The Laws of Thermodynamics

The First & Second Laws of Thermodynamics

Behe, Michael J.

(1996) Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution

The THEORY of evolution goes against the 1st & 2nd LAW of thermodynamics (Energy cannot be lost, only changed in one form to another; out of order, chaos will be created) A theory is weaker than a law.

The First LAW of Thermodynamics has to do with energy: that the amount of energy in the universe is constant and can neither be destroyed nor created, only changed from one form to another.

For example: When you go camping, and start a campfire to cook some hotdogs or marshmallows. That wood that you use to build a fire came from a tree, which grew because it converted the sunlight (by a process called photosynthesis). We converted the firewood back into heat (fire) to cook the hotdog or marshmallow, which we then ate and our bodies digested in our stomachs the hotdog or marshmallow and converted it into energy for us to use to gather more firewood and cook more hotdogs and marshmallows.

Each of those “conversions” are from one type of energy to another. The energy is not “lost” but just degrades to a less usable form of energy. Think about the final result of eating the hotdogs and marshmallows, and I imagine you get the picture. But even this “form” of energy can still be used (i.e. Methane gas at the sewer plant).

The first law states that when energy passes into or out of a “system” (as work, heat, or matter), the internal energy of the system changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy. In other words, matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed but can only be converted into one another in an isolated or closed system. This means there can never be an increase or decrease in the total energy that exists in the universe — a closed system.

Albert Einstein’s famous equation shows the relationship between matter and energy: E = mc2 (where c = speed of light). This law forms the foundation for observational science (e.g., sending rockets into space or men to the moon).

So then one may ask if matter/energy is neither created nor destroyed, then where did the total (or any) matter/energy in the universe come from, and why did it stay constant as defined by these laws? If someone elevates his/her own thoughts to supersede God and his Word and thereby refuses to believe the truth that God created everything and continues to sustain the universe by his power, then there are only two options left:
1) Everything has always existed (and hence the universe is eternal) and will continue for eternity
2) Everything originally came from nothing, by nothing (e.g., the big bang), and continues to exist by unguided processes.

Option 1 is obviously self-refutable, and, in general, many secular scientists would also agree,1 since this would violate the laws of thermodynamics themselves (as well as the “Big Bang Theory,” pdc).

Option 2 is also plainly false since it’s inconsistent and scientifically impossible for nothing to create anything, or everything in this case. Plus, this option would make uniformity in nature unreliable, which is the very thing needed for science to work. Once again, note the inconsistency.

The biblical worldview is the obvious reasonable option since the laws of conservation only make sense with the Bible, which states that God is the absolute Law-giver, both morally and scientifically, and it’s only by His will that all things hold together in accordance with His power (Job 42:1-2; Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17; Jude 1:25). This is why the first law is universal, invariant (will not change with time), and works everywhere in the physical universe. Otherwise, where did the “natural” laws come from?

From the very beginning of the Bible, we can see that God created matter (heavens/earth) and energy (light) right at creation:
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.” (Genesis 1:1–3)

And that matter/energy is no longer being created when God declared He was finished and done:
“Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished His work that He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work that He had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all His work that He had done in creation.” (Genesis 2:1–3)

So based on Scripture alone, we can have full assurance that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. And God cannot lie (Numbers 23:19) so we can trust God when he promises to sustain everything in the universe by the word of his power (thus making observable and repeatable science possible).

The Second Law of Thermodynamics has to do with heat transfer explicitly. It is perhaps safer to refer to a more generalized tendency toward entropy which is far more inclusive of other phenomena. The tendency from order to disorder, from complexity to simplicity, from life to death, is something we all see and can both define and measure. [From AnswersinGenesis.org]

I have seen two responses from evolutionists regarding this tendency toward entropy in the universe (aside from "You're kidding!") The first is in regard to chemical changes which go from simple to complex, and the second to biological changes that go from simple to complex.

An example of the first is a snowflake -- or any crystallization. Crystallization, however, happens to specific elements at specific times under specific conditions. It is a phenomenon that is intrinsic to the atomic structure of the element or compound being considered. It is not a random ordering of a material from a non-ordered state, but rather the result of a specific design involved in the material and can be counted on to happen every time under the prescribed conditions. What is interesting, however, about this particular thing, is that there is a heat transfer involved in crystallization and the second law of thermodynamics is not violated therein. Heat is diffused. Biological increase in complexity is exemplified by a seed becoming a bush or flower or tree, or a fertilized egg becoming a person.

However, the design is already present in these beginnings of life. The DNA is there from the beginning, along with whatever might be "sparking" it, and the rest is simply a matter of following instructions. It is, again, not a random ordering from a non-ordered condition. It is a design being executed. As in the case of crystallization, the execution of the biological design requires specific environmental requirements or it cannot proceed. Perhaps it should also be mentioned that evolution as inferred from the fossil record is not even a theory. Theories are testable and, ideally, falsifiable. Evolution is neither. It is, therefore, simply an idea. For some a belief, perhaps, but it cannot be rightly called either fact or theory when it refers to the "bacteria to bears" progression.

In chemical contexts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics implies an inherent direction that a process will take (without outside intervention). One can not ethically divorce the implications from the law. (i.e. the world will one day end, and after that the judgment!)

Any increase in complexity or order of the elements is at the expense of a tremendous loss of heat and light which then diffuses, as per the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Read more!

Intelligent Design

A compilation of several articles on Darwinism/Evolutionary theory and the "problems" associated with it.[from Design and Purpose, CREATION VS. EVOLUTION, A shattering critique of the PBS/NOVA television series ‘Evolution’By Answers in Genesis] Please come again as I will try and add articles each week. Thanks pdc ****

The "Fine-Tuning" of the Universe
We know now that in order for the universe to be life permitting, it's initial conditions and constants have to be fine-tuned to an incomprehensible precision. [examples:] According, we can formulate the following argument for design:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe for sentient life is due to either natural law , chance, or intelligent design.
2. It could not have been due to natural law or chance.
3. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe for sentient life is due to intelligent design.

