Releasing the Truth

Digging for knowledge…

Evolution: The Creation Myth of Our Culture

From: trueorigin


In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you
can criticize the government but not Darwin.”
 — Chinese palaeontologist
(Wall Street Journal, “The Church of Darwin“, Phillip Johnson, August 16, 1999.)

Tn 1999 Phillip Johnson, author of Darwin on Trialsaid on CNN: “I think we should teach a lot about evolution. In fact, I think we should teach more than the evolutionary science teachers want the students to know. The problem is what we’re getting is a philosophy that’s claimed to be scientific fact, a lot of distortion in the textbooks, and all the difficult problems left out, because they don’t want people to ask tough questions.”

But in the ensuing dozen years, how much has really changed in science classrooms?

What follows is a partial list of questions that could be used to critically examine and evaluate evolution. They would make good classroom discussions, initiated by either teacher or student, or research assignments.


1. Dr. Danny Faulkner, professor of astronomy and physics at the University of South Carolina (Lancaster) commented: “The Ptolemaic model (of the solar system) stood for 15 centuries, but ultimately was rejected in the 17th century because of the huge complexity it had. The real problem with that model was you couldn’t falsify it. No matter what new data, new observations came along, you could always patch it up with a fix of new epicycles or other effects.”

“Over the past three decades the Big Bang model has been changed tremendously. They changed the expansion rate, hence the age of the universe. They’ve thrown in dark matter, dark energy…inflation, …string theory… and it’s starting to look more and more like the Ptolemaic model…. So at what point does the Big Bang model become as unwieldy as the Ptolemaic model, that caused people to reject it?” (unpublished interview, May 15, 2010)

2.Are the retrograde motions of Venus, Uranus, and Pluto predicted by the standard theory of solar system formation?


3.The Oort Cloud was theorized by Dutch astronomer Jan Oort in 1950 to account for the existence of short period comets. Since then, has any portion of the postulated Oort Cloud ever been directly observed?


4. Most geologists believe diamonds formed deep below the earth’s surface, 1 to 3 billion years ago. How do these geologists explain the presence of carbon-14 in a number of diamond samples?

5. All radioisotope dating methods assume

   a) no decay product was present initially or that initial quantities can be accurately estimated
b) the decay system was closed to outside influences through the years and
c) the decay rate was constant over time.

What conditions have violated these assumptions?

6. Why do textbooks claim the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how the cell’s building blocks may have formed on the early Earth, when repeated experimentation has never demonstrated this claim?

Efforts to replicate the supposed origin-of-life events have produced embarrassingly small amounts of only some required cellular building blocks (eg. trace amounts of amino acids, sugars) with the majority of the mixture being a toxic tar. Unless the researcher is present to immediately remove and preserve these short-lived compounds, then those water-based side reactions will make a biochemical hash of them.

To make matters worse, our current understanding supports an early Earth with an oxidizing (not reducing) atmosphere, making the synthesis of these cellular compounds even more unlikely, as oxygen would quickly oxidize the traces before they could have a chance to “self organize”.

And as ICR’s Frank Sherwin writes in his 2009 article: “If and when Venter’s team [J. Craig Venter Institute, Maryland] creates artificial life, it will only have been a product of purpose and applied power and intelligence. And its life-likeness will have been almost entirely copied from pre-existing life in bacterial cells.”

7. All cells depend on ATP synthase, the world’s tiniest rotary motor. Evolutionists have suggested that part of it was “repurposed” from helicase, a protein used to unwind DNA. But helicase cannot be manufactured, and cannot unwind DNA, without abundant ATP, which ATP synthase provides. How could ATP synthase evolve from a protein that already needed ATP synthase?

Evolutionists may argue that enough ATP was produced by substrate-level phosphorylation, where bacteria produce ATP without ATP synthase and without oxygen. However, even these bacteria require ATP synthase to balance their internal acid content. So again, how could ATP synthase evolve from a different protein when both protein complexes require ATP synthase for acid/base balance?

8. Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote in 1988: “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” On page one of “The Blind Watchmaker” (1986) Richard Dawkins writes: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”.

a) If living things look designed–if the empirical evidence suggests purpose–then how do evolutionists know they weren’t designed? b) What is the criteria for “apparent” design?

On Sept. 29, 2009 Richard Dawkins was a guest on CBC’s The Hour. (Watch the interview here.) The host, George Stroumboulopoulos, asked Dawkins: “What is one single thing that you can say that definitively proves that evolution is a fact?”

