User Tools

Site Tools


eugenics

Table of Contents

Eugenics (from the Greek. eugenes “well-born, of good stock,” from eu- “good” + genos “birth”) is the general name for a series of ostensibly scientific claims about inheritance among humans, which sought to eliminate traits, such as “imbecility” or criminal behavior, by selective sterilization, regulation of family size, abortion and restrictions on who could marry whom. It was based upon a number of premises since shown to be demonstrably false:

  • That “imbecility” – a catch-all phrase used to label many persons without anything that today would be recognized as mental illness or deficiency – was necessarily the result of inheritance, and heritable.
  • That human “races” as a category were substantial and determinative, and that certain races, such as the “Anglo Saxon,” were innately superior to others.
  • That “nervous exhaustion”, “moral looseness” and other socially-acquired traits were inherited and heritable.
  • That immigrant children were less desirable, and that the “white race” or native-born Americans generally were endangered due to their lower fertility rate in comparison to recent immigrants (see leaflet at right).
  • That “genius” was readily identified, inherited, and heritable.

The banner of eugenics was taken up by a variety of groups in the United States and around the world, each of which believed that it would lead to the creation of healthier, more intelligent people, conserve society's limited resources, and reduce human suffering. Of course, one of the unspoken aspects of this “reduction” in suffering was that it worked, not by reducing suffering per se, but by reducing the number of people through forced sterilization – fewer people, ergo, less suffering. Many women were sterilized involuntarily and without their knowledge under Eugenics laws which were passed in many states of the United States throughout the nineteen-teens and twenties.

Historical Eugenics

The Spartans in ancient Greece practiced a primitive form of eugenics, wherein babies which were judged to be too “weak” or “sickly” would be left to die.

American scientists and Nazi Germany

Stefan Kuhl wrote:

  • When Hitler published Mein Kampf in 1924, he held up a foreign law as a model for his program of racial purification: The U.S. Immigration Restriction Act of 1924, which prohibited the immigration of those with hereditary illnesses and entire ethnic groups. When the Nazis took power in 1933, they installed a program of eugenics–the attempted “improvement” of the population through forced sterilization and marriage controls–that consciously drew on the U.S. example. By then, many American states had long had compulsory sterilization laws for “defectives,” upheld by the Supreme Court in 1927. Small wonder that the Nazi laws led one eugenics activist in Virginia to complain, “The Germans are beating us at our own game.”
  • In The Nazi Connection, Stefan Kuhl uncovers the ties between the American eugenics movement and the Nazi program of racial hygiene, showing that many American scientists actively supported Hitler's policies. After introducing us to the recently resurgent problem of scientific racism, Kuhl carefully recounts the history of the eugenics movement, both in the United States and internationally, demonstrating how widely the idea of sterilization as a genetic control had become accepted by the early twentieth century. From the first, the American eugenicists led the way with radical ideas. Their influence led to sterilization laws in dozens of states–laws which were studied, and praised, by the German racial hygienists. With the rise of Hitler, the Germans enacted compulsory sterilization laws partly based on the U.S. experience, and American eugenists took pride in their influence on Nazi policies. Kuhl recreates astonishing scenes of American eugenicists travelling to Germany to study the new laws, publishing scholarly articles lionizing the Nazi eugenics program, and proudly comparing personal notes from Hitler thanking them for their books. Even after the outbreak of war, he writes, the American eugenicists frowned upon Hitler's totalitarian government, but not his sterilization laws. So deep was the failure to recognize the connection between eugenics and Hitler's genocidal policies, that a prominent liberal Jewish eugenicist who had been forced to flee Germany found it fit to grumble that the Nazis “took over our entire plan of eugenic measures.”
  • By 1945, when the murderous nature of the Nazi government was made perfectly clear, the American eugenicists sought to downplay the close connections between themselves and the German program. Some of them, in fact, had sought to distance themselves from Hitler even before the war. But Stefan Kuhl's deeply documented book provides a devastating indictment of the influence–and aid–provided by American scientists for the most comprehensive attempt to enforce racial purity in world history. ://books.google.com/books?id=UGYfRv3DWuQC&dq=nazi+socialism&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0

Eugenics and the state, 1890s–1963

One of the earliest modern advocates of eugenic ideas (before they were labeled as such) was Alexander Graham Bell. In 1881 Bell investigated the rate of deafness on Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts. From this he concluded that deafness was hereditary in nature and recommended a marriage prohibition against the deaf (“Memoir upon the formation of a deaf variety of the human Race”) even though he was married to a deaf woman. Like many other early eugenicists, he proposed controlling immigration for the purpose of eugenics and warned that boarding schools for the deaf could possibly be considered as breeding places of a deaf human race.

In 1907, Indiana became the first of more than thirty states to adopt legislation aimed at compulsory sterilization of certain individuals.<ref>Indiana Supreme Court Legal History Lecture Series, “Three Generations of Imbeciles are Enough:” Reflections on 100 Years of Eugenics in Indiana, at ://www.in.gov/judiciary/citc/special/eugenics/index.html</ref> Although the law was overturned by the Indiana Supreme Court in 1921,<ref>Williams v. Smith, 131 NE 2 (Ind.), 1921, text at ://www.bioethics.iupui.edu/Eugenics/SMith%20vs%20Williams.pdf </ref> the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Virginia Law allowing for the compulsory sterilization of patients of state mental institutions in 1927; it was in writing this opinion that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. coined the phrase “three generations of imbeciles are enough.”<ref>

Citing Buck v. Bell 274 U.S. 200, 205 (1927).</ref>

Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler was infamous for eugenics programs which attempted to maintain a “pure” German race through a series of programs that ran under the banner of “racial hygiene”. Among other activities, the Nazis performed extensive experimentation on live human beings to test their genetic theories, ranging from simple measurement of physical characteristics to the horrific experiments carried out by Josef Mengele for Otmar von Verschuer on twins in the concentration camps. During the 1930s and 1940s, the Nazi regime forcibly sterilized hundreds of thousands of people whom they viewed as mentally and physically “unfit”, an estimated 400,000 between 1934 and 1937. The scale of the Nazi program prompted American eugenics advocates to seek an expansion of their program, with one complaining that “the Germans are beating us at our own game”.<ref>Quoted in Selgelid, Michael J. 2000. Neugenics? Monash Bioethics Review 19 (4):9-33</ref> The Nazis went further, however, killing tens of thousands of the institutionalized disabled through compulsory “euthanasia” programs.<ref>The Nazi eugenics policies are discussed in a number of sources. A few of the more definitive ones are Robert Proctor, Racial hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988) and Dieter Kuntz, ed., Deadly medicine: creating the master race (Washington, DC: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2004) (online exhibit). On the development of the racial hygiene movement before National Socialism, see Paul Weindling, Health, race and German politics between national unification and Nazism, 1870-1945 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989).</ref>

They also implemented a number of “positive” eugenics policies, giving awards to “Aryan” women who had large numbers of children and encouraged a service in which “racially pure” single women could deliver illegitimate children. Allegations that such women were also impregnated by SS officers in the Lebensborn are common, but unproven. Also, “racially valuable” children from occupied countries were forcibly removed from their parents and adopted by German people. Many of their concerns for eugenics and racial hygiene were also explicitly present in their systematic killing of millions of “undesirable” people including Jews, Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses and homosexuals during the Holocaust (much of the killing equipment and methods employed in the death camps were first developed in the euthanasia program). The scope and coercion involved in the German eugenics programs along with a strong use of the rhetoric of eugenics and so-called “racial science” throughout the regime created an indelible cultural association between eugenics and the Third Reich in the postwar years.<ref>See Proctor, Racial hygiene, and Kuntz, ed., Deadly medicine.</ref>

