course they teach.
Sooner or later, evolution turns up in most courses anyway. Innovative
teachers who wish to educate students through the Socratic method, for
example, would discover that a few auxiliary lectures on "weighing the
evidence for evolution" will become a fascinating exercise in which to
help students think independently and critically.
legal experts such as W. R. Bird in Vol. 2 of The Origin of Species
Revisited have shown that the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment does not prevent teachers from offering scientific
alternatives to evolution and that creation itself can be a legitimate
scientific alternative. Teachers who would like to offer an
alternative, especially as pedagogical method, and yet do not, have
only been intimidated. They are fully within their rights to do so.
is false and evolution is dead, then Bird’s concluding paragraph in
Vol. 2 must be true:
Perhaps modern science
classrooms are only Plato’s cave in The Republic, and their certain
truths are only deceptive images on the wall. Perhaps modern
scientists are only Aristophanes’ scientists contemplating gnats’
anuses in The Clouds, or Swift’s scientists soberly focusing
microscopes on breasts and modifying objects to fit distorted
mathematical laws in Gulliver’s Travels. The dominant science mixes
the hemlock to kill its rivals oftentimes; it disestablishes the
priests only to don their mantels, as Rousseau warned.19
of evolutionist Ronald Bailey in Reason attempts to explain why so
many non-creationist political conservatives are now abandoning belief
in evolution. Supposedly, it’s not because of the scientific evidence.
Bailey’s argument assumes that evolution is true—and that recent new
discoveries discredit or disprove the creationist’s probability and
design arguments (they don’t). Incredibly, he argues that the only
reason conservatives reject evolution is to preserve the moral order
resulting from religious values. He cites Irving Kristol who correctly
wrote, "If there is one indisputable fact about the human condition it
is that no community can survive if it is persuaded—or even if it
suspects—that its members are leading meaningless lives in a
Bailey actually suggests that conservatives secretly know that
evolution is true, but they lie and deceive the public and criticize
evolution publicly in order to help reserve the moral order!
entirely ignores the fact that evolution is being rejected today
largely on scientific grounds, not social or moral grounds, and that
the attack on evolution comes more from establishment science than
from religious creationism.
should be emphasized that the attack on evolution comes more from
within the halls of naturalistic science than from creationists.
Certainly this speaks volumes as to the weakness of its evidence. B.
Leith, who catalogued some of the dissent in The Descent of Darwin: A
Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982) observes, "The theory of
life that undermined nineteenth century religion has virtually become
a religion itself and in turn is being threatened by fresh ideas. The
attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationist and
religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral
reasons. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science
A few recent examples are science journalist and engineer Richard
Milton’s Shattering the Myth of Darwinism (1997) and biophysicist Lee
M. Spetner’s Not by Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution
Who Face the Evidence
Evolutionists may declare that "denying Darwin is intellectually
impossible," as Herbert Gintis did in Commentary magazine (September
1996) or that "the scientific community has no doubts" about evolution
as an article in Scientific American (October 1997) claimed. But
consider a few examples of the dissent culled from our own research.
Wolfgang Smith received his Ph.D. in Mathematics from Columbia
University. He has held faculty positions at the Massachusetts
Institutes of Technology and UCLA. He writes,
I am opposed to
Darwinism, or better said, to the transformist hypothesis as such,
no matter what one takes to be the mechanism or cause (even perhaps
teleological or theistic) of the postulated macroevolutionary leaps.
I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism, in whatever form, is not
in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis
decked out in scientific garb. In reality the theory derives its
support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a
scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the
only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived with the
constricted Weltanschauung [worldview] to which a majority of
scientists no doubt subscribe.22
Dr. R. Merle
d’Aubigne, head of the Orthopedic Department at the University of
The origin of life is
still a mystery. As long as it has not been demonstrated by
experimental realization, I cannot conceive of any physical or
chemical condition [allowing evolution]…. I cannot be satisfied by
the idea that fortuitous mutation… can explain the complex and
rational organization of the brain, but also of lungs, heart,
kidneys, and even joints and muscles. How is it possible to escape
the idea of some intelligent and organizing force?23
Eccles, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physiology/Medicine says of
evolution in "A Divine Design," "One of its weak points is that it
does not have any recognizable way in which conscious life could have
Harry Rubin, Professor of Molecular Biology and Research Virologist to
the Virus Laboratory, University of California Berkeley and recipient
of numerous prestigious awards, accepts non-Darwinian evolution but
still remarks, "Life, even in bacteria, is too complex to have
occurred by chance."25
evolutionist Dr. Robert A. Millikan comments, "The pathetic thing is
that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no
scientist can ever prove."26
Fleishmann, zoologist at Erlangen University, writes, "The theory of
evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent
as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific
Canadian geologist William Dawson says, "the record of the rocks is
decidedly against evolutionists."28
regarded noncreationist anti-Darwinian French scientist Pierre-P.