Dawkins’ response: “Comparing the genes molecularly across all animals and plants. It falls on a precise hierarchical pattern, which is obviously best interpreted as a family tree, and this becomes possible–becomes quantitatively possible–because all living creatures have the same genetic code, which means you have literally reams and reams of textual information, just like a book, in every cell of every body, of every creature, and every plant in the world.”

So…a pattern of highly organized textual information, comparable to books, is evidence there wasn’t any intelligent design involved?

Henry M. Morris wrote: “A number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution, since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry.”

Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution.”

9. Regarding vertical evolution (information-building evolution), is there an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?

John Sanford writes in “Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome”: “Bergman (2004) has studied the topic of beneficial mutations. Among other things, he did a simple literature search via Biological Abstracts and Medline. He found 453,732 ‘mutation’ hits, but among these only 186 mentioned the word ‘beneficial’ (about 4 in 10,000). When those 186 references were reviewed, almost all the presumed ‘beneficial mutations’ were only beneficial in a very narrow sense–but each mutation consistently involved loss of function changes–hence loss of information. While it is almost universally accepted that beneficial (information creating) mutations must occur, this belief seems to be based upon uncritical acceptance of RM/NS, rather than upon any actual evidence. I do not doubt there are beneficial mutations as evidenced by rapid adaptation yet I contest the fact that they build meaningful information in the genome instead of degrade preexisting information in the genome.” (pp. 26-27)

Interview with Dr. John Sanford [Nov. 30 and Dec. 7/08]

10. Evolutionists say mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection produced new life forms. Why then are there so few examples–if there are any at all–of mutations building brand new organs?

Some evolutionists point to a study (2008) of Italian wall lizards (Podarcis sicula). From the abstract: “Here we show how lizards have rapidly evolved differences in head morphology, bite strength, and digestive tract structure after experimental introduction into a novel environment.” The study mentions cecal valves–muscles between the large and small intestine–that “slow down food passage and provide for fermenting chambers, allowing commensal microorganisms to convert cellulose to volatile fatty acids.” (A. Herrel et al., “Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105 (12) (2008): 4792–4795.)

But anatomist David Menton noted the original lizards had the ability to digest plant material; they simply preferred insects for roughly 95 percent of their diet. Menton added: “The ‘new’ muscular valve they found between the small and large intestine is simply an enlargement of muscles already present in the gut wall at this juncture.” So, far from being a truly new feature, the shift in available food allowed lizards with larger muscles at the juncture to be more successful at feeding and reproducing.

The “rapidly evolved” cecal valves are possibly just natural selection acting on pre-existing genetic information, helping a population adapt to its surroundings.

11. How do geologists and paleontologists explain microfossils of pollen, spores, angiosperms, gymnosperms, and at least one winged insect, in Eocambrian (Upper Precambrian) rock?

Pollen Paradox” by Emil Silvestru and Carl Wieland

The discovery of pollen and spores in beds considered Precambrian (Proterozoic) has received brief notice in geological journals and the press.” (Stainforth, R. M., “Occurance of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana”, Nature, 1966, 210, pp. 292-296.)

The great majority are undeterminable as to genus and species, being mainly shreds of angiosperm wood, but there are also gymnosperm tracheids with large round bordered pits, and at least one good, winged, six-legged insect with compound eyes.” (Sahni, B., “Age of the Saline Series in the Salt Range of the Punjab”, Nature, 1944, 153, p. 462.)

To Sahni, this meant the Salt Range Formation must be Eocene. He later found plant fragments not only in the kallar (thin layers of saline earth) but in associated solid rock layers composed of dolomite and shale. In his report, Sahni (1945, p. x) said “stringent precautions” were taken to prevent contamination of the samples with modern organic remains. He also emphasized that samples were taken from locations where the geological evidence ruled out intrusion from younger strata.

Although modern geological reports acknowledge overthrusts in the Salt Range, they unanimously declare the Salt Range Formation to be Eocambrian, not Eocene. (Yeats et al. 1984, Butler et al. 1987, Jauné and Lillie 1988, Baker et al. 1988, Pennock et al. 1989, McDougall and Khan 1990).

McDougall, J. W., and Khan, S. H., 1990, Strike-slip faulting in a foreland fold-thrust belt: The Kalabagh Fault and Western Salt Range, Pakistan: Tectonics, v. 9, pp. 1061-1075.