1 [Five Views on Apologetics, A Classical Response, William Lane Craig, pg 176]

Blown away by design
by Michael Denton

First published in:
Creation 21(4):14–15
September–November 1999

Dr Michael Denton, M.D., Ph.D. is a molecular biologist at the University of Otago, New Zealand. He is not a Biblical creationist. However, his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis has exposed thousands to the overwhelming scientific problems of Darwinian belief. Though he now describes himself as an ‘evolutionist’, he is more open-minded than most. He thinks that the design of living things probably implies creative intelligence. He has always been, and still is, adamant that Darwinism ‘does not give a credible and comprehensive explanation of how the pattern of life on Earth emerged’.

Dr Denton agrees that natural (as well as artificial) selection is capable of generating some change in living things. But he says it is ‘completely incapable of accounting for the broad picture, the complex adaptations required by the tree of life’.

The two most serious objections he has are as follows:

First, the nature of mutation (accidental changes in the genetic material of living things). He says that the ‘essential bedrock of Darwinism’ is the belief that ‘all the organisms which have existed throughout history were generated by the accumulation of entirely undirected mutations’. In his professional opinion, ‘that is an entirely unsubstantiated belief for which there is not the slightest evidence whatsoever’.

The second problem he sees is that there is ‘a huge number of highly complex systems in nature which cannot be plausibly accounted for in terms of a gradual build-up of small random mutations’. Indeed, he says, ‘in many cases there does not exist in the biological literature even an attempt to explain how these things have come about’.

A classic example, he says, is the lung of the bird, which is ‘unique in being a circulatory lung rather than a bellows lung' [see box]. I think it doesn’t require a great deal of profound knowledge of biology to see that for an organ which is so central to the physiology of any higher organism, its drastic modification in that way by a series of small events is almost inconceivable. This is something we can’t throw under the carpet again because, basically, as Darwin said, if any organ can be shown to be incapable of being achieved gradually in little steps, his theory would be totally overthrown.

‘The fact is that, in common-sense terms, if you have no ax to grind, there are a vast number of such cases in nature.’ Michael Denton, a recognized academic in his field, says that the claim that Darwinian gradualism ‘can generate the sorts of complex systems we see throughout the biosphere is not only unsubstantiated, but in many cases it is actually beyond the realm of common sense that such things would ever happen’.

THE AMAZING BIRD LUNG
As a bird breathes, air moves into its rear air sacs

(1). These then expel the air into the lung
(2). and the air flows through the lung into the front air sacs
(3). The air is expelled by the front air sacs as the bird breathes out.

The lung does not expand and contract as does a reptile’s or mammal’s. The blood which picks up oxygen from the lung flows in the opposite direction to the air so that blood with the lowest oxygen (blue in the diagram always means lower oxygen, red means high oxygen) is exposed to air with the lowest oxygen. The blood with the highest oxygen is exposed to air with an even higher oxygen concentration. This ensures that, in every region of the circulation, the concentration of oxygen in the air is more than that of the blood with which it is in contact. This maximizes the efficiency of oxygen transfer from the air to the blood. This is known as counter-current exchange. Such very efficient lungs help birds to handle the energy demands of flight, especially at high
altitudes. 1
THE REPTILE LUNG
The reptile lung, like ours, has an in-out bellows-like arrangement and does not have the counter-current circulation system. For a reptile lung to change into a bird lung by small steps, while remaining functional throughout
and providing a greater advantage at each step, defies imagination, according to Dr Michael Denton, an open-minded evolutionist.

The quotations in this article were extracted (with permission) from a video interview available on cassette (NTSC) from Access Research Network, PO Box 38069, Colorado Springs CO 80937-8069, USA. It was then re-checked with Dr Denton to ensure it fairly represented his current views.

NOTE
1. Actually, bats do very well with the ‘bellows’ type of lung. This makes the selectionist argument for the origin of birds’ lungs (i.e. that they ‘needed’ them) even more difficult to sustain.

Dazzling design in miniature
by Prof. Werner Gitt The cells of the human body can produce at least 100,000 different types of proteins, all with a unique function. The information to make each of these complicated molecular machines is stored on the well-known molecule, DNA.

We think that we have done very well with human technology, packing information very densely on to computer hard drives, chips and CD-ROM disks. However, these all store information on the surface, whereas DNA stores it in three dimensions. It is by far the densest information storage mechanism known in the universe.

Let’s look at the amount of information that could be contained in a pinhead volume of DNA. If all this information were written into paperback books, it would make a pile of such books 500 times higher than from here to the moon! The design of such an incredible system of information storage indicates a vastly intelligent Designer.

In addition, there is the information itself, which is stored on DNA, and transmitted from generation to generation of living things. There are no laws of science that support the idea that life, with all its information, could have come from non-living chemicals. On the contrary, we know from the laws of science, particularly in my own area of expertise, that messages (such as those that we find in all living things) always point back to an intelligent message sender. When we look at living things in the light of DNA, Genesis creation makes real sense of the scientific evidence.
[First published in: Creation 20(1):6 December 1997–February 1998]

Molecular Evidence“
Because of enormous advances in biochemistry, it has become possible to compare not just the visible features of organisms, but also their molecules."[Darwin on Trial, Phillip E. Johnson, pg. 92-101]

Molecular mechanisms are irreducibly complex. What this means is simply that they are made up of many parts that interact in complex ways, and that all the parts need to work together. Any single part has no useful function unless all the other parts are also present. There is no pathway of unctional intermediate stages by which a Darwinian process could build such a system step by step. The example of a tornado tearing through a wrecking yard and assembling a working Boing 747 --- is not even a possible “Alice in Wonderland” concept here for the Darwinists..< ol> 1) Life consists not just of matter (chemicals), but of matter and information (DNA).
2) Information (DNA) is not reducible to matter, but a different kind of “stuff” altogether. A theory of life thus has to explain not just the origin of matter, but also the independent origin of the information.
3) Complex, specified information of this kind found in a book or a biological cell cannot be produced either by chance or at the direction of physical and chemical laws. [Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, Phillip E. Johnson, pg 75, 77]

So, then, how is it possible that the information (DNA) arrived “by random chance” at the precise time it was needed to produce life?