Grasse says, "The explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not
stand up to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either
in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major
Ken Hsu, the
evolutionist professor at the Geological Institute in Zurich, E.T.H.,
and former president of the International Association of
Sedimentologists, writes, "We have had enough of the Darwinian
fallacy. It’s about time we cry: ‘The Emperor has no clothes.’"30
former president of the Geological Society of France and director of
the Natural History Museum in Paris, as well as the editor of the
Encyclopedie Francaise, declares that, "The theories of evolution,
with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually
a dogma that all the world continues to teach: but each, in his
speciality, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the
explanations furnished is adequate…. [I]t results from this summary,
that the theory of evolution is impossible."31
Garrido, Sc.D., a member of the Spanish Royal Academy of Science and a
former president of the French Society of Crystallography and
Mineralogy quotes French scholar and mathematician Georges Salet
concerning the last 150 years of attempts to find evidence for
evolution or even explanations of it: "During the last one hundred and
fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line,
there has been no discovery of anything [confirming evolution]."32
quotes French evolutionist Jen Rostand who writes, "The theory of
evolution gives no answer to the important problem of the origin of
life and presents only fallacious solutions to the problem of the
nature of evolutive transformations…[Because of this situation] We are
condemned to believe in evolution…. Perhaps we are now in a worse
position than in 1850 because we have searched for one century and we
have the impression that the different hypotheses are now exhausted."33
himself writes that evolution "is a simplistic idea, almost an
infantile idea" and even that it is a philosophical disease: "The
evolutionary theory is one of the ‘diseases,’ because it is the
corruption of philosophical prejudices regarding a pure scientific
by Howard Byington Holroyd, Ph.D., retired head of the Department of
Physics, Augustana College, Rock Island, Illinois, points out that
evolution is nonsense. His research and calculations show "far beyond
any reasonable doubt, that this theory is nothing more than physical
and mathematical nonsense."35
McCone, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, California State University,
Long Beach, states, "as an anthropologist, I object to evolution on
the anthropological grounds that I have presented. There are no data
Haines, Jr., J.D., research attorney for the California Third District
Court of Appeals, Sacramento, writes that, "The arguments for
macroevolution fail at every significant level when confronted by the
evolutionist and zoologist with the Department of Physiology and
Biochemistry, University of Southampton (England), G. A. Kerkut writes
the following conclusions in his Implications of Evolution. He refers
to the seven basic assumptions of evolution and assesses their
The first assumption was
that non-living things gave rise to living material. This is still
just an assumption…. There is, however, little evidence in favor of
biogenesis and as yet we have no indication that it can be
performed…. It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the
biologist that biogenesis did occur….
The second assumption was
that biogenesis occurred only once. This again is a matter for
belief rather than proof….
The third assumption was
that Viruses, Bacteria, Protozoa and the higher animals were all
interrelated…. We have as yet no definite evidence about the way in
which the Viruses, Bacteria or Protozoa are interrelated.
The fourth assumption was
that the Protozoa gave rise to the Metazoa…. Here again nothing
definite is known….
The fifth assumption was
that the various invertebrate phyla are interrelated…. The evidence,
then for the affinities of the majority of the invertebrates is
tenuous and circumstantial; not the type of evidence that would
allow one to form a verdict of definite relationships.
The sixth assumption [is]
that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates…. As Berrill
states, "in a sense this account is science fiction."