Eocene: dated from about 56 to 34 million years ago
Eocambrian (Upper Precambrian): dated from about 1.6 billion to 600 million years ago

12. How does evolution explain the Cambrian explosion of every major animal body plan in a single rock system? According to evolutionary age assignments, this profusion of forms occured in the lower Cambrian. Stephen Jay Gould writes: “…an elegant study, published in 1993, clearly restricts this period of phyletic flowering to a mere five million years.” (Scientific American, October 1994, p. 89.) Was this enough time for evolution to perform all that invention?

Gould noted that the Burgess Shale fossils turn the cone of increasing species diversity predicted by neo-Darwinian theory virtually upside down. Do you agree with Gould’s assessment: that the disparity of the phyla precedes the diversity of species? Isn’t this, in fact, backwards from Darwinian predictions?

Out of Place Marine Fossil Disrupts Evolutionary Index

13. Ian T. Taylor writes: “Levi-Setti pointed out that the second lens in the doublet of the trilobite eye was necessary in order that the lens system could work under water where the trilobites lived. Thus, these creatures living at the earliest stages of life used an optimal lens design that would require very sophisticated optical engineering procedures to develop today. If Darwin turned cold at the thought of the human eye at the end of the evolutionary cycle, what, one wonders, would he have thought of the trilobite eye near the beginning?” (“In the Minds of Men”, Fifth Edition, 2003) Discuss.

14. Jellyfish consist entirely of soft body tissues. How do evolutionists explain the existence of jellyfish fossils, in view of their argument that soft body tissues of missing intermediate forms did not fossilize?

15. Is it possible to document from the fossil record the series of transitional forms that led up to any dinosaur species?

16. How does geology explain dinosaur bones with soft tissue, supposedly dated at “80 million years”? (Schweitzer et al., Science 324:626-631). View:


Lesley Stahl: But as Mary showed us, she’s been able to replicate her findings. These are pieces of an even older dinosaur–a well-preserved 80-million-year-old duckbill. When she dissolved it away in acid…

Mary Schweitzer: Let’s put this under the scope here.

Lesley Stahl: Well, look… (to Schweitzer) Is that a blood vessel?

Mary Schweitzer: This is a blood vessel. You see the branches right there? And look at all of them. And it’s so consistent, over and over and over again. We do this bone and it comes out and I get excited every time. I can’t help it. I mean, 80 million years old!

Latest Soft Tissue Study Skirts the Issues

17. Evolution teaches that mammals evolved from reptiles. All mammals have three bones in the ear (and the Organ of Corti) and a single bone on each side of the lower jaw. All reptiles have a single bone in the ear and on average six bones on each side of the lower jaw. Speculate how intermediate forms could have managed to hear and chew, while the necessary restructuring was taking place and the Organ of Corti was being developed.

18. How does evolution explain pterosaurs gradually developing fully functional wings, with their long bony fourth finger? Is there any fossil evidence for their transitional forms? The same question applies to bats from a supposed non-winged ancestor.

19. (a) Were the feathers of Archaeopteryx identical to modern flying birds? (b) Are there any undisputed true birds in the fossil record that had teeth? (c) Archaeopteryx had claws on its wings. Name three modern birds that have claws on their wings (either in the juvenile stage or as an adult).

20. Describe one insect that was transitional between a non-flying insect and a flying insect.

21. Is it possible to document from the fossil record the series of transitional forms leading up to the butterfly? What do evolutionists say when asked how the process of metamorphosis (egg, larva, pupa, adult) evolved?

Enzymes are released that literally digest the larva (caterpillar) while it is encased in the pupa (chrysalis), converting it into a rich soup of disjointed tissues and cells–which after four days becomes an adult butterfly.

Richard Milton writes: “It means no stage or aspect of this physical process can be accounted for or even guessed at with our current knowledge of chemistry, physics, genetics, or molecular biology, extensive though they are. It is completely beyond us. We know practically nothing about the plan or program governing the metamorphosis, or the organizing agency that executes this plan.” (Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, Park St. Press, 1992, p. 220.)

22. a) Is it possible to document from the fossil record the series of transitional forms leading up to the honeybee? b) To identify the location of a food source too distant from the hive to be smelled or seen by the other bees, the scout does a complicated dance on the honeycomb inside the hive. If this process slowly evolved, how would all the bee ancestors have found enough pollen to survive while this system of communication was evolving?

23. Edward Blyth, English chemist/zoologist (and creationist), wrote his first of three major articles on natural selection in The Magazine of Natural History, 24 years before Darwin’s “Origin of Species” was published. Why then do evolutionists think of natural selection as Darwin’s idea?