WHAT CAN YOU DO? You can look at the evidences for God as our creator and accept the authority of Christ [again, by examining the evidence] by doing what He commanded (Matthew 7:21; John 14:15; 15:10-14; Luke 6:46). Notice the pattern for becoming a Christian as revealed in the Scriptures. The Gospel was heard, resulting in faith (Romans 10:17). Repentance of (turning away from) sin (Acts 17:30) and confession of Jesus as the Son of God followed (Romans 10:10). Believers were baptized INTO Christ for the remission (forgiveness) of sins (See Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Mark 16:16; Romans 6:3-5; 1 Peter 3:20-21), and added to His church (Acts 2:47). Christians were taught to be faithful even to the point of death (Revelation 2:10).

WE WELCOME YOU
Following the instructions of the Scriptures, members of Christ’s body assemble as congregations for worship, encouragement, and Bible study. The congregation in your community welcomes you to investigate the Bible with us. With a spirit of brotherly love we would seek to reconcile any differences by following the Bible ONLY. We recognize the Bible as God’s inspired word, the ONLY reliable standard of faith and practice. We desire the unity for which Christ prayed and which the Bible emphasizes in the expression, “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” Together we seek to maintain “the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

A friendly welcome awaits you. We do not wish to embarrass you in any way. You will not be asked for contributions. We assemble for Bible study and worship each Sunday morning and we welcome you to meet with us. We would be happy to talk to you about your questions and we want to be of encouragement.

Please contact me, Dennis Crawford, at BibleTruthsToU@gmail.com, or 253-396-0290 (cell) for comments or further Bible information, or for the location of a congregation belonging to Jesus Christ near you.

Read more!

Did God "Fine Tune" the Universe?

Author uknown
In the universe, there is an infinite number of ways to exhibit energy and matter. There are numerous types of matter, violent and devastating releases of energy, and infinitely large areas of cold, empty space with nothing but lifeless void. Yet we exist in an enigmatic state, which we call life; a complex sentient position that, although we possess it, still defies any rational explanation.

The more we learn about the universe, matter, atomic forces and the like, the more we realize that the mere existence of any life sustaining environs is so remote a possibility that it boggles the imagination. Long before anyone could ever get to the debate of Creation and Evolution, there are far more problematic issues to be addressed from the scientific viewpoint. These issues revolve around the apparent fine-tuning of the universe for existence of carbon-based life. There are literally dozens of specific and necessary (and unlikely) conditions that have to be met in the universe just to have any possibility of life ever being sustainable. Our universe seems to be perfectly in sync for this very purpose. Just a few examples:

1. Must have the right atoms: we take the existence of various atoms and elements for granted. However, most people don't realize that it takes a very specific nuclear force to account for the diversity of atoms. If the nuclear force (the force that governs how well protons and neutrons stick together in an atom) were any stronger, all of the protons and neutrons would have such attractive power to each other that the universe would only be filled with heavy elements. If the nuclear force were any weaker, no atoms could exist beyond a single hydrogen atom. The nuclear force of each atom is precariously balanced to allow for both hydrogen, and heavier elements. If nuclear force was either 2% weaker or .3% stronger, we could not have a universe, as we know it.

2. Besides the nuclear force in the nucleus of the atom, we find a similar variable when it comes to the electromagnetic forces governing the function of electrons. The electromagnetic force constant in an atom in our universe is balanced to allow for the compounding of molecules. If the electromagnetic force of an atom were any weaker, atoms would throw of electrons on a regular basis, making all atoms more massive than boron too unstable for fission. If the electromagnetic force was any stronger, however, elements would not be subject to sharing electrons with other elements, which is the necessary basis for compound molecules. For example, we could have Oxygen, and Hydrogen, but no H2O (water).

3. Just to make even more improbable to get the rights atomic make-up is the fact that the proper ratio of all of these particles and constants is also required. According to astrophysicists, in the moments after the Big Bang, an unfathomable number of protons and neutrons were thrown from the scene when countless nucleons and anti-nucleons annihilated each other, releasing tremendous amounts of energy. In the resulting explosion, just enough nucleons were left over to provide matter suitable for galaxy formation and stars. Had there been a fraction of a percent less, there would be no star formation.

There are some thirty or so other examples that demonstrate the incredible improbability of having a universe or solar system capable of sustaining life. Unlike the "Evolution" debate, countless attempts of getting the right combinations through random processes is not applicable. It is a "One Shot" deal, that seems to have "fine-tuned" the universe for us. This is a remarkable evidence for a Divine mind behind the Creation of the Cosmos.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?
You can accept the authority of Christ by doing what He commanded (Matthew 7:21; John 14:15; 15:10-14; Luke 6:46). Notice the pattern for becoming a Christian as revealed in the Scriptures. The Gospel was heard, resulting in faith (Romans 10:17). Repentance of (turning away from) sin (Acts 17:30) and confession of Jesus as the Son of God followed (Romans 10:10). Believers were baptized INTO Christ for the remission (forgiveness) of sins (See Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Mark 16:16; Romans 6:3-5; 1 Peter 3:20-21), and added to His church (Acts 2:47). Christians were taught to be faithful even to the point of death (Revelation 2:10).

WE WELCOME YOU
Following the instructions of the Scriptures, members of Christ’s body assemble as congregations for worship, encouragement, and Bible study. The congregation in your community welcomes you to investigate the Bible with us. With a spirit of brotherly love we would seek to reconcile any differences by following the Bible ONLY. We recognize the Bible as God’s inspired word, the ONLY reliable standard of faith and practice. We desire the unity for which Christ prayed and which the Bible emphasizes in the expression, “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” Together we seek to maintain “the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

A friendly welcome awaits you. We do not wish to embarrass you in any way. You will not be asked for contributions. We assemble for Bible study and worship each Sunday morning and we welcome you to meet with us. We would be happy to talk to you about your questions and we want to be of encouragement.

Please contact me, Dennis Crawford, at BibleTruths@hotmail.com, or 253-396-0290 (cell) for comments or further Bible information, or for the location of a congregation belonging to Jesus Christ near you.

Read more!

Lucy Dethroned

by Bert Thompson, Phd
Brad Herrub, Phd
Apologetics Press
29 Sep 2019

Paleontologist Donald Johanson’s account of the discovery of the creature now known popularly as “Lucy” reads like a Hollywood script that is full of mystery, excitement, and emotion. In his own words, “Lucy was utterly mind- boggling” (Johanson and Edey, 1981, p. 180). He tells of feeling a strong subconscious “urge” to go (with American graduate student Tom Gray) plot an area of Hadar, Ethiopia, known as “locality 162.” The superstitious paleontologist even recalls writing in his daily diary that he was “feeling good” about the day.