The second largest eugenics movement was in the United States. Beginning with Connecticut in 1896, many states enacted marriage laws with eugenic criteria, prohibiting anyone who was “epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded” from marrying. In 1898 Charles B. Davenport, a prominent American biologist, began as director of a biological research station based in Cold Spring Harbor where he experimented with evolution in plants and animals. In 1904 Davenport received funds from the Carnegie Institution to found the Station for Experimental Evolution. The Eugenics Record Office opened in 1910 while Davenport and Harry H. Laughlin began to promote eugenics.<ref>The history of eugenics in the United States is discussed at length in Mark Haller, Eugenics: Hereditarian attitudes in American thought (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1963) and Daniel Kevles, In the name of eugenics: Genetics and the uses of human heredity (New York: Knopf, 1985) ISBN 0-520-05763, the latter being the standard survey work on the subject.</ref>

During the 20th century, researchers became interested in the idea that mental illness could run in families and conducted a number of studies to document the heritability of such illnesses as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and depression. Their findings were used by the eugenics movement as proof for its cause. State laws were written in the late 1800s and early 1900s to prohibit marriage and force sterilization of the mentally ill in order to prevent the “passing on” of mental illness to the next generation. These laws were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1927 and were not abolished until the mid-20th century. By 1945 over 45,000 mentally ill individuals in the United States had been forcibly sterilized.

In years to come, the ERO collected a mass of family pedigrees and concluded that those who were unfit came from economically and socially poor backgrounds. Eugenicists such as Davenport, the psychologist Henry H. Goddard and the conservationist Madison Grant (all well respected in their time) began to lobby for various solutions to the problem of the “unfit”. (Davenport favored immigration restriction and sterilization as primary methods; Goddard favored segregation in his The Kallikak Family; Grant favored all of the above and more, even entertaining the idea of extermination.)<ref>See Kevles, In the name of eugenics.</ref> Though their methodology and research methods are now understood as highly flawed, at the time this was seen as legitimate scientific research.<ref>See Pg. 23 “ 'Human Progress’ through Eugenics” from Psychology of Mental Fossils, toward an Archeo-psychology by Douglas Keith Candland at ://www.douglascandland.com/images/chapter7.pdf </ref> It did, however, have scientific detractors (notably, Thomas Hunt Morgan, one of the few Mendelians to explicitly criticize eugenics), though most of these focused more on what they considered the crude methodology of eugenicists, and the characterization of almost every human characteristic as being hereditary, rather than the idea of eugenics itself.<ref>Hamilton Cravens, The triumph of evolution: American scientists and the heredity-environment controversy, 1900-1941 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1978): 179.</ref>

The idea of “genius” and “talent” is also considered by William Graham Sumner, a founder of the American Sociological Society (now called the American Sociological Association). He maintained that if the government did not meddle with the social policy of laissez-faire, a class of genius would rise to the top of the system of social stratification, followed by a class of talent. Most of the rest of society would fit into the class of mediocrity. Those who were considered to be defective (mentally retarded, handicapped, etc.) had a negative effect on social progress by draining off necessary resources. They should be left on their own to sink or swim. But those in the class of delinquent (criminals, deviants, etc.) should be eliminated from society (“Folkways”, 1907).

With the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, eugenicists for the first time played a central role in the Congressional debate as expert advisers on the threat of “inferior stock” from eastern and southern Europe. This reduced the number of immigrants from abroad to 15 percent from previous years, to control the number of “unfit” individuals entering the country. The new act strengthened existing laws prohibiting race mixing in an attempt to maintain the gene pool.<ref>Paul Lombardo, “Eugenics Laws Restricting Immigration,” essay in the Eugenics Archive, available online at http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay9text.html.</ref> Eugenic considerations also lay behind the adoption of incest laws in much of the U.S. and were used to justify many antimiscegenation laws.<ref>Paul Lombardo, “Eugenic Laws Against Race-Mixing,” essay in the Eugenics Archive, available online at http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay7text.html.</ref>

Some states sterilized “imbeciles” for much of the 20th century. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1927 Buck v. Bell case that the state of Virginia could sterilize those it thought unfit. The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963, when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States.<ref>Paul Lombardo, “Eugenic Sterilization Laws,” essay in the Eugenics Archive, available online at http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay8text.html.</ref> A favorable report on the results of sterilization in California, by far the state with the most sterilizations, was published in book form by the biologist Paul Popenoe and was widely cited by the Nazi government as evidence that wide-reaching sterilization programs were feasible and humane. When Nazi administrators went on trial for war crimes in Nuremberg after World War II, they justified the mass sterilizations (over 450,000 in less than a decade) by citing the United States as their inspiration.<ref>The connections between U.S. and Nazi eugenicists is discussed in Edwin Black, “Eugenics and the Nazis -- the California connection”, San Francisco Chronicle (9 November 2003), as well as Black's War Against the Weak (New York: Four Wars Eight Windows, 2003). Stefan Kühl's work, The Nazi connection: Eugenics, American racism, and German National Socialism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), is considered the standard scholarly work on the subject.</ref>

Eugenics in fiction

In Aldous Huxley's novel Brave New World, the world government employs massive eugenics through mechanical, automatic breeding and elimination of the unfit. The 1997 film Gattaca is based on the premise of such as “new eugenics,” complete with biometrics, “designer babies,” and “in-valids.”

Eugenics in film

In the 2006 satirical comedy Idiocracy, the entire movie is premised on the idea that the out-breeding of the stupid over the intelligent will lead to a uniformly stupid world run by advertisers, marketers, and anti-intellectualism.

See Also

References

External References

Stephen Jay Gould, “The Mismeasure of Man”, W.W. Norton and Co., 1981, 1996.

Liberalism

Lefty Topics

AtheismEvolutionismEugenicsGlobalismGlobal warming alarmismHollywood valuesMoral relativismNew age movementPopulation controlProfessor valuesScientologySocialismValuesWicca

AbortionBirth controlAffirmative actionGun controlHomosexual agendaIncome redistributionNanny StateNationalizationObamacarePolitically correctPrayer censorshipSocial JusticeStatism

Tools Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"Cloward and Piven StrategyBiased gradingCensorshipHate speechJudicial activismLiesLiberal intoleranceLiberal logicMainstream MediaMythsNetwork abuseObfuscationPay to playRedefinitionRevisionismScientific fascismSlanderTrapsTricksVandalismVideo game industry

ArroganceBiasBigotryBullyingClass warfareCronyismDeceitDouble standardDenialHypocrisyJournalistic malpracticePropagandaRace baitingStupidityStyleTrollUncharitablenessWhining

Labor UnionsLiberals and friendshipMedia eliteGeorge SorosLiberal quotientNihilismPornographyPublic schools

AtheismEvolutionismEugenicsGlobalismGlobal warming alarmismHollywood valuesMoral relativismNew age movementPopulation controlProfessor valuesScientologySocialismValuesWicca

AbortionBirth controlAffirmative actionGun controlHomosexual agendaIncome redistributionNanny StateNationalizationObamacarePolitically correctPrayer censorshipSocial JusticeStatism

Tools Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"Cloward and Piven StrategyBiased gradingCensorshipHate speechJudicial activismLiesLiberal intoleranceLiberal logicMainstream MediaMythsNetwork abuseObfuscationPay to playRedefinitionRevisionismScientific fascismSlanderTrapsTricksVandalismVideo game industry

ArroganceBiasBigotryBullyingClass warfareCronyismDeceitDouble standardDenialHypocrisyJournalistic malpracticePropagandaRace baitingStupidityStyleTrollUncharitablenessWhining

Labor UnionsLiberals and friendshipMedia eliteGeorge SorosLiberal quotientNihilismPornographyPublic schools


Liberalism can refer to a number of political philosophies derived from Classical liberalism. In this article, the American political platform referred to as “liberal” within the United States is contrasted with other meanings of the word, particularly in Europe and in other parliamentary democratic systems.