Blyth didn’t attribute God-like qualities to natural selection, as some evolutionists do today. At least some are willing to admit: “Natural selection can only act on those biologic properties that already exist; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs.” Noble, et al., Parasitology, 6th ed. (Lea & Febiger, 1989), p. 516.

24. During the Industrial Revolution, dark-colored peppered moths appeared in larger numbers during environmental changes. Did a new species emerge, or did it already preexist? Is this macroevolution?

25. In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published their paper, Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism. Marvin Lubenow writes in “Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils” (1992; revised edition 2004): “In the early 1970′s, when it became obvious that we had a more than adequate sampling of the fossil record, the grim reality dawned that those transitional fossils were not to be found. The punctuated equilibria model of evolution was then invented to explain why they were not found. However, it is imperative to emphasize that the punctuated equilibria model does not remove the need for transitional fossils. It just explains why those transitions have not been found.”

Certainly, the punctuated equilibria theory is unique. It must be the only theory ever put forth in the history of science which claims to be scientific but then explains why evidence for it cannot be found.” Do you agree with Lubenow? Why or why not?

26. Science writer Jonathan Weiner (“The Beak of the Finch”, 1994) says beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought (1977) is “evolution in action”, even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred.

Phillip Johnson writes: “If somebody asks, ‘Do you believe in evolution?’ the right reply is not ‘Yes’ or ‘No.’ It is: ‘Precisely what do you mean by evolution?’ My experience has been that the first definition I get will be so broad as to be indisputable–like ‘There has been change in the course of life’s history.’ Later on a much more precise and controversial definition will be substituted without notice. That one word evolution can mean something so tiny it hardly matters, or so big it explains the whole history of the universe. Keep your baloney detector trained on that word. If it moves, zap it!” (“Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds”, 1997)

Phillip Johnson says naturalists define words like “evolution” and “science” in such a way that naturalism is true by definition. He said in World magazine: “Evolutionary science is based on naturalism and draws philosophical conclusions to that base. That’s why any theistic evolution is inherently superficial. It leads people into naturalistic thinking, and they don’t realize it.” (Nov. 22, 1997, p.13)

Agree or disagree? The beak changes Weiner writes about can be more accurately described as “minor variation in action”.

27. Dr. Don Moeller writes in his 2003 paper, Dental fossils and the fossil record: “In summary, the fossil record demonstrates numerous highly complex coupled dento-maxillary developmental systems which can not be accounted for by any known evolutionary mechanism.”

Do you agree with Moeller’s summary? Why or why not?

28. Stern and Susman write in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology 60:279-313 (1983) that the hands and feet of Australopithecus afarensis are not at all like human hands and feet; rather, they have long, curved fingers and toes typical of arboreal primates. Why then do evolutionists insist that the footprints Mary Leakey uncovered in strata (dated at 3.5 million years old) in Laetoli were made by Australopithecus afarensis, though these prints are indistinguishable from modern man? (Tuttle, Natural History, 64)

In a unpublished letter to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Aug. 2, 1996), Dr. David Menton (at that time Associate Professor of Anatomy, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis) wrote: “…many anthropologists, including Mary Leakey herself, are not so sure that ‘Lucy’ [Australopithecus afarensis] could have made these prints, but rather hope that some other ape-like ancestor of man with essentially human feet may yet be found.”

The Laetoli fossil footprints comprise a trail of 20 prints identical to those of a modern 10-year-old child, and a closely adjacent trail of 27 prints of a still smaller child–both with a well developed arch and distinctively human left-right stride. During a 1982 lecture in St. Louis, Mary Leakey revealed that footprints of yet a third smaller individual were found to be placed squarely on each of the footprints in the trail of the larger individual, much as a child might step in the footprints of an elder! The problem is that evolutionists feel certain that there were no humans around when these obviously human-like footprints were made, yet efforts to force Lucy’s feet into something they don’t fit have been as futile as those of Cinderella’s stepsisters. Now evolutionists are faced with the daunting question: what has feet like a human and walks like a human?”

29. a) About 30 partial bone flutes have been found in Europe late in the Neandertal period and younger. b) A 2006 paper by João Zilhão et al. reports on evidence (ornaments and decorated bone tools) that Neandertals had genuine symbolic thought. c) Caves were used by Neandertals as family burial grounds or cemeteries in Europe and the Middle-East (Israel and Lebanon). Why then do some evolutionists insist the Neandertals were merely borrowing or imitating cultural novelties from anatomically modern humans? And why do evolutionists classify Neandertals either as a subspecies of modern humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate human species (Homo neanderthalensis)?