We are on somewhat
stronger ground with the seventh assumption that the fish, amphibia,
reptiles, birds, and mammals are interrelated. There is the fossil
evidence to help us here, though many of the key transitions are not
well-documented and we have as yet to obtain a satisfactory
objective method of dating the fossils…. The evidence that we have
at present is insufficient to allow us to decide the answer to these
on to state that, in essence, evolution has to be taken on pure faith:
the evidence is circumstantial and much of it can be argued either
way. He says of these initial assumptions for evolution, "The evidence
is still lacking for most of them."39
may claim evolution is a demonstrated fact, and this may routinely be
stated in student textbooks, but this is wrong. Creationists have
pointed this out for decades. And not without good cause.
Dr. Duane Gish has actually debated leading evolutionists some 300
times and almost always won.40
Creationist Dr. Henry Morris has spoken to some 30,000 audiences and
never heard an evolutionist respondent offer convincing evidence for
The hundreds of scientists with the Creation Research Society, the
Institute for Creation Research, and other creationist organizations
(there are well over 100) have read literally thousands of
evolutionary books and articles. They conclude there is little or no
genuine evidence for the validity of evolution. In essence, the reason
most people continue to believe in evolution is because of personal
bias or because they are misinformed about the evidence against it.42
may choose not to listen to creationists. However, we don’t see how
any scientist can logically deny the conclusions given by W. R. Bird
in his critique of evolution and presentation of the scientific
evidence for abrupt appearance, or creation. He shows that of six
scientific approaches to macro-evolution (besides the theory of abrupt
appearance), classical Darwinism must be considered wrong on key
issues; that neo-Darwinism and punctuated equilibrium cancel each
other out by denying the relevance of the other’s mechanism; and that
the other three approaches are anti-Darwinian, with one opposing it
and a second being agnostic toward macroevolution.43
all theories of evolution, whether Darwinian, neo-Darwinian,
punctuated equilibrium, or non-Darwinian, should now be considered
dead despite their continuing popularity in the scientific world. The
obituary has already been written due to the latest scientific
discoveries and the failure of 150 years of scientific advancement to
confirm evolution. Obviously then, something like theistic evolution
would also be dead.
again that the evidence of neither paleontology, phylogeny, taxonomy
or classification, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology,
comparative biochemistry, population genetics, artificial selection,
biogeographical distribution, cytology, nor any other area offers real
evidence for evolution.44
it is claimed there are many different legitimate origin theories. But
this is not ultimately true. Native American, Hindu, Muslim, Aztec,
etc., have creation accounts that are either myths or have no
scientific validity. Scientifically the only real alternatives are
creation or evolution. Thus, we think that to effectively disprove
evolution is to effectively prove creation. And we are not alone in
limiting our choices this way.
In a 1983
anti-creationist book, the evolutionist Futuyma writes, "Creation and
evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the
origin of living things."45
George Wald, a Nobel Prize winner says that between spontaneous
generation and a single primary act of supernatural creation, "There
is no third position...."46
other evolutionists as admitting the same:
[neo-Darwinism] has long been perceived as the only legitimate
theory of evolution, and thus the only alternative to creationism."
H. Newman—"There is no
rival hypothesis except the outworn and completely refuted idea of
special creation, now retained only by the ignorant, the dogmatic,
and the prejudiced."
D. Watson—"The only
alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."
J. Teller—"The concept of
development was accordingly untrue, and special creation remained
the only valid interpretation."
R. Jastrow—"Perhaps the
appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are
reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited; either
life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the
grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet
M. Simpson—"If life was
not created supernaturally, and if it did not simply develop from
pre-existent ‘seeds’ present from the creation of the universe
[whenever that was], life must have come forth from nonliving
this moment creation is the only alternative to evolution."
P. Davis and E.
Solomon—"Such explanations tend to fall into one or the other of two
broad categories: special creation or evolution. Various admixtures
and modifications of these two concepts exist, but it seems
impossible to imagine an explanation for origins that lies
completely outside the two ideas."47
Thus, it is
not surprising that some evolutionists will accept the fact, that, as
Miller and Fowler state, "a case against creation is a case for
evolution and vice versa."48
And evolutionist Naylor agrees that "Evidence in favor of one is
necessarily against the other."49
perspective of chosen worldview options, only evolution or creation
have the capacity to logically attract men’s minds. Pantheism and
related theories lie outside the realm of science and are
self-refuting or disproven by modern science; directed panspermia
theories are evolution in disguise and only push the problem back
further; theistic evolution is scientifically and biblically
impossible; and other theories have serious or fatal problems as well.
So, if evolution is disproved, creation is our only option. The
remaining chapters in our book will disprove evolution, leaving
creation the best choice. Perhaps then it should surprise no one that
even a number of evolutionists have publicly declared that creation is
the better theory.
scientists generally claim that "No competent scientist believes in
creation." But even some evolutionary scientists agree that the theory
of special creation better fits the actual scientific data. Many more
examples could be cited; the ones given are only for purposes of
illustration. Our point is to show that evolutionists cannot be
correct when they claim no serious scientist accepts creation or that
creation is a useless religious theory without a shred of scientific
evidence for it. If this were true other evolutionists could never
claim that creation is the better scientific theory.
virtually all of the thousands of scientists who are creationists
believe that whatever scientific field one is referring to, the actual
scientific facts fit creation far better than evolution50:
The true sciences of
astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, and especially
thermodynamics, all give strong witness to the primeval special
creation of all things, whereas the sciences of geophysics, geology,
paleontology, and others similarly give clear testimony to the great
Deluge. The fossil record, in particular, commonly alleged to
provide the strongest evidence of evolution and the geological ages,
instead can be understood much better in the framework of the
Flood.... There is no scientific evidence for evolution that is not
at least as well explained by creation, and there are now thousands
of modern scientists who have abandoned evolution and become
cite representative statements of evolutionary scientists who are
frank enough to admit that special creation is the better theory in
whole or part. Unfortunately, as noted earlier, most scientists
wrongly assume evolution has been proven in other fields and that
their field of specialty is the only one with difficulties. For
example, the botanist E. J. H. Comer of Cambridge University believes
that evidence for evolution exists in certain other fields, although
he admits to difficulty in finding evidence for evolution in his own
Much evidence can be
adduced in favor of the theory of evolution—from biology,
biogeography and paleontology but I still think that, to the
unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special
creation…. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duck weed, and a palm
have come from the same ancestry; and have we any evidence for this
assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer; but I
think that most would break down before an inquisition.52
every field is fraught with difficulties. Those who recognize this are
more open to considering creation.
the Physics Bulletin (Volume 31, No. 4, May 1980, 138), H. S. Lipson
at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology
and a Fellow of the Royal Society states:
I have always been
slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its
ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck
of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether
biological discoveries over the last 30 years or so fit in with
Darwin’s theory. I do not think that they do.
In the last 30 years we
have learned a great deal about life processes (still a minute part
of what there is to know!) and it seems to me to be only fair to see
how the theory of evolution accommodates the new evidence. This is
what we should demand of a purely physical theory. To my mind, the
theory does not stand up at all. I shall take only one
proceeds to show how one cannot account for breathing on evolutionary
assumptions. After further discussion, he asks, "How has living matter
originated?" and concludes:
I think, however, that we
must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable
explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists,
as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do
not like if the experimental evidence supports it.53
refreshing indeed to read such words. Without a few such statements
like this one might think that truly open-minded evolutionists were
themselves an extinct species.
Biology, Zoology, and Genetics: Evolution Model Versus Creation Model
2, A. Thompson observes, "Rather than supporting evolution, the breaks
in the known fossil record support the creation of major groups with
the possibility of some limited variation within each group."54
Clark, the curator of paleontology at the Smithsonian Institution
observed in "Animal Evolution:" "Thus so far as concerns the major
groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the
In the area of comparative biochemistry, Bird observes, "This
comparative unrelatedness argument is an affirmative evidence for the
theory of abrupt appearance, as not just Denton and Sermonti but
Zihlman and Lowenstein acknowledge in reference to the comparative
biochemistry evidence, saying that ‘this constitutes a kind of
"special creation" hypothesis.’"56
citations and others reveal that some evolutionary scientists are
frank enough to admit the theory of creation is in whole or part
superior to the theory of evolution. In fact, the scientific evidence
is so conclusive against evolution and for creation one is finally
amazed that the idea of evolution so thoroughly dominates modern
science. As noted, the reasons are not scientific. Were they
scientific, virtually all scientists would be creationists—as the vast
majority were in preceding centuries. Even such eminent scientists as
Sir Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, his research partner, in
discussing the "theory that life was assembled by an [higher]
intelligence" state, "Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one
wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self evident. The
reasons are psychological rather than scientific."57
Darwin’s Leap of Faith we showed why the evidence for evolution is
lacking—and why it will never be forthcoming. We showed the scientific
basis for the increasing dissatisfaction with evolution even among
many evolutionary scientists. This is why creationists make statements
like the following by leading Canadian medical specialist Evan Shute,
M.D., author of Flaws in the Theory of Evolution: "Evolution will be a
lost cause as soon as people hear all the evidence and not just the
noise made by its proponents."58
fall of Darwinism will be the big story of the early 21st century..."
states noted U.C. at Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson, author
of Darwin on Trial, Reason in the Balance, and Defeating Darwinism by
1 The National Center for
Science Education, Inc., Voices for Evolution (Berkeley: NCSE,
1995), p. 56.
2 Ibid, p. 166.
3 Isaac Manly, God Made:A
Medical Doctor Looks at the Reality of Creation (Joplin, MO: College
Press, 1994), pp. 114-15.
4 Edward O. Dodson and
George F. Howe, Creation or Evolution: Correspondents on the Current
Controversy (Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 1990), p. 143.
5 Kurt P. Wise, "The
Origin of Life’s Major Groups," in J. P. Moreland (ed.) Creation
Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence For An Intelligent Designer (InterVarsity,
1994), p. 232.
6 Cited in Phillip E.
Johnson, Darwin on Trial (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1991), p.
7 For an extensive list
of articles dealing with the religious and unscientific nature of
the evolutionary theory, please see Darwin’s Leap of Faith, p. 366.
8 Karl Popper, Unended
Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography (Great Britain,
Fontana/Collins, 1976, rev.), pp. 168-169.
9 E.g., cf., Michael
Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Rockville, MN: Woodbine
House, 1986), pp.308-344; in his survey of the evidence, R. L.
Wysong (The Creation Evolution Controversy: Implications,
Methodology and Survey of Evidence—Toward a Rational Solution (East
Lansing, MI: Inquiry Press, 1976)) observes that evolution itself
requires faith and lists some of the problems.
10 W. R. Bird, The Origin
of Species Revisited: The Theories of Evolution and Abrupt
Appearances Vols. 1 and 2 (NY: Philosophical Library, 1991), who
cites almost exclusively non-creationists; also see the technical
reports and publications of the Institute for Creation Research in
Santee, CA and the Creation Research Society in St. Joseph, MO; also
see the Recommended Reading in Darwin’s Leap of Faith.
11 See Recommended
Reading in Darwin’s Leap of Faith.
12 A. J. Hoover, Don’t
You Believe It (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1982).
13 Marvin L. Lubenow,
Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), p. 25.
14 Norman MacBeth, Darwin
Retried (Boston: Gambit, 1971).
15 Summarized by Lubenow,
16 "…[The Origin of
Species Revisited] was prepared utilizing the research amassed for
the 1981 Supreme Court case over the issue of origins" (Aguillard,
et. al., v. Edwards, et. al., civil action No. 81-4787, Section H,
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Brief of
the State in Opposition to ACLU Motion for Summary Judgment, c.,
1984, W. R. Bird.) Attorneys for the defendant gathered thousands of
pages of information from hundreds of evolutionary scientists who,
collectively, had expressed reservations from most scientific
fields, in most areas of evolutionary thinking.
17 Klein, Preface to L.
Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1985), p. 5 in Bird, Origin…Revisited,
Vol. 2, p. 399.
18 McLean vs. Arkansas
Bd. of Educ. 529 F. Supp. 1255, 1272 (E.D. Ark. 1982): G. Skoog,
"Coverage of Evolution in Secondary School Biology Textbooks:
1900-1982," at 12 (unpublished ms. October 16, 1982) from Bird,
Origin…Revisited, Vol. 2, pp. 294-95.
Origin…Revisited, Vol. 2, p. 517.
20 In Ronald Bailey,
"Origin of the Specious: Why Do Neo-Conservatives Doubt Darwin?"
Reason, July 1997, p. 24.