So, on November 30, 1974, Johanson (who was serving at the time as the director of the Cleveland, Ohio, Museum of Natural History) and Mr. Gray loaded up in a Land Rover and headed out. After several hours of surveying in 100+ degree heat, the two decided to head back. However, on returning to their vehicle, Johanson suggested they take an alternate route in order to survey the bottom of a nearby gully. Johanson wrote: “It had been thoroughly checked out at least twice before by other workers, who had found nothing interesting. Nevertheless, conscious of the ‘lucky’ feeling that had been with me since I woke, I decided to make that small final detour.”

Buried in the sandy hillside of the slope was an arm bone—the single bone that eventually led to the unearthing of a skeleton that was nearly 40% complete. While the description of this now-famous find might lead one to think that it was similar to some serendipitous treasure unearthed in a movie script, the truth is far from that. The fossils Dr. Johanson unearthed were destined to become one of the most famous (and most controversial) finds of all time, and would shake every single limb on the alleged hominid family tree, completely upsetting then-current theories about how man came to be bipedal. Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin wrote of the find:

“Johanson had stumbled on a skeleton that was about 40% complete, something that is unheard of in human prehistory farther back than about a hundred thousand years. Johanson’s hominid had died at least 3 million years ago” (1978, p. 67, emp. added). But, as additional studies were carried out, it became obvious that this “missing link” was “too good to be true.”

Dr. Johanson named his find Australopithecus afarensis—the southern ape from the Afar depression of northeastern Ethiopia (Johanson, et al., 1978, 28:8). The creature quickly earned the nickname “Lucy,” after the Beatles’ song, “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds,” which was said to be playing all through the celebratory night back at Johanson’s camp. The fossil, officially designated as AL 288-1, consisted of skull fragments, a lower jaw, ribs, an arm bone, a portion of a pelvis, a thighbone, and fragments of shinbones. It was said to be an adult, and was dated at 3.5 million years. [Johanson also found at Hadar the remains of some 34 adults and 10 infants, all of which he dated at 3.5 million years.]

In their assessment of exactly where this new species fit in, Johanson and colleague Tim White took pride in noting: “These new hominid fossils, recovered since 1973, constitute the earliest definitive evidence of the family Hominidae” (1979, 203:321). Not only was this fossil find unusually complete, but it also was believed to have been from an animal that walked in an upright fashion, as well as being the oldest human ancestor—the equivalent of a grand slam in baseball.

Having collected the fossils, Johanson and White were responsible for publishing their descriptions, as well as giving their interpretation of exactly how they fit into the hominid family tree. Not wanting to waste valuable space on the description of A. afarensis in one of the major science journals, they ultimately decided to publish it in Kirtlandia, a relatively obscure publication of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History. Then, in what was either an extremely naïve (albeit zealous) move, or a calculated and ambitious one, Johanson and White decided to bump the Leakey’s prized Australopithecus africanus off the main hominid tree and replace it with A. afarensis (for their full assessment, see Johanson and White, 1979). Leakey’s A. africanus was relegated to a tangential side branch that went — literally — nowhere. This decision eventually would weigh heavily on Lucy as she fell under attack from scientists who felt she was nothing more than another example of A. africanus—or worse, an animal with numerous chimp-like qualities.

One of the ironic discoveries regarding Lucy had to do with the size of her skull. Prior to her discovery, evolutionists had assumed that these ape-like species had evolved larger brains, which then allowed them to crawl down out of the trees and begin foraging for food on the ground. According to evolutionary timelines, the creatures adopted bipedalism as their primary form of transportation, and once on the ground, began to use tools.

Lucy, as it happened, took this nice, neat little story and turned it upside down. Her brain case was not enlarged. In fact, from all appearances, it was comparable in size to the common chimpanzee. And yet, Johanson and White steadfastly defended the position that this creature walked uprightly like man. They noted:

Bipedalism appears to have been the dominant form of terrestrial locomotion employed by the Hadar and Laetoli [in Tanzania—BH/BT] hominids. Morphological features associated with this locomotor mode are clearly manifested in these hominids, and for this reason the Laetoli and Hadar hominid remains are unequivocally assigned to the family Hominidae (Johanson and White, 1979, 203:325, emp. added).

Dr. Johanson insisted that A. afarensis was the direct ancestor of man (see Johanson and Edey, 1981). In fact, the phrase “the dramatic discovery of our oldest human ancestor” can be found emblazoned on the cover of his 1981 book, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind. Numerous evolutionists, however, strongly disagree. Lord Solly Zuckerman, the famous British anatomist, published his views on the australopithecines in his book, Beyond the Ivory Tower. He studied these creatures for more than fifteen years, and came to the conclusion that if man did, in fact, descend from an apelike ancestor, he did so without leaving a single visible trace in the fossil record (1970, p. 64). Some might complain, “But Lord Zuckerman’s work was done before Lucy was even discovered.” True, but that misses the point. Zuckerman’s research—which established conclusively that the australopithecines were nothing but knuckle-walking apes—was performed on fossils younger (i.e., closer to man) than Lucy!

And therein lies the controversy. If Lucy and her descendants were discovered to be nothing more than apes (or chimps), then all of Johanson’s fame and fortune would vanish instantly—like an early morning fog hit by a hot noonday Sun. Remember—this single discovery made Johanson’s career. Upon returning the entire Hadar hominid fossil collection to the National Museum in Ethiopia (as he previously had agreed to do), Johanson recounted:

Lucy had been mine for five years. The most beautiful, the most nearly complete, the most extraordinary hominid fossil in the world, she had slept in my office safe all that time. I had written papers about her, appeared on television, made speeches. I had shown her proudly to a stream of scientists from all over the world. She had—I knew it—hauled me up from total obscurity into the scientific limelight (Johanson and Edey, 1981, p. 374, emp. added).

Thus, one can understand why he would have such a vested interest in keeping this fossil upright and walking on two feet. If others were to discover that Lucy was not a biped, then her hominid status would be called into question—something far less rewarding for Dr. Johanson, professionally speaking.

Did Johanson examine the evidence prior to making his decision about Lucy’s ability to walk uprightly? Or was Lucy “upright” and “walking” even before all of her fossils were uncovered—i.e., from the moment that single arm bone buried in the sand was discovered? Johanson admitted that, immediately after seeing the single arm bone, “This time I knew at once I was looking at a hominid elbow. I had to convince Tom, whose first reaction was that it was a monkey’s” (Johanson, et al., 1994, p. 60, emp. added). However, as more and more researchers gained access to the fossils (or replicas thereof), Lucy’s “hominid” status began to be questioned—seriously questioned!

We would like for you to examine the evidence regarding this famous fossil find, and then determine for yourself whether Lucy and her kin were, in fact, our ancestors—or merely ancient apes or chimps. As a start, consider the following anatomical discoveries that have been made since Johanson’s initial declaration of Lucy as a entirely new hominid species.

LUCY’S PELVIS AND GENDER A great deal of the “hype” regarding Lucy has been pure speculation from the very beginning. In fact, incredible though it may seem, even the gender of the creature is now being called into question. Johanson’s original assessment was: “The most complete adult skeleton is that of AL 288-1 (‘Lucy’). The small body size of this evidently female individual (about 3.5 to 4.0 feet in height) is matched by some other postcranial remains...” (Johanson and White, 1979, 203:324).

And yet, in his original review, Johanson’s description of postcranial [below the skull—BH/BT] data was both speculative and deficient. Johanson and his colleagues recorded “strong dimorphism in body size; all skeletal elements with high level of robusticity in muscle and tendon insertion; pelvic region and lower limbs indicate adaptation to bipedal locomotion...” (Johanson, et al., 1978, 28:7-8). It was from the shattered fragments of the pelvis that Donald Johanson interpreted the AL 288-1 fossils as being those of a female—primarily due to the diminutive size. But these bones were far from being problematic. As Hausler and Schmid discovered:

The sacrum and the auricular region of the ilium are shattered into numerous small fragments, such that the original form is difficult to elucidate. Hence it is not surprising that the reconstructions by Lovejoy and Schmid show marked differences (1995, 29:363). In regard to Lucy’s pelvis, Johanson affirmed:

Lucy’s wider sacrum and shallower pelvis gave her a smaller, kidney-shaped birth canal, compared to that of modern females. She didn’t need a large one because her newborn infant’s brain wouldn’t have been any larger than a chimpanzee infant’s brain (Johanson, et al., 1994, p. 66).

That admission begs the question as to why this fossil was not categorized from the outset as simply a chimpanzee. But this gender declaration poses additional problems for Lucy. As Hausler and Schmid went on to note: “If AL 288-1 was female, then one can exclude this species from the ancestors of Homo because its pelvis is certainly less primitive than the pelvis of Sts 14 [the designation for a specific A. africanus fossil—BH/BT]”
(1995, p. 378). Both of the pelvises mentioned display some degree of damage, and both are missing critical parts, but it should be noted that in regard to the Lucy fossil, more than one attempt was made at reconstruction.

After various reconstructions of the inlet and midplane of Lucy’s pelvis, along with comparisons to other fossils and modern humans, it became evident that the shape of Lucy’s pelvis was not structured correctly for the eventuality of a birth process. The pelvis was just too narrow to accommodate an australopithecine fetus. Hausler and Schmid noted that Lucy’s pelvis was ridgeless and heart-shaped, which means that “she” was more likely a “he.” They wrote:

Contrary to Sts 14 [designation for a specific A. africanus fossil—BH/BT], delivery [of a baby— BH/BT] in AL 288-1 would have been more complicated than in modern humans, if not impossible, due to the protruding promontorium.... Consequently, there is more evidence to suggest that AL 288-1 was male rather than female. A female of the same species as AL 288-1 would have had a pelvis with a larger sagittal diameter and a less protruding sacral promontorium.... Overall, the broader pelvis and the more laterally oriented iliac blades of AL 288-1 would produce more favourable insertion sites for the climbing muscles in more heavily built males.... It would perhaps be better to change the trivial name to “Lucifer” according to the old roman god who brings light after the dark night, because with such a pelvis “Lucy” would apparently have been the last of her species (29:380, emp. added).

This declaration produced an immediate reaction from the evolutionist community, as many scientists worked diligently to try to defend Lucy. If Hausler and Schmid’s conclusion is correct, then this implies that the equivalent female of this species would be even smaller—something unheard of in trying to compare this creature to modern- day humans! Lucy’s pelvis is not what it should be for an upright-walking hominid—but the dimensions fall easily within primates found among the family Pongidae (apes).

LUCY’S APPENDAGES—
MADE FOR BIPEDALISM,
OR SWINGING FROM TREES?
But what do Lucy’s arms and legs tell us in regard to her locomotion? If she were a biped, surely her upper and lower extremities would point to an upright stance. After all, the bone that led to Johanson’s discovery of Lucy was that of an arm. Yet the bony framework that composes Lucy’s wrists may be the most telling factor of all. Brian Richmond and David Strait of George Washington University experienced what many might call a “eureka!” moment while going through some old papers on primate physiology at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C.

“We saw something that talked about special knuckle walking adaptations in modern African apes,” Dr. Richmond said. “I could not remember ever seeing anything about wrists in fossil hominids...Across the hall was a cast of the famous fossil Lucy. We ran across and looked at it and bingo, it was clear as night and day” (see BBC News, 2000). The March 29, 2000 San Diego Union Tribune reported:

A chance discovery made by looking at a cast of the bones of “Lucy,” the most famous fossil of Australopithecus afarensis, shows her wrist is stiff, like a chimpanzee’s, Brian Richmond and David Strait of George Washington University in Washington, D.C., reported. This suggests that her ancestors walked on their knuckles (Fox, 2000).

Richmond and Strait discovered that knuckle-walking apes have a mechanism that locks the wrist into place in order to stabilize this joint. In their report, they noted: “Here we present evidence that fossils attributed to Australopithecus anamensis (KNM-ER-20419) and A. afarensis (AL 288-1) retain specialized wrist morphology associated with knuckle-walking” (2000, 404:382, parenthetical item in orig.). They went on to observe:

Pre-bipedal locomotion is probably best characterized as a repertoire consisting of terrestrial knuckle- walking, arboreal climbing, and occasional suspensory activities, not unlike that observed in chimpanzees today. This raises the question of why bipedalism would evolve from an ancient ancestor already adapted to terrestrial locomotion, and is consistent with models relating the evolution of bipedalism to a change in feeding strategies and novel non-locomotor uses of the hands (404:384).

Moreover, additional evidence has come to light which suggests that Lucy is little more than a chimpanzee. Johanson and his coworkers admitted in an article in the March 31, 1994 issue of Nature that Lucy possessed chimp-proportioned arm bones (see Kimbel, et al., 1994) and that her alleged descendants (e.g., A. africanus and H. habilis) had ape-like limb proportions as well—which is a clear indication that she did not evolve into something “more human."

Not only have Lucy’s wrists and arm-bones been called into question, but there also is a mountain of evidence that demonstrates this creature was better adapted for swinging through the trees, like modern-day chimps. After thoroughly examining A. afarensis fossils, Stern and Susman remarked: “It is demonstrated that A. afarensis possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees” (1983, 60:280). They went on to comment: “The AL 333-91 [designation for a specific A. afarensis fossil—BH/BT] pisiform [bone of the hand—BH/BT] is ‘elongate and rod shaped’ and thus resembles the long, projecting pisiform of apes and monkeys” (60:281, emp. added).

Stern and Susman’s research detailed the fact that the hands and feet of A. afarensis are devoid of the normal human qualities assigned to hands and feet. Instead, their research demonstrated that these creatures had long, curved fingers and toes typical of arboreal primates. [In reading through the following descriptions of the fossils, bear in mind that the zoo in St. Louis, Missouri, proudly displays a life-size replica of Lucy with perfectly formed human hands and feet.]

Stern and Susman commented: “The overall morphology of metacarpals II-V [bones that comprise the hand— BH/BT] is similar to that of chimpanzees and, therefore, might be interpreted as evidence of developed grasping capabilities to be used in suspensory behavior [swinging in trees—BH/BT]” (60:283). In looking at the morphology of the fingers, they affirmed:

The markedly curved proximal phalanges [bones of the fingers—BH/BT] indicate adaptation for suspensory and climbing activities which require powerful grasping abilities.... The trapezium [bone at the base of the first digit—BH/BT] and first metacarpal are very chimpanzee-like in relative size and shape.... Enlarged metacarpal heads and the mildly curved, parallel-sided shafts are two such features of the Hadar metacarpals not seen in human fingers. The distal phalanges, too, retain ape-like features in A. afarensis.... On the other hand, the Hadar fossil falls within the range of each ape and less than 1 SD [standard deviation — BH/BT] unit away from the means of gorilla and orangutan (60:284).

In their concluding remarks, Stern and Susman remarked: It will not have escaped the reader’s attention that the great bulk of evidence supports the view that the Hadar hominid was to a significant degree arboreal.... We discovered a substantial body of evidence indicating that arboreal activities were so important to A. afarensis that morphologic adaptations permitting adept movement in the trees were maintained (60:313).

In the September 9, 1994 issue of Science, Randall Susman reported that the chimp-like thumbs in A. afarensis were far better suited for tree climbing than tool making (Susman, 1994). Lucy also possessed a nonhuman gait, based on ratio of leg size to foot size (see Oliwenstein, 1995, 16[1]:42). One researcher even went so far as to suggest that A. afarensis was little more than a failed experiment in ape bipedalism, and as such, should be consigned to a side branch of the human evolutionary tree (as reported by Shreeve, 1996). So not only were Lucy’s ribs and pelvis wrong, but her limbs also were physiologically more conducive to swinging around in treetops.

AUSTRALOPITHECINE TEETH:
MORE EVIDENCE THAT LUCY WAS ARBOREAL
One of Donald Johanson’s specialties is identifying differences within the teeth of alleged hominids. In fact, in his original description, he gave a great deal of attention to the dentition of A. afarensis. By measuring the various differences in molars and canines, he systematically assigned various fossils to predetermined groups. However, even his highly trained eyes may have missed some important microscopic data. Anthropologist Alan Walker has been working on ways of possibly determining behavior based on evidence from the fossil record. One of his methods includes quantitative analysis of tooth microwear. Using image enhancement and optical diffraction methods of scanning, Walker believes he might be able to reconstruct ancient diets from paleontological samples. In speaking of Walker’s material, Johanson noted:

Dr. Alan Walker of Johns Hopkins has recently concluded that the polishing effect he finds on the teeth of robust australopithecines and modern chimpanzees indicates that australopithecines, like chimps, were fruit eaters.... If they were primarily fruit eaters, as Walker’s examination of their teeth suggests they were, then our picture of them, and of the evolutionary path they took, is wrong (Johanson and Edey, 1981, p. 358).

So we now have impressive evidence that Lucy and her kin ate fruit from trees, rather than foraging for food on the ground.

LUCY’S RIB CAGE
Due to the impossibility of reconstructing Lucy’s skull from the few fragments available, the determination that Lucy walked uprightly like a human had to be derived from her hips and ribs. Peter Schmid, a paleontologist at the Anthropological Institute in Zurich, Switzerland, studied Lucy extensively, and summarized his efforts as follows.

When I started to put the skeleton together, I expected it to look human. Everyone had talked about Lucy as being very modern, very human, so I was surprised by what I saw. I noticed that the ribs were more round in cross-section, more like what you see in apes. Human ribs are flatter in cross-section. But the shape of the rib cage itself was the biggest surprise of all. The human rib cage is barrel shaped, and I just couldn’t get Lucy’s ribs to fit this kind of shape. But I could get them to make a conical-shaped rib cage, like what you see in apes (as quoted in Leakey and Lewin, 1992, pp. 193-194).

Ribs can be “tweaked” and rotated so that they appear more “barrel-like” or conical, but the best (and correct) arrangement is the original morphology. The facets from the ribs that line up on the vertebrae provide a tighter fit when aligned correctly. In Lucy’s case, her ribs are conical, like those found in apes.