Marvin Lubenow writes: “But the strongest evidence that Neandertals were fully human and of our species is that at four sites Neandertals and modern humans were buried together….That Neandertals and anatomically modern humans were buried together constitutes strong evidence that they lived together, worked together, intermarried, and were accepted as members of the same family, clan, and community. The false distinction made by evolutionists today was not made by the ancients. To call the Neandertals ‘Cave Men’ is to give a false picture of who they were and why caves were significant in their lives.”

Although anthropologists have yet to agree on a formal definition of the Neandertals, there is a set of physical characteristics that are used in referring to a classic Neandertal morphology…. [eg. larger averge brain case, low forehead, heavy brow ridges, prominant nose, thick body bones] Any one of these characteristics, several of them, or all of them could be found in some humans living today, or even perhaps all of them might be found in some humans living today. There is nothing profoundly distinct about them….”

30. In May 2000, Michael Ruse (philosopher of science) wrote: “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion–a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint–and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it–the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” If religion cannot be taught in science classes, why is evolution taught in science classes?

Ruse, M., “How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? Darwinians wrongly mix science with morality, politics”, National Post, pp. B1, B3, B7 (May 13, 2000)

31. Contact 5 evolutionists, preferably from different fields eg. biologist, biochemist, paleontologist, etc. Bonus points for those who are well-known. Ask each: What evidence would convince you that vertical evolution (information-building evolution) is false? Record their answers. If any of the evolutionists say no such evidence exists, or indeed could exist, ask: How then can evolution be testable?


I wonder how many students in schools, colleges and universities would say they have the academic freedom to critique evolution in their science classes? There should be school district and state polls of high-school and college/university students studying evolution, asking two questions:

In this class:
a) Is evolution taught as fact, theory, or both fact and theory?
b) Do you have the academic freedom to critique evolution?
[Students should answer anonymously.] The same questions should be asked of their instructors.

The article, “Valley of the Whales”, in the August 2010 issue of National Geographic, is a good example of an evolutionary article:

Teachers should be encouraged to distribute such articles and three different colored markers to each student, then ask them to mark the verified facts with one color, theopinions with another, and the suppositions with another. Students should be taught to weigh the factual evidence, evaluate statements, and recognize the writer’s purpose and point of view.

For counter arguments to “Valley of the Whales”:

Evolutionists say, “We continually revise our theories and welcome critical examination and evaluation.” They may revise aspects of their theories, but because evolution is so incredibly malleable, no amount of contrary evidence will convince them otherwise. But how much contrary evidence must accumulate before a theory is discarded?

Today evolution survives, not so much as a theory of science, but as a philosophical necessity. Good science is always tentative and self-correcting, but this never really happens in the case of evolution. Regardless of the scientific data, the idea of evolution as a valid concept is not open to debate. Students are allowed to ask “HOW did evolution occur?”, but never “DID evolution occur?”.

Which is a more objective question: “What were the ape-like creatures that led to man?” or “Did man evolve from ape-like creatures?”

Jonathan Sarfati’s newest book is “The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution” (2010)

Cornell University professor Dr. John Sanford, pioneer of plant genetic engineering and inventor of the gene gun has commented: “In my opinion Sarfati’s book beats Dawkins’ book [“The Greatest Show on Earth”] point by point, on all issues.”

To view a two-part TV interview with Jonathan Sarfati, go to:

If Sarfati’s book has been totally ignored by the mainstream media, why is that unusual? Interviews with evolutionists appear regularly in newspapers, and on televison and radio (eg. NPR’s “Talk of the Nation: Science Friday”; CBC’s “Quirks & Quarks”). How often have you read or heard an interview with a creationary scientist, such as D. Russell Humphreys, Kurt Wise, Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer, Werner Gitt, or John Baumgardner?

If you never have, is this because creationary scientists don’t conduct scientific research, or is it because of other reasons? On the PBS documentary In the Beginning: The Creationist Controversy, Phillip Johnson commented: “Darwinian theory is the creation myth of our culture. It’s the officially sponsored, government financed creation myth that the public is supposed to believe in, and that creates the evolutionary scientists as the priesthood…So we have the priesthood of naturalism, which has great cultural authority, and of course has to protect its mystery that gives it that authority. That’s why they’re so vicious towards critics.”