21 B. Leith, The Descent
of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts About Darwinism (1982), pp. 10-11 in
Bird, Origin…Revisited, Vol. 1, p. 2, emphasis added.
22 Wolfgang Smith, "The
Universe Is Ultimately to Be Explained in Terms of a Metacosmic
Reality" in Henry Margenau and Ray Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios,
Theos: Scientists Reflect On Science, God And The Origin Of The
Universe, Life And Homo Sapiens (LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 1994), p.
23 Merle d’Aubigne, "How
Is It Possible to Escape the Idea of Some Intelligent and Organizing
Force?" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p.
24 Sir John Eccles, "A
Divine Design: Some Questions on Origins" in Margenau and Varghese
(eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 163.
25 Harry Rubin, "Life,
Even in Bacteria, Is Too Complex to Have Occurred by Chance" in
Margenau and Varghese (eds,), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203.
26 M. Bowden, The Rise of
the Evolution Fraud (An Exposure of Its Roots) (San Diego: Creation
Life Publishers, 1982), pp. 216, 218.
29 Pierre-P. Grasse, The
Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press, 1977), p.
30 K. S. Hsu, reply,
Geology, Vol. 15 (1987), p. 177; Hsu, "Darwin’s Three Mistakes,"
Geology, Vol. 14, pp. 532-35 (1986) in Bird, Vol. 2, p. 516.
31 Paul Lemoine,
Introduction: De L’Evolution? in 5 Encyclopedie Francaise 06-6 (P.
Lemoine, ed., 1937), emphasis added, in Bird, Origin…Revisited, Vol.
1, p. 151.
32 Julio Garrido,
"Evolution and Molecular Biology," Creation Research Society
Quarterly, Dec. 1973, p. 167.
33 Ibid., p. 168.
35 Howard Byington
Holroyd, "Darwinism Is Physical and Mathematical Nonsense," Creation
Research Society Quarterly, June 1972, p. 5.
36 R. Clyde McCone,
"Three Levels of Anthropological Objection to Evolution," Creation
Research Society Quarterly, March 1973, p. 209.
37 Roger Haines, Jr.,
"Macroevolution Questioned," Creation Research Society Quarterly,
Dec. 1976, p. 169.
38 G. A. Kerkut,
Implications of Evolution (Pergammon Press, 1960), pp. 150-153.
39 Ibid., p. 150.
40 Duane Gish, Creation
Scientists Answer Their Critics (El Cajon, CA: Institute for
Creation Research, 1993), p. ix.
41 Dr. Morris may be
contacted at the Santee, CA Institute for Creation Research in
42 See the discussion in
chs. 7, 8 of Darwin’s Leap of Faith.
43 Bird, Origin...
Revisited, Vol. 1, p. 486.
44 Cf., Ibid., pp.
487-489 for a summary of most of these.
45 D. Futuyama, Science
on Trial (1983), p.198 in Bird, Origin... Revisited, Vol. 2, p.167.
46 George Wald, "The
Origin of Life" in Physics and Chemistry of Life (1955), p. 3 in
Bird, Origin... Revisited, Vol. 2, p. 167.
47 Original references
cited in Bird, Origin... Revisited, Vol. 2, pp. 172-173.
48 In Ibid., p.168.
50 Henry Morris, The Long
War Against God: The History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution
Conflict (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), p.32.
51 Henry M. Morris, The
Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids, Ml: Baker, 1984),
52 E. J. H. Corner,
"Evolution" in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary
Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97.
53 H. S. Lipson, "A
Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31 (1980),
54 A. Thompson, Biology;
Zoology and Genetics: Evolution Model vs. Creation Model (1983),
p.76 cited in Bird, Origin... Revisited, Vol. 1, p. 49; Thompson
does not regard the creation theory as scientific.
55 Austin Clark, "Animal
Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, p. 539, cf., p.523
in Bird, Origin... Revisited, Vol. 1, p.50.
56 Bird, Origin...
Revisited, Vol. 1, p. 102.
57 Fred Hoyle, Chandra
Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 130 in Bird,
Origin... Revisited, Vol. 1, p. 82.
58 Evan V. Shute,
"Evolution in the Glare of New Knowledge," The Summary, Dec. 1969,
59 Phillip E. Johnson,
"Controversy;" Commentary; September 1996, p.22.