LUCY: HOMINID OR CHIMP?
When Lucy first arrived on the scene, newsmagazines such as Time and National Geographic noted that she had a head shaped like an ape, with a brain capacity the size of a large chimp’s—about one-third the size of a modern man’s. In an article that appeared in New Scientist, evolutionist Jeremy Cherfas noted: “Lucy, alias Australopithecus afarensis, had a skull very like a chimpanzee’s, and a brain to match” (1983, 93:172). Adrienne Zihlman observed: “Lucy’s fossil remains match up remarkably well with the bones of a pygmy chimp” (1984,104:39). It should be no surprise then, that in Stern and Susman’s 1983 analysis of afarensis, they pointed out:

These findings of ours, in conjunction with Christie’s (1977), observation on enhanced rotation at the tibio-talar joint in AL 288-1, Tardieu’s (1979) deductions about greater voluntary rotation at the knee in AL 288-1, Senut’s (1981) and Feldesman’s (1982a) claims that the humerus of AL 288-1 is pongid in certain of its features, and Feldesman’s (1982b) demonstration that the ulna of AL 288-1 is most similar to that of Pan paniscus [a chimp—BH/BT], all seem to lead ineluctably to the conclusion that the Hadar hominid was vitally dependent on the trees for protection and/or sustenance (60:311).

All of these characteristics led inevitably to the conclusion that Lucy was simply a chimp-like creature. And yet, more than a decade earlier, Charles Oxnard, while at the University of Chicago, already had passed judgment on these creatures. His multivariate computer analyses indicated that the australopithecines were, in fact, nothing but knuckle-walking animals (1975).

CONCLUSION
You might well be asking yourself why this charade has been allowed to go on this long. The answer—woven around power, fame, and money—can be found in Johanson’s own words. There is no such thing as a total lack of bias. I have it; everybody has it. The fossil hunter in the field has it.... In everybody who is looking for hominids, there is a strong urge to learn more about where the human line started. If you are working back at around three million, as I was, that is very seductive, because you begin to get an idea that that is where Homo did start. You begin straining your eyes to find Homo traits in fossils of that age.... Logical, maybe, but also biased. I was trying to jam evidence of ates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain (Johanson and Edey, 1981, pp. 257,258, emp. added).

He went on to admit: “It is hard for me now to admit how tangled in that thicket I was. But the insidious thing about bias is that it does make one deaf to the cries of other evidence” (p. 277).

Some are asking if A. afarensis is more primitive than A. africanus, or if they are one and the same? Others point to the many chimp-like features, and question whether Lucy ever walked upright at all? But, in the March 1996 issue of National Geographic, Donald Johanson himself admitted: “Lucy has recently been dethroned” (189[3]:117, emp. added). His (and Lucy’s) “fifteen minutes of fame” are over. As Lee Berger declared: “One might say we are kicking Lucy out of the family tree” (as quoted in Shreeve, 1996). Fascinating, how often the hominid family tree is pruned!

REFERENCES
● BBC News (2000), “Ancestors Walked on Knuckles,” [On-line], URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ science/nature/687341.stm.
● Cherfas, Jeremy (1983), “Trees Have Made Man Upright,” New Scientist, 93:172-178, January 20.
● Fox, Maggie (2000), “Man’s Early Ancestors Were Knuckle Walkers,” San Diego Union Tribune, Quest Section; March 29.
● Hausler, Martin and Peter Schmid (1995), “Comparison of the Pelvis of Sts 14 and AL 288-1: Implications for Birth and Sexual Dimorphism in Australopithecines,” Journal of Human Evolution, 29:363-383.
● Johanson, Donald C. (1996), “Face-to-Face with Lucy’s Family,” National Geographic, 189[3]:96-117, March. Johanson, Donald C. and Maitland Edey (1981), Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (New York: Simon & Schuster).
● Johanson, Donald C., Lenora Johanson, and Blake Edgar, (1994) Ancestors: In Search of Human Origins (New York: Villard Books).
● Johanson, Donald C. and Tim D. White (1979), “A Systematic Assessment of Early African Hominids,” Science, 203:321-330, January 26.
● Johanson, Donald C., Tim D. White, and Yves Coppens (1978), “A New Species of the Genus Australopithecus
● (Primates: Hominidae) from the Pliocene of Eastern Africa,” Kirtlandia, 28:2-14.
● Kimbel, William, Donald C. Johanson, and Yoel Rak (1994), “The First Skull and Other New Discoveries of Australopithecus afarensis at Hadar, Ethiopia,” Nature, 368:449-451, March 31. Leakey, Richard and Roger Lewin (1978), People of the Lake (New York: E.P. Dutton).
● Leakey, Richard and Roger Lewin (1992), Origins Reconsidered: In Search of What Makes Us Human (New York: Doubleday).
● Oliwenstein, Lori (1995), “Lucy’s Walk,” Discover, 16[1]:42, January.
● Oxnard, Charles (1975), “The Place of the Australopithecines in Human Doubt?,” Nature, 258:389-395, December. ● Richmond, Brian G. and David S. Strait (2000), “Evidence that Humans Evolved from a Knuckle-Walking Ancestor,” Nature, 404:382-385, March 23.
● Shreeve, James (1996), “New Skeleton Gives Path from Trees to Ground an Odd Turn,” Science, 272:654, May 3. Stern, Jack T. Jr. and Randall L. Susman (1983), “The Locomotor Anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis,” Journal of Physical Anthropology, 60:279-317.
● Susman, Randall L. (1994), “Fossil Evidence for Early Hominid Tool Use,” Science, 265:1570-1573, September 9. Zihlman, Adrienne (1984), “Pygmy Chimps, People, and the Pundits,” New Scientist, 104:349-40, November 15. Zuckerman, Solly (1970), Beyond the Ivory Tower (New York: Taplinger).

Copyright © 2003 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Creation Vs. Evolution" section to be reproduced in part or in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, excepting brief quotations, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
Apologetics Press,
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org

Read more!

God and Creation MENU

04 Feb 2021 A) The Theory of Evolution

B) The Fossil Record

C) Intelligent Design

D) Carbon Dating

E) The Law of Cause and Effect

F) The Laws of Thermodynamics Are Irrefutabe Proof that Evolution is Impossible (SORRY, UNDER CONSTRUCTION)

G) Ape Men?