  • “Whereas Liberalism is the triumph of emotion over reason (as defined historically), Conservatism is an applied intellectual process; based on observation, deduction, and the study of provable historical fact.” - Sandy Stringfellow<ref>Sandy Stringfellow</ref>
  • Cal Thomas said, “One of liberalism's many problems is that once an idea or program is proved wrong and unworkable, liberals rarely acknowledge their mistake and examine the root cause of their error so they don't repeat it.”<ref>Cal Thomas</ref>
  • Fred Seigel wrote, “Liberalism has become an ugly blend of sanctimony, self-interest, and social connections.” <ref>Fred Seigel</ref>
  • :A distinguishing element of liberalism has been its admiration of autocratic leaders and this explains its embrace of dictators from the likes of the German Kaiser, Lenin and Stalin, through to men like Fidel Castro and his murderous sidekick, Ernesto “Che” Guevera.<ref>The Curse of Liberalism Alan Caruba - September 9, 2013</ref>
  • Michael Savage wrote, “As much as the Left fashions themselves as being progressive, they’re not. In reality, today’s leftist movement is made in much the same way as a sausage—it’s a blend of fascist, Communist, and socialist ideologies from twentieth-century Europe, with a pinch of Nazism, all ground together, yet retaining the flavor of its various parts.”<ref>Quote from ''Liberalism is a Mental Disorder'' by Michael Savage</ref>

Since the definition of liberalism often – but not always – means to advocate for and be open to change, its specific reference depends on specified context. For instance, American liberalism has changed drastically since the 1960s, with liberals then (see: John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr.) advocating for personal responsibility and true liberty, in sharp contrast to modern-day liberals, being very close to leftists, denounce and devalue.

United States

In the U.S. the word liberal is usually used to describe the platform espoused by the Democrat Party, that is, support of social welfare systems, redistribution of wealth, and government regulation of the economy - combined with a certain brand of individual libertarianism, emphasizing social equality, and (to a certain extent, these days increasingly radical) rejection of traditional Judeo-Christian standards of morality as a proper justification for law.

The economic aspects of this ideology are to a large extent a product of the New Deal policies of the Great Depression era, as well as Lyndon B. Johnson's “Great Society.” It also should be noted that a good portion of the Liberal economic philosophy has certain roots in the teachings of Karl Marx, such as the overall focus on social equality and the outrageous rejection of the Judeo-Christian morals. It should be noted, however, that Liberals are not pureblood Communists: Unlike their redder brethren, Liberals are far more insidious and dangerous, as they have successfully infiltrated the American society and now threaten the American way of life.

The Democrat Party's idea of social liberty and equality, though, came much later, partly as a result of the civil rights and counterculture movements of the late 20th century. It continues to be fueled by various youth movements and the interests of numerous special interest groups.

Europe and elsewhere

In Europe, liberalism refers to a political position that leans toward greater individual liberties and less government intervention in general. In short, this is the philosophy closest to classical liberalism, and is commonly referred to in the United States as libertarianism. In Europe and elsewhere, then, the opposite of liberalism is not conservatism, but authoritarianism.

Because of this, the terms “conservative liberalism” and “liberal conservatism”, which are seen as contradictory in the U.S., are not so in Europe. “Conservative liberalism” simply refers to a less radical libertarian philosophy, and is often referred to as “law-and-order liberalism.” Liberal conservatism is simply a variant of conservatism willing to allow for individual liberties, and, in a way, describes the ideology of the American Republican Party. Such examples of this obvious line of thought include the civil rights movement, when the Republican Party (and a few southern Democrats) just wanted to maintain the African American's right to have the choice of forced segregation.

The Liberal Party of Australia is the right-leaning party, in opposition to the liberal Labor Party, and is not to be confused with liberalism as an ideology.

Nazism and socialism

For more information please see: Nazism and socialism, Gun Control in Nazi Germany

was the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi Party), led by Social Darwinist Adolf Hitler.<ref>http://mises.org/daily/1937</ref><ref>https://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust</ref><ref>http://www.hourofthetime.com/socialist.htm</ref> ]] The Ludwig von Mises Institute declares:

There is debate about the similarities between Nazism and socialism. Despite whether Nazism is socialist or not, they, with the help of general improvement of economic conditions in Europe, helped propel Germany out of the Great Depression with their economic policy.<ref>http://www.nazism.net/about/economic_practice</ref>

Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism

See also: Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism

Communist Manifesto Nazi Party Platform Analysis
1 “Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.” “We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.” The stripping away of land from private owners. Liberalism today demands “eminent domain” on property.
2 “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.” “We demand the nationalization of all trusts…profit-sharing in large industries…a generous increase in old-age pensions…by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor…and the creation of a national (folk) army.” The points raised in the Nazi platform demand an increase in taxes to support them. Liberalism today demands heavy progressive and graduated income taxes.
3 “Abolition of all rights of inheritance.” “That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.” Liberalism today demands a “death tax” on anyone inheriting an estate.
4 “Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.” “We demand the nationalization of all trusts.” Central control of the financial system.
5 “Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.” “We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press…editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens…Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State…the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper…” Central control of the press. Liberals today demand control or suppression of talk radio and Fox News.
6 “Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.” “In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State. ” Central control of education, with an emphasis on doing things their way. Liberals today are doing things their way in our schools.

See also

References

<references /> Liberalism Anti-American

See also Counterexamples to Evolution.

life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the result of design.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref> See also: Question evolution! campaign and Causes of evolutionary belief ]] The theory of evolution is a naturalistic theory of the history of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs methodological naturalism and is taught in schools and universities). Merriam-Webster's dictionary gives the following definition of evolution: “a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations…”<ref>Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, Definition for "evolution"</ref> Currently, there are several theories of evolution.

Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists (see also: Causes of evolutionary belief)<ref>

</ref> In 2007, “Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture…announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.”<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/2732</ref>

In 2011, the results of a study was published indicating that most United States high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse the theory of evolution in class. <ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/science/study-most-high-school-biology.html</ref> In addition, in 2011, eight anti-evolution bills were introduced into state legislatures within the United States encouraging students to employ critical thinking skills when examining the evolutionary paradigm. In 2009, there were seven states which required critical analysis skills be employed when examining evolutionary material within schools.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/9851</ref>

A 2005 poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research found that 60% of American medical doctors reject Darwinism, stating that they do not believe man evolved through natural processes alone.<ref>Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution</ref> Thirty-eight percent of the American medical doctors polled agreed with the statement that “Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement.” <ref>Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution</ref> The study also reported that 1/3 of all medical doctors favor the theory of intelligent design over evolution.<ref>Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution</ref> In 2010, the Gallup organization reported that 40% of Americans believe in young earth creationism.<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx</ref> In January 2006, the BBC reported concerning Britain:

The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory.<ref>Russell Grigg and Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Intelligent Design—‘A War on Science’ says the BBC]</ref><ref>Paul McHugh, The Weekly Standard, Teaching Darwin: Why we're still fighting about biology textbook. March 28, 2005</ref> Although not a creation scientist, Swedish geneticist Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden and a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, stated: “My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint.”<ref>Nilsson, Heribert, Synthetische Artbildung, Verlag CWK Gleerup, Lund, Sweden, 1953, page 1185</ref><ref>Quotes to note</ref>

File:Intelligent design.jpg‎

was a young man, he recognized the that the complexity of life indicates a designer. ]] The fossil record is often used as evidence in the creation versus evolution controversy. The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution.<ref>

</ref> In 1981, there were at least a hundred million fossils that were catalogued and identified in the world's museums.<ref>Porter Kier, quoted in New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129</ref> Despite the large number of fossils available to scientists in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at Oxford University, was forced to confess: “In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.”<ref>Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831</ref>

In addition to the evolutionary position lacking evidential support and being counterevidential, the great intellectuals in history such as Archimedes, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and Lord Kelvin did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version. Even after the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted heavily in England and Germany, most leading scientists were against the theory of evolution.<ref>

</ref> The theory of evolution was published by naturalist Charles Darwin in his book On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, in 1859. In a letter to Asa Gray, Darwin confided: “…I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”<ref>http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2109</ref>Prior to publishing the book, Darwin wrote in his private notebooks that he was a materialist, which is a type of atheist.(see: religious views of Charles Darwin) <ref>

</ref> Charles Darwin’s casual mentioning of a ‘creator’ in earlier editions of The Origin of Species appears to have been a merely a ploy to downplay the implications of his materialistic theory.<ref>Charles Darwin's real message. Have you missed it?</ref> The amount of credit Darwin actually deserves for the theory is disputed. <ref>

The basic principle behind natural selection is that in the struggle for life some organisms in a given population will be better suited to their particular environment and thus have a reproductive advantage which increases the representation of their particular traits over time. Many years before Charles Darwin, there were several other individuals who published articles on the topic of natural selection.<ref>Russell Grigg, Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again!</ref> Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was a naturalist who supported the theory of evolution. Lamarck's theory of evolution asserted that evolution occurs because organisms are able to inherit traits acquired by their ancestors which is an idea rejected by the current scientific community.<ref>MedicineNet.com, Definition of Lamarkism</ref> Darwin did not first propose in his book Origin of Species that man had descended from non-human ancestors. Darwin's theory of evolution incorporated that later in Darwin's book entitled Descent of Man.

As far as the history of the theory of evolution, although Darwin is well known when it comes to the early advocacy of the evolutionary position in the Western world, evolutionary ideas were taught by the ancient Greeks as early as the 7th century B.C.<ref>Dr. Jerry Bergman, Evolutionary Naturalism: An Ancient Idea First published: TJ 15(2):77–80 August 2001</ref> The concept of naturalistic evolution differs from the concept of theistic evolution in that it states God does not guide the posited process of macroevolution.<ref>Dr. Werner Gitt, 10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution First published: Creation 17(4):49–51, September 1995</ref>

Intuition, Darwinism and questioning evolution

In January of 2012, the Journal of Research in Science Teaching published a study indicating that evolutionary belief is significantly based on gut feelings.<ref>Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling</ref><ref>Feeling of Certainty: Uncovering a Missing Link Between Knowledge and Acceptance of Evolution</ref> A January 20, 2012 article entitled Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling published by the website Live Science wrote of the research: “They found that intuition had a significant impact on what the students accepted, no matter how much they knew and regardless of their religious beliefs.”<ref>Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling</ref>

In May of 2011, Creation Ministries International launched the Question evolution! campaign which is a grassroots campaign encouraging students and others to “question the evolutionary pseudoscience peddled to them”. The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on 15 questions that evolutionists cannot answer. (see: 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer).<ref>Question evolution! campaign</ref>

Theory of Evolution - Mutations and the Life Sciences in General

See also: Theories of evolution

Evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote concerning the theory of evolution: “The process of mutation is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution.”<ref>NorthWest Creation Network, Quotes on Genetics</ref> Concerning various theories of evolution, most evolutionists believe that the processes of mutation, genetic drift and natural selection created every species of life that we see on earth today after life first came about on earth although there is little consensus on how this process is allegedly to have occurred.<ref>Jonathan Sarfati, P.H.D., F.M., Climbing Mount Improbable:A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins</ref>

Pierre-Paul Grassé, who served as Chair of evolutionary biology at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated the following: “Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve….No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.” Grassé pointed out that bacteria which are the subject of study of many geneticists and molecular biologists are organisms which produce the most mutants.<ref>Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations</ref> Grasse then points that bacteria are considered to have “stabilized a billion years ago!”.<ref>Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations</ref> Grassé regards the “unceasing mutations” to be “merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.”<ref>[ http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]</ref>

In addition, Harvard biologist Ernst Mayr wrote: “It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations.”<ref>Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296</ref>

]] Creation scientists believe that mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift would not cause macroevolution.<ref>

</ref> Furthermore, creation scientists assert that the life sciences as a whole support the creation model and do not support the theory of evolution.<ref>

</ref> Homology involves the theory that macroevolutionary relationships can be demonstrated by the similarity in the anatomy and physiology of different organisms.<ref>Dr. Jerry Bergman, Does Homology Provide Evidence of Evolutionary Naturalism?</ref> An example of a homology argument is that DNA similarities between human and other living organisms is evidence for the theory of evolution.<ref>

</ref> Creation scientists provide sound reasons why the homology argument is not a valid argument. Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that speciation occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionist believe is the case.<ref>Creation Ministries International, Speciation: Questions and Answers</ref>

Critics of the theory of evolution state that many of today's proponents of the evolutionary position have diluted the meaning of the term “evolution” to the point where it defined as or the definition includes change over time in the gene pool of a population over time through such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.<ref>

</ref> Dr. Jonathan Sarfati states concerning the diluted definition of the word “evolution”:

Biological diversity - evolution contrasted with biblical creation science

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, a scientist who works for Creation Ministries International, wrote:

Prominent evolutionists have indicated that the origin of life is part of the evolutionary model

Dr. Don Batten of Creation Ministries International has pointed out that prominent evolutionists, such as PZ Myers and Nick Matzke, have indicated that a naturalistic postulation of the origin of life (often called abiogenesis), is part of the evolutionary model.<ref>Origin of life</ref> This poses a very serious problem for the evolutionary position as the evidence clearly points life being a product of design and not through naturalistic processes.<ref>Origin of life</ref>

Evolution - Implications of Genetic Code and Processing of Biological Information

published an article favoring intelligent design in a peer reviewed science journal which had traditionally only published material advocating the evolutionary position.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1489</ref>]] :See main articles: Creation science, Intelligent design, and creationism Creation scientists and intelligent design advocates point out that the genetic code (DNA code), genetic programs, and biological information argue for an intelligent cause in regards the origins question and assert it is one of the many problems of the theory of evolution.<ref name=“waltbrown-scientificcreation”>Dr. Walt Brown, Center For Scientific Creation, Codes, Programs, and Information</ref><ref>

Dr. Walt Brown states the genetic material that controls the biological processes of life is coded information and that human experience tells us that codes are created only by the result of intelligence and not merely by processes of nature.<ref name=“waltbrown-scientificcreation” /> Dr. Brown also asserts that the “information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs.”<ref name=“waltbrown-scientificcreation” />

To support his view regarding the divine origin of genetic programs Dr. Walt Brown cites the work of David Abel and Professor Jack Trevors who wrote the following:

In the peer reviewed biology journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington Dr. Stephen Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms and proposed an intelligent cause as the best explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.<ref>Dr. Stephen Meyer, ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'', 117(2):213-239. 2004, The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories</ref> The editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Dr. Richard Sternberg, came under intense scrutiny and persecution for the aforementioned article published by Dr. Meyer.

Theory of evolution and little scientific consensus

See also: Theory of evolution and little consensus and Theories of evolution

There is little scientific consensus on how macroevolution is said to have happened and the claimed mechanisms of evolutionary change, as can be seen in the following quotes:

Pierre-Paul Grassé, who served as Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated the following:

Recent clamour to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis

Evolutionary Theory and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎

]] :See also: Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎ and Atheism and deception and Theories of evolution and Evolution and just so stories A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent material to promote the theory of evolution was the work of German scientist and atheist Ernst Haeckel. Noted evolutionist and Stephen Gould, who held a agnostic worldview<ref>http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/03/20/a-review-of-the-dawkins-delusion-by-alister-mcgrath/</ref> and promoted the notion of non-overlapping magesteria, wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of Natural History:

An irony of history is that the March 9, 1907 edition of the NY Times refers to Ernst Haeckel as the “celebrated Darwinian and founder of the Association for the Propagation of Ethical Atheism.”<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C03EFDD123EE033A2575AC0A9659C946697D6CF</ref>

Stephen Gould continues by quoting Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated: “I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically”.<ref name=“haeckel” />

Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms

See also: Evolution and the fossil record

As alluded to earlier, today there are over one hundred million identified and cataloged fossils in the world's museums.<ref>Creation's Tiny Mystery: Chapter 7: Creation Science—a Public Issue</ref> If the evolutionary position was valid, then there should be “transitional forms” in the fossil record reflecting the intermediate life forms. Another term for these “transitional forms” is “missing links”.

wrote: “When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”<ref>Dr. Walt Brown, Center for Scientific Creationism, References and Notes: Distinct Types</ref> ]] Charles Darwin admitted that his theory required the existence of “transitional forms.” Darwin wrote: “So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth.”<ref>THE DARWIN PAPERS, VOLUME 1, NUMBER V, FOSSILS: HISTORY WRITTEN IN STONE</ref> However, Darwin wrote: “Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory.”<ref>NATURAL DISCONTINUITIES AND THE FOSSIL RECORD</ref> Darwin thought the lack of transitional links in his time was because “only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored and no part with sufficient care…”.<ref>Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, Chapter X: ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD</ref> As Charles Darwin grew older he became increasingly concerned about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution in terms of the existence of transitional forms. Darwin wrote, ““When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”<ref>Dr. Walt Brown, Center for Scientific Creationism, References and Notes: Distinct Types</ref>

Scientist Dr. Michael Denton wrote regarding the fossil record:

Creationists assert that evolutionists have had over 140 years to find a transitional fossil and nothing approaching a conclusive transitional form has ever been found and that only a handful of highly doubtful examples of transitional fossils exist.<ref>

</ref> Distinguished anthropologist Sir Edmund R. Leach declared, “Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.”<ref>Sir Edmund Leech, Addresing the 1981 annual meeting of the British Association for the advancement of Science, 'Men, bishop and apes'. Nature vol 293, 3 Sep. 1981, p. 19 and 20</ref>

David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma wrote that “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them…”.<ref>Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D., 15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American’s Nonsense—Argument #13</ref>

David Raup, who was the curator of geology at the museum holding the world's largest fossil collection, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, observed:

One of the most famous proponents of the theory of evolution was the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted:

For more information please see:

The Fossil Record quotes

Creationists can cite quotations which assert that no solid fossil evidence for the theory of evolution position exists:

For more fossil record quotes please see: Fossil record quotes and Additional fossil record quotes

Paleoanthropology

For more information please see: Paleoanthropology and Human evolution

was made famous by Henry Osborn of the American Museum of Natural History. Nebraska man turned out to be nothing more than a single pig-like tooth.]] Paleoanthropology is an interdisciplinary branch of anthropology that concerns itself with the origins of early humans and it examines and evaluates items such as fossils and artifacts.<ref>Encyclopedia Britannica (online): Paleoanthropology</ref> Dr. David Pilbeam is a paleoanthropologist who received his Ph.D. at Yale University and Dr. Pilbeam is presently Professor of Social Sciences at Harvard University and Curator of Paleontology at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. In addition, Dr. Pilbeam served as an advisor for the Kenya government regarding the creation of an international institute for the study of human origins.<ref>Answers in Genesis, Those Fossils Are A Problem</ref>

Dr. Pilbeam wrote a review of Richard Leakey's book Origins in the journal American Scientist:

Dr. Pilbeam wrote the following regarding the theory of evolution and paleoanthropology:

Evolutionist and Harvard professor Richard Lewontin wrote in 1995 that “Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor….”<ref>Brad Harrub, Ph.D., Bert Thompson, Ph.D., and Eric Lyons, M.Min., ''Human Evolution and the “Record of the Rocks”''</ref> In the September 2005 issue of National Geographic, Joel Achenbach asserted that human evolution is a “fact” but he also candidly admitted that the field of paleoanthropology “has again become a rather glorious mess.”<ref>Brad Harrub, Ph.D., ''The “Glorious Mess” of Human Origins''</ref><ref name=“bonesrightplaces”>National Geographic (online edition), Joel Achenbach, PALEOANTHROPOLOGY, Out of Africa, Are we looking for bones in all the right places?</ref> In the same National Geographic article Harvard paleoanthropologist Dan Lieberman states, “We're not doing a very good job of being honest about what we don't know…”.<ref name=“bonesrightplaces” />

Concerning pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal Science the following regarding their highly speculative nature:

Creation scientists concur with Dr. Pilbeam regarding the speculative nature of the field of paleoanthropology and assert there is no compelling evidence in the field of paleoanthropology for the various theories of human evolution.<ref>

Microevolution vs. macroevolution

In 2011, Dr. Grady S. McMurtry declared:

In 1988, the prominent Harvard University biologist Ernst Mayr wrote in his essay Does Microevolution Explain Macroevolution?:

Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics

Punctuated Equilibrium

See also: Theories of evolution

]] Because the fossil record is characterized by the abrupt appearance of species and stasis in the fossil record the theory of punctuated equilibrium was developed and its chief proponents were Stephen Gould, Niles Eldridge, and Steven Stanley. According to the American Museum of Natural History the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium “asserts that evolution occurs in dramatic spurts interspersed with long periods of stasis”.<ref>http://www.amnh.org/science/divisions/paleo/bio.php?scientist=eldredge</ref> Because Stephen Gould was the leading proponent of the theory of punctuated equilibrium much of the criticism of the theory has been directed towards Gould.<ref>http://dannyreviews.com/h/The_Dynamics_of_Evolution.html</ref><ref> Yale Review of Book, Spring 2002 issue, Monograph: Punctuated Equilibrium</ref> The development of a new evolutionary school of thought occurring due to the fossil record not supporting the evolutionary position was not unprecedented. In 1930, Austin H. Clark, an American evolutionary zoologist who wrote 630 articles and books in six languages, came up with an evolutionary hypothesis called zoogenesis which postulated that each of the major types of life forms evolved separately and independently from all the others.<ref>http://creation.com/zoogenesis-a-theory-of-desperation</ref> Prior to publishing his work entitled The New Evolution: Zoogenesis, Clark wrote in a journal article published in the Quarterly Review of Biology that “so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other.”<ref>http://creation.com/zoogenesis-a-theory-of-desperation#endRef4</ref>

In 1995, there was an essay in the New York Review of Books by the late John Maynard Smith, a noted evolutionary biologist who was considered the dean of British neo-Darwinists, and Smith wrote the following regarding Gould's work in respect to the theory of evolution:

Noted journalist and author Robert Wright , wrote in 1996 that, “among top-flight evolutionary biologists, Gould is considered a pest—not just a lightweight, but an actively muddled man who has warped the public's understanding of Darwinism.”<ref>http://dannyreviews.com/h/The_Dynamics_of_Evolution.html</ref><ref> Yale Review of Book, Spring 2002 issue, Monograph: Punctuated Equilibrium</ref>

Creation scientist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati wrote regarding the implausibility of the theory of punctuated equilibrium and the implausibility of the idea of gradual evolution the following:

Many of the leaders of the atheist movement, such as the evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins, argue for atheism and evolution with a religious fervor.

Daniel Smartt has identified seven dimensions which make up religion: narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. It is not necessary in Smartt's model for every one of these to be present in order for something to be a religion.<ref>"Atheism: A religion", Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>. However, it can be argued that all seven are present in the case of atheism.<ref>Atheism: A religion</ref><ref>Atheism</ref> Please see: Atheism: A religionand Atheism and Atheism is a religion.

Implausible Explanations and the Evolutionary Position

biologist Ernst Mayr wrote: “It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations.”<ref>Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296</ref>]] Individuals who are against the evolutionary position assert that evolutionary scientists employ extremely implausible “just so stories” to support their position and have done this since at least the time of Charles Darwin.<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/two-just-so-stories/</ref> <ref>http://darwinstories.blogspot.com/</ref> A well known example of a “just so story” is when Darwin, in his Origin of the Species, wrote a chapter entitled “Difficulties on Theory” in which he stated:

Even the prominent evolutionist and geneticist Professor Richard Lewontin admitted the following:

Dr. Sarfati wrote regarding the theory of evolution the following:

with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]]

Opponents to the theory of evolution commonly point to the following in nature as being implausibly created through evolutionary processes:

Lastly, biochemist Michael Behe wrote the following:

Statements of Design

:See main article: Intelligent design

Phillip E. Johnson cites Francis Crick in order to illustrate the fact that the biological world has the strong appearance of being designed:

Stephen C. Meyer offers the following statement regarding the design of the biological world:

]] The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states the following regarding a candid admission of Charles Darwin:

Detractors of Evolution and the Scientific Journals

Advocates of the theory of evolution have often claimed that those who oppose the theory of evolution don't publish their opposition to the theory of evolution in the appropriate scientific literature (creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals which favor the creationist position).<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640</ref><ref>http://creationresearch.org/crsq.html</ref><ref>http://www.creation.com/content/view/3873/</ref> Recently, there has been articles which were favorable to the intelligent design position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the theory of evolution.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640</ref>

Unqualified to be a scientific theory

]] Karl Popper, a leading philosopher of science and originator of the falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience,<ref>

The issue of the falsifiability of the evolutionary position is very important issue and although offering a poor cure to the problem that Karl Popper described, committed evolutionists Louis Charles Birch & Paul R. Ehrlich stated in the journal Nature:

The Swedish cytogeneticist, Antonio Lima-De-Faria, who has been knighted by the king of Sweden for his scientific achievements, noted that “there has never been a theory of evolution”.<ref>Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry, July 6, 2008, by Suzan Mazur</ref><ref>http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-tales-from-altenberg-suzan-mazurs.html</ref>

Evolution is a Religion and Not Science

See also: Evolution is a religion

Michael Ruse, the atheist and evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”<ref>15 questions for evolutionists</ref> In the leading American science science journal Science, Michael Ruse published an article in 2003 entitled Is Evolution a Secular Religion?<ref>Is Evolution a Secular Religion? by Dr. Michael Ruse, Science, March 7, 2003</ref>

Creationist opponents of evolution commonly point out that evolution is a religion and not science.<ref> *The religious nature of evolution by Dr. Carl Wieland

For more information, please see: Evolution is a religion

Effect on Scientific Endeavors Outside the Specific Field of Biology

]] Stephen Wolfram in his book A New Kind of Science has stated that the Darwinian theory of evolution has, in recent years, “increasingly been applied outside of biology.”<ref>http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/page-14-text?firstview=1</ref>

Lysenkoism

Evolutionary theory played a prominent role in regards to atheistic communism.<ref>http://www.creation.com/content/view/3054/</ref> Communists, in particular Stalinism, favored a version of Lamarckism called Lysenkoism developed by the atheist Trofim Denisovich Lysenko.<ref>http://www.bookrags.com/research/lysenkoism-wog/</ref> Lsyenko was made member of the Supreme Soviet and head of the Institute of Genetics of the Soviet Academy of Sciences.<ref>http://www.bartelby.com/65/ly/Lysenko.html</ref> Later Lysenko became President of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences.<ref>http://www.bartelby.com/65/ly/Lysenko.html</ref> Many geneticists were imprisoned and executed for their bourgeois science, and agricultural policies based on Lysenkoism that were adopted under the Communist leaders Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong caused famines and the death of millions.<ref>http://www.bookrags.com/research/lysenkoism-wog/</ref>

Medical Science

The theory of evolution has had a negative effect on the field of medical science. According to Dr. Jerry Bergman the list of vestigial organs in humans has gone from 180 in 1890 to 0 in 1999.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp</ref> Furthermore, Dr. Bergman states the following:

Astronomy

Young earth creation scientist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati states that evolutionary thought has been applied to the field of astronomy.<ref>http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-7-astronomy</ref> Sarfati's claim is supported by the fact that astronomers do refer to the “evolution of the universe”.<ref>

</ref> Sarfati asserts the evolutionary view has had a negative effect on astronomy and that arguments to support the proposed evolutionary time scales of billions of years via the field of astronomy are invalid.<ref>http://www.creation.com/content/view/3836</ref> Creationists can cite examples of scientists stating that evolutionary ideas in astronomy have failed to have any explanatory power:

In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote concering the Milky Way galaxy:

:”. . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, “The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way,” American Scientist (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

Dr. Walt Brown provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that cite the failings of current old universe paradigm explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.<ref name=“creationsciencenotes43” /><ref name=“creationsciencenotes60” /><ref name=“creationsciencenotes61” />

Origin of Life

Evolutionary thought has had an influence on origin of life research as well. For example, a 2004 article in the International Journal of Astrobiology is titled On the applicability of Darwinian principles to chemical evolution that led to life.<ref>http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=240771</ref> It is also clear that early origin of life researcher Aleksandr Oparin who proposed materialist ideas regarding the origin of life was influenced by evolutionary thought.<ref>

</ref> However, the current naturalistic explanations for the origin of life are inadequate.

Richard Dawkins and evolutionary quackery

Age of the Earth and the Theory of Evolution

:See main articles: Young Earth Creationism, Geologic system As far as the evolutionary timeline posited by the evolutionary community, the various theories of evolution claim that the earth and universe are billions of years old and that macroevolutionary processes occurred over this time period.<ref name=“sarfati3837”>Sarfati, 1999, Chapter 8, How old is the earth?</ref><ref>http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-7-astronomy</ref> William R. Corliss was a respected cataloger of scientific anomalies and the science magazine New Scientist had an article which focused on Mr. Corliss's career as a cataloger of scientific anomalies.<ref>Adrian Hope, Finding a Home for Stray Fact, New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83</ref> Mr. Corliss cataloged scores of anomalies which challenge the old earth geology paradigm.<ref>http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.net/articles/184</ref> Young earth creationist hold the earth and universe is approximately 6,000 years old.<ref name=“sarfati3837” /> Young earth creationist scientists state the following is true: there are multiple lines of evidence pointing to a young earth and universe; the old earth and universe paradigm has numerous anomalies and uses invalid dating methods, and there are multiple citations in the secular science literature that corroborate the implausibility of the old earth and universe paradigm (for details see: Young Earth Creationism).

See also:

Scientific Community Consensus and the Macroevolution Position

See also: Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief

s killed their prey.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm</ref> The Bible was correct regarding how lions killed their prey.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm</ref>]] A 1997 Gallup poll indicated that 55% of United States scientists believed that humans developed over a period of millions of years from less developed forms of life and that God had no part in the process, 40% believed in theistic evolution, and 5% of scientists believed that God created man fairly much in his current form at one time within the last 10,000 years.<ref>Views in U.S. Much Different Than Elsewhere, Kenneth Chang, ABCNews.com, 1999.</ref> As noted earlier, in 2007, ”Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture…announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.“<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/2732</ref>

Poll results regarding the amount of scientists who are skeptical or opposed to the evolutionary view could be underreporting the actual amount of scientists who are skeptical of the evolutionary view or hold the creation science view. Poll results may not be as precise as they could be as creation science organizations report widespread discrimination against scientists who hold the creation science view.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp</ref> On April 18, 2008 a film documentary by Ben Stein entitled No Intelligence Allowed! was released to the public which documents the suppression of scientific freedom of scientists who are critical of the evolutionary position.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57840</ref><ref>http://www.expelledthemovie.com/</ref> Such suppression is not surprising given that a poll among United States scientists showed that approximately 45% of scientists believed there was no God.<ref>Scientists and belief</ref> In addition, a survey found that 93% of the scientists who were members of the United States National Academy of Sciences do not believe there is a God.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html</ref> Given this state of affairs, a future paradigm shift from the theory of evolution to a creation science position could be slow given the worldviews of many scientists.

naturalists were wrong about ant behavior. The Bible was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]] Also, the current scientific community consensus is no guarantee of truth. The history of science shows many examples where the scientific community consensus was in error, was scientifically unsound, or had little or no empirical basis. For example, bloodletting was practiced from antiquity and still had many practitioners up until the late 1800s.<ref>History of bloodletting</ref> In his essay, A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready? , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D. wrote the following: ”…history is rife with examples in which our best medical judgment was flawed. The prestigious British Medical Journal begun in 1828 chose the name Lancet to signal its scholarly intent and cutting edge therapy.“<ref>A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready? , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D.</ref> Also, in regards to modern medical science, in a 1991 BMJ (formerly called the British Medical Journal) article, Richard Smith (editor of BMJ at the time) wrote the following: “There are 30,000 biomedical journals in the world…Yet only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence, David Eddy professor of health policy and management at Duke University, told a conference in Manchester last week. This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all.”<ref>://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1932964&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum</ref> Next, alchemy was at one time considered to be a legitimate scientific pursuit and was studied by such notable individuals as Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Roger Bacon, and Gottfried Leibniz.<ref>http://www.levity.com/alchemy/caezza4.html</ref><ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011664/Roger-Bacon</ref> Given the aforementioned weaknesses in the evolutionary position and given that the history of science shows there have been some notable paradigm shifts,<ref>Scientific revolutions or paradigm shifts</ref><ref>http://www.geoff-hart.com/resources/2006/intheory.htm</ref>the scientific consensus argument for the macroevolutionary theory certainly cannot be called an invincible argument.

In addition, biblical creationists can point out examples where the scientific community was in error and the Bible was clearly correct. For example, until the 1970s the scientific consensus on how lions killed their prey was in error and the Bible turned out to be right in this matter.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm</ref> Also, for centuries the scientific community believed that snakes could not hear and the 1988 edition of The New Encyclopedia Britannica stated the snakes could not hear but that was mistaken and the Bible was correct in this matter.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BCobra94.htm</ref><ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BBritannicaCobra38.htm</ref> In addition, 19th century European naturalists were wrong concerning a matter regarding ant behavior and the Bible was correct.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref> Many creationists such as the creationists at Creation Ministries International assert that the Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge Bible scientific foreknowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed.<ref>Bible Scientific Foreknowledge at Creationwiki</ref><ref>http://creation.com/content/view/1718/</ref> In addition, Christianity had a profound influence in regards to the development of modern science.

For more information see: Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief

Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution

Belief in evolution and sexual immorality

See also: Social effects of the theory of evolution and Geographic areas where bestiality is posing a notable problem and Bestiality and Germany and Bestiality and Sweden

is the Managing Director of Creation Ministries International ]]

In July of 2000, Creation Ministries International reported:

Also, according to atheist philosopher David Stove the theory of evolution was influential in regards to the sexual revolution.<ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18094</ref>

See also:

Evolution and Nazism

]] The staunch evolutionist Stephen Gould admitted the following:

Adolf Hitler wrote the following evolutionary racist material in his work Mein Kampf:

Hitler also wrote in Mein Kampf:

Dr. Robert E.D. Clark also wrote:

Dr. Josef Mengele's evolutionary thinking was in accordance with social Darwinist theories that Adolph Hitler and a number of German academics found appealing.<ref>Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust</ref><ref>Herero Genecide</ref> Dr. Joseph Mengele studied under the leading proponents the “unworthy life” branch of evolutionary thought.<ref>The Darwin–Hitler connection</ref> Dr. Mengele was one of the most notorious individuals associated with Nazi death camps and the Holocaust.<ref>http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/joseph_mengele.htm</ref> Mengele obtained a infamous reputation due to his experiments on twins while at Auschwitz-Birkenau.<ref>http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/joseph_mengele.htm</ref>

B. Wilder-Smith wrote the following regarding Nazism and the theory of evolution:

Pulitzer Prize winning author Marilynne Robinson wrote the following regarding Hitler's racism in the November 2006 issue of Harper’s Magazine:

Joseph Stalin was greatly influenced by the work of Charles Darwin.<ref>http://creation.com/the-darwinian-foundation-of-communism</ref>]] As noted earlier, evolutionary ideas significantly influenced the thinking of the nineteenth and twentieth-century Communists.<ref>http://creation.com/content/view/1804/</ref><ref>http://creation.com/charles-darwins-impactthe-bloodstained-legacy-of-evolution</ref> Karl Marx wrote in a letter the following, ”“Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.” Darwin's ideas also influenced the thinking of Engels, Vladimir Lenin, and Joseph Stalin.<ref>http://creation.com/the-darwinian-foundation-of-communism</ref>

Darwinism and communism

Governments under the banner of atheistic communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.<ref>

Darwinism and racism

See also: Evolutionary racism

Previously it was mentioned that evolutionary ideas contributed to the scourge of racism. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/55/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/racism.asp</ref> Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley contributed greatly to the theory of evolution broadly being accepted in the 1900s. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/55/</ref> Darwin, Huxley, and the 19th century evolutionists were racist in sentiment and believed the white race was superior. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/55/</ref> For example, Charles Darwin wrote in his work The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex the following:

in the Bronx Zoo]] John C. Burnham wrote, in the journal Science, the following in regards to the theory of evolution and racism:

Harvard University's Stephen Jay Gould stated, “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.”<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=268</ref> Recent racism directed at Michelle Obama was the result of evolutionary racism.<ref>http://creation.com/obama-racism-row</ref>

Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa's comments about black women and African history

Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa is an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics. Dr. Kanazawa publishes a blog on the Psychology Today website called The Scientific Fundamentalist.

In 2011, Dr. Kanazawa published the following inappropriate comment which was later pulled by the Psychology Today website:

Kanazawa has a “Savanna principle” hypothesis which speculates that societal problems are due to the human brain supposedly evolving in Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago in a very different environment from modern society.<ref>http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/38933</ref>

Darwinism and bestiality

philosopher Peter Singer defends the practice of bestiality (as well as abortion, infanticide and euthanasia). Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-evolution academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at Princeton University.<ref>

See also: Evolutionary belief and bestiality and Atheism and bestiality and Irreligion and superstition

Bestiality is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. The pro-evolution magazine the Scientific American speciously made this unwarranted speculation via their blog on the aberrant practice of bestiality:

Liberals are more likely to believe in evolutionary pseudoscience. Concerning the aberrant practice of homosexuality, the licentious liberal community has more favorable views on homosexuality than conservatives plus has a history of inflating the number of people who are homosexuals.<ref>How Bad Science Helped Launch the 'Gay' Revolution By Robert H. Knight</ref> As far as the causes of homosexuality, the liberal community commonly ignores the existence of ex-homosexuals and errantly asserts that homosexuality is an immutable sexual orientation despite the fact that researchers have found cultures where homosexuality does not exist.<ref>My Genes Made Me Do it - a scientific look at sexual orientation by Dr Neil Whitehead and Briar Whitehead - Chapter 6</ref> Thus, it is not surprising the Scientific American engaged in the above cited speculation concerning bestiality.

In areas of the Western World where there is a significant amount of atheists and evolutionary belief, there have been notable problems related to bestiality (see: Evolutionary belief and bestiality and Atheism and bestiality and Geographic areas where bestiality is posing a notable problem).

See also:

Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science

Common behavior of online evolutionists

In February of 2010, the news organization The Telegraph reported that atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins was “embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and 'frivolous gossip'.”<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7322177/Richard-Dawkins-in-bitter-web-censorship-row-with-fellow-atheists.html</ref> Given that Wired Magazine and Vox Day declared for various reasons that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men, it is not surprising the online dispute was bitter. In addition, Richard Dawkins has a reputation for being abrasive.

In 2010, the Christian apologetics website True Free Thinker wrote:

In addition, there is a widespread problem with atheist cyberbullying on YouTube toward Christian and creationist YouTube channels. CreationWiki has developed a web page entitled Creationist YouTube video designed to show creationists how to thwart atheist/evolutionist cyberbullies.

Creation Scientists Tend to Win the Creation-Evolution Debates

]] :For additional information please see the article: Atheism and Debate and Atheism and deception and Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates and Atheism and cowardice

Creation scientists tend to win the Creation-Evolution debates and many have been held since the 1970's particularly in the United States. Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a Wall Street Journal reporter that the “creationists tend to win” the public debates which focused on the creation vs. evolution controversy.<ref>Ankerberg, John, and Weldon, John, Truth in Advertising: Damaging the Cause of Science</ref><ref>Voices for evolution - John Ankerberg website</ref> In August of 1979, Dr. Henry Morris reported in an Institute for Creation Research letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.” Morris also said regarding the creation scientist Duane Gish (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”<ref>Voices for evolution - John Ankerberg website</ref><ref>Voices for evolution - John Ankerberg website</ref>

Generally speaking, leading evolutionists no longer debate creation scientists because creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/811/</ref> Also, the atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins has shown inconsistent and deceptive behavior concerning his refusal creation scientists. Evolutionists and atheists inconsistency concerning debating creationists was commented on by the Christian apologetic website True Free Thinker which declared: “Interestingly enough, having noted that since some atheists refuse to debate “creationists” but then go on to debate some of those people but not others, it is clear that they are, in reality, being selective and making excuses for absconding from difficulties…”<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/speaking-assiduous-absconders%E2%80%A6yet-again-vox-day-challenges-pz-myers-debate</ref>

Theory of Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality

File:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎

reported: “A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians.”<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>]] :See also: Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality and Theory of evolution and liberalism and Atheism and Evolution and Atheism and deception

As alluded to earlier, in the United States, CBS News reported in October of 2005 that the Americans most likely to believe only in the theory of evolution are liberals.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref>

Given that liberalism is so prevalent in academia, it is not entirely surprising that college graduates are indoctrinated into the evolutionary paradigm via evolutionary propaganda.

Despite the aforementioned lack of evidence for the evolutionary position and the aforementioned counter evidential nature of the evolutionary paradigm, atheists and liberals persist in advocating the evolutionary paradigm. The continued support of the atheist and liberal community for the evolutionary paradigm is not surprising given the that the Wall Street Journal reported:

Evolutionary belief, irreligion, extraterrestial life, UFOlogy and other pseudoscience

Liberalism, Charles Darwin, and Denial of Creation

See also: Atheism and deception and Evolution as a secular origins myth

, perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal Nature. Dr. Scott wrote: “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic”.<ref>http://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one</ref> ]]‎Many liberals when faced with the compelling data for creation science and against the evolutionary paradigm irrationally attempt to suppress the evidence and engage in denial like the atheist Charles Darwin (see: religious views of Charles Darwin ) who late in life is reported to often have overwhelming thoughts that the world was designed.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref><ref>The Berkeley "Understanding Evolution" website and the Wikipedia evolution article are prime examples of liberal denialism when it comes to liberals denying the clear evidence for creation.</ref> Creation Ministries International describes such irrational thinking in the following manner:

The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University, perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal Nature. Dr. Scott wrote: “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic”.<ref>http://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one</ref>

Although he is not a creationist, the atheist philosopher John Gray admitted in 2008 in The Guardian:

For more information please see: Evolution as a secular origins myth

Ben Stein Interview with the Evolutionist Richard Dawkins

In the movie No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein demonstrated the folly of evolutionism in his interview with the prominent evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins (A clip of the interview has been uploaded to YouTube ).

The Discovery Institute provides an transcript of part of the interview along with some commentary:

In the Ben Stein/Richard Dawkins interview, Richard Dawkins was also asked what the probability is of God's existence is and a rationale for that estimation. Dawkins gave a very inept reply to Ben Stein concerning this issue.

Creationist Video Interview of Richard Dawkins Being Stumped by a Creationist

A video clip featuring Richard Dawkins became widely available to the public,<ref name=“stumped”>Was Dawkins Stumped? (Creation Ministries International) (The clip is viewable on this page).</ref> showing Dawkins being stumped by a question from the creationist interviewer. A shortened version has been translated into 10 languages. The clip was part of an interview included in the video and DVD From a Frog to Prince, produced by Creation Ministries International about the genetic information required by evolution, and the interviewer is asking Dawkins for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation.

In later interviews, Dawkins claims that he was not stumped, but instead shocked when he realized that the interviewer was a creationist, and the video was edited in a way to make him look like he was unable to answer the question.<ref>://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm</ref> However, the question came after he had that realization, and after the creationists negotiated with Dawkins and he agreed to continue.<ref> Interview Timeline</ref> Richard Dawkins still hasn't provide any examples of genetic information being created by evolution.

Methodological Naturalism Ideology In Evolutionary Thought

As mentioned earlier, evolutionary thought (which employs methodological naturalism) has had an influence on origin of life research as well (for example, a 2004 article in the International Journal of Astrobiology is titled On the applicability of Darwinian principles to chemical evolution that led to life).<ref>http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=240771</ref> The Nobel Prize winning biologist Francis Crick described himself as an agnostic with “a strong inclination towards atheism.”<ref>Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books reprint edition, 1990, ISBN 0-465-09138-5, p. 145.</ref>In 1992, the science magazine Scientific American published an interview which explored Sir Francis Crick's belief in the hypothesis Directed Panspermia as a proposed hypthesis for the origin of life on earth.<ref>Reprint of an Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref> Directed panspermia posits concerning the question of origin of life on earth that “organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet.”<ref name=“SD”>http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html</ref> Michael Behe wrote regarding the Scientific American interview the following:

When commenting on the hypothesis of Directed Panspermia Creation Ministries International wrote that Francis “Crick’s atheistic faith leads to absurd pseudoscience”.<ref>http://creation.com/designed-by-aliens-crick-watson-atheism-panspermia</ref>

Supppession of scientific inquiry concerning alternative theories of origins

see also: Suppression of alternatives to evolution

There exists widespread suppression of creation science and intelligent design, ideas which offer alternative explanations of origins than do the various theories of evolution (for more information please see: Suppression of alternatives to evolution).

Inflated claims of evolutionists growing in frequency and intensity

Causes of evolutionary belief

See also: Causes of evolutionary belief

A number of articles have been written concerning the reasons why evolutionists commonly hold their evolutionary views:

See also:

Evolutionary biology careers

Creation vs. Evolution Videos

Creation vs. evolution news

Poor health practices of some notable evolutionists

Further Reading (including free on-line versions)

Social effects of the theory of evolution

See also: Biblical creation journals

Some prominent biblical creation publications are given below:

See also

References

eugenics.txt · Last modified: 2020/03/12 18:33 (external edit)