The following suggested Origins of Life policy is a realistic, practical and legal way for local and state school boards to achieve a win-win with regard to evolution teaching. Even the ACLU, the NCSE, and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State should find the policy acceptable:

As no theory in science is immune from critical examination and evaluation, and recognizing that evolutionary theory is the only approved theory of origins that can be taught in the [school district/state] science curriculum: whenever evolutionary theory is taught, students and teachers are encouraged to discuss the scientific information thatsupports and questions evolution and its underlying assumptions, in order to promote the development of critical thinking skills. This discussion would include only the scientific evidence/information for and against evolutionary theory, as it seeks to explain the origin of the universe and the diversity of life on our planet.”

Never discussing scientific information that questions evolution is to teach evolution as dogma.

Francis Crick and James Watson are the co-discoverers of the thread-like DNA molecule. Crick described himself as agnostic, with a “strong inclination towards atheism”. In 2003, Watson spoke at Youngstown State University and was asked by one student, “So you don’t believe in God?” The scientist answered, “Oh no, absolutely not. The biggest advantage to believing in God is you don’t have to understand anything, no physics, no biology. I wanted to understand.”

Yet thousands of years ago the psalmist wrote: “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb…your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.” (Psalm 139: 13;16). The phrase “you knit me together” anticipates that we are literally knitted or woven together at the molecular level.

For further reference:

Creation Evolution Headlines

ICR Daily Science Updates

Uncommon Descent

ID The Future (podcast)

Louisiana Preserves Science Education Act That Encourages Academic Freedom to Discuss Criticisms of Darwinism [May 27, 2011] by Casey Luskin

If Discussing Criticisms of Darwin’s Theory Amounts to Promoting Intelligent Design… [April 18, 2011] by Robert Crowther

Scientists Urge Censorship of Terms Implying Design and Purpose when Describing Life by Jerry Bergman

How to Sink a Battleship: A call to separate materialist philosophy by Phillip Johnson

Teaching Evolution – Is There a Better Way? by Ian Taylor

Teaching Origins in Public Schools by David N. Menton

Icons of Evolution (2000) by Jonathan Wells

Go to:
and type in: “Wells and Icons of Evolution”

Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution by Jonathan Wells

The Myth of Junk DNA (2011) by Jonathan Wells

The Biggest Problems for Evolution by John Morris

Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati

Refuting Evolution 2 by Jonathan Sarfati, with Michael Matthews

The Scientific Case against Evolution by Henry Morris

The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel

Chapter 1 of 10

Chapter 2 of 10

Chapter 3 of 10

Chapter 4 of 10

Chapter 5 of 10

Chapter 6 of 10

Chapter 7 of 10

Chapter 8 of 10

Chapter 9 of 10

Chapter 10 of 10


How Biology 101 is typically taught: “Kids, welcome to Biology 101. We’re gonna learn lots of fun things in this class. We’re gonna learn how…we’re gonna cut up frogs, and we’re gonna pick flowers, and we’re gonna learn about pistils and stamens and all kinds of fun things, but the first thing you need to know, boys and girls, above all else, is that ‘You are an accident!’. You have absolutely no reason for being here! There is no meaning, no purpose to your life! You’re nothing but a meaningless conglomeration of molecules that came together purely by chance billions and billions of years ago! All the dust and the gas and the galaxy floated around for who knows how long, and they bumped into each other and they said, ‘I know. Let’s be organic!’ So they became organic. And they became little, little gooey, slimey things, you know, swimming around in the primordial soup, and they finally grew little feet, and they crawled up on the land, and they grew fur and feathers and became higher forms of life, and finally became, you know, a monkey, then the monkey developed into an ape, then the ape decided to shave, so he shaved, and became what you are today! It’s, you know, from goo to you by way of the zoo! As such we really don’t have any reason for being here. Your existence is pointless. The universe won’t mind a bit when you die. And when you die, you just become so much compost [Riiiiiing!] Oh, okay, class dismissed. Head on down the hall now, kids, down to that new class we’re starting this week on self-esteem!” –an excerpt from “What We Believe”, a presentation Frank Peretti gave at the Steeling the Mind of America conference (Vale, Colorado, 1997.)


Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” 
–Theodosius Dobzhansky, in The American Biology Teacher (March 1973)

A true scientist would say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evidence.”
–Jonathan Wells, in “Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?” (2000)

The first step for a 21st century science of origins is to separate materialist philosophy from empirical science.”
–Phillip Johnson, in “How to Sink a Battleship” (1996)




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: