User Tools

Site Tools


evolution

Table of Contents

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

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