H) The Humming Bird

I) God Speaks to Us Today

J) Return to Main Menu - Home

Read more!

The Truth About the Theory of Evolution

by Rick Cutter
Evolutionists believe man and ape shared common evolutionary ancestors - but does the scientific evidence support this conclusion?

The World Book Encyclopedia says the following about the Theory of Evolution: "Many people...do not accept the theory of evolution because it conflicts with their religious beliefs."1 The false impression is left that religion - not science - is why many reject evolution.

The textbooks our children read - from grade-school to college - totally discount the possibility that science itself is the basis for the rejection of the Theory of Evolution. One of the hidden secrets of modern times is how consistently evolutionists have purposefully glossed over and ignored empirical scientific evidence, simply because the only other alternative to evolution was to accept the reality of a Great Creator. To help them ignore the compelling evidence, evolutionists have buried themselves under piles of weakly connected circumstantial evidence, evidence which ultimately proves nothing. In this chapter, I will show that when true science is unmuzzled, it exposes the Theory of Evolution to be highly improbable.

The highway of evolution is scattered with potholes of assumptions, detours, and inexactitudes, which the promoters of evolution rarely expose to the public. Biology instructors from the college level on down rarely point out evolution's many weaknesses, and the mass media merely parrot what contemporary experts believe. Thus the public is fed a healthy and continual dose of pseudo-facts which will likely render evolution - in due course - to be classified with the ridiculed flat earth theory of centuries past.

An unbiased examination of evolution reveals that practically every single so-called "fact" of macro-evolution is found to be based upon assumption coupled with imagination and highly debatable circumstantial evidence. But since there is no other explanation for life on earth other than to accept the probability of a Great Creator, many evolutionary scientists today still consider the Theory of Evolution to be fact.

What Is the Theory of Evolution?
Simply put, the Theory of Evolution is an attempt by scientists to explain how life got here. It was fathered in the mid-1800's by a scientist named Charles Darwin.

Scientists believe that the earth is 4.6 billion years old. Evolutionists assume that about 3.5 billion years ago the first simple life form (a one-celled organism) miraculously appeared. This simple little cell began gradually evolving into a huge number of more advanced, complex species. (A "species" is group of animals or plants which typically interbreed only among themselves. For example, dogs are a species, but can't successfully mate with cats, which belong to another.) In the next 3 billion years, evolutionists believe this one little cell exploded into a whopping 200 million species.

Today the earth is left with a mere 2 million species (most are insects and plants, but 8,000 are amphibians and reptiles, 8,600 are birds, and 4,000 are mammals.2 What happened to the other 198 million? They went "extinct" - allegedly due to environmental factors. Later I'll show that this massive extinction rate presents a huge problem for the Theory of Evolution, since it trends speciation in entirely the wrong direction. Macro evolution hangs its hat on the assumption that a massive explosion of species occurred from one microscopic cell into 200 million species. It doesn't take Einstein to tell us something's not adding up. The empirical evidence reveals the opposite - that species are and have been going extinct to the extent that only 1% of the original number of species exist today. Obviously, empirical scientific evidence is opposite to the claims of evolution. And this is not the only occasion where empirical science and the Theory of Evolution part company.

Although Darwin's original version of the Theory of Evolution has evolved a little bit itself, for the most part it has made very little progress since his time.

What Prompted Darwin to Come Up
With the Fantastic Theory of Evolution? Did some astounding microbiological discovery drive scientists to adopt evolution? Was some amazing new law of nature unearthed that shed light on our distant past? Perhaps medical science made some earth-shattering anatomical breakthroughs forcing Darwin to embrace this incredible hypothesis?

In reality, the reasons were far less glamorous. Rather than a celebrated scientific discovery, it was the unsophisticated observation of animals and their remains that prompted Darwin to propose evolution.3 Darwin, demonstrating a marvelous grasp of the obvious, had noticed something extremely conspicuous about animals: they seemed to have similarities.

For example, he observed that humans were similar to apes in many characteristics. Apes, in turn, resembled chimpanzees and orangutans. Chimps seemed to favor a few tree-dwelling creatures which themselves looked a bit like kangaroos. Applying a little imagination, kangaroos were nothing more than reptilian iguanas sporting fur. Iguanas looked a bit like alligators, which resembled some oceanic fish, which in turn were akin to sharks, then eels, and so forth - persisting all the way down to some ocean-dwelling one-celled organisms.

With a rare combination of modest scientific knowledge and massive human imagination, Darwin concluded that life probably started with a one-celled oceanic organism and "somehow" evolved into the more complex life forms of apes and humans. The problem was with the word "somehow." When Darwin proposed his explanation, the Theory of Evolution was officially born.

Scientists Gladly Receive
the New Evolutionary Theory While modern evolutionists try to sell to the world the idea that those who are religious reject evolution due to religious conflicts, many will be surprised to learn that evolutionists accepted evolution because they refused to accept religion. It was not, as some would have us believe, because of amazing scientific evidence that caused evolution to be promoted to the scientific forefront. The embracing of atheistic ideals removed special creation from the evolutionists' list of possible explanations.

Sir Arthur Keith said frankly: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." Professor D.M.S. Watson of the University of London echoed: "Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."4

No doubt the evolutionary community was buzzing with excitement. For the first time in the history of science someone had invented a hypothesis with a luster of credibility - a long-awaited explanation for how life got here without God. In time, scientists would overwhelmingly sanction the Theory of Evolution to be the only logical, scientific explanation of the origin of life.

While wading through the ocean of details, one fact should never escape our attention. From the very beginning, evolution was always assumed to be factual. Ever since Darwin released his "On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection" (1859) the scientific community, with practically no evidence whatsoever, has virtually unanimously and cooperatively set about to prove evolution as truth. Yet from the very beginning, even evolutionists themselves admitted that Darwin's proposition was merely an unproven hypothesis. In other words, just as its name suggests, the "Theory" of Evolution is just that - merely a theory. In a moment it will become apparent that it is still an unproven theory.

Separating Micro-Evolution
from Macro-Evolution Before going any further, it should be pointed out that the Theory of Evolution may be divided into 2 categories: micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

Probably everyone would agree that dogs can be bred to be larger or smaller, uglier or prettier, comely or pleasing, black, white, spotted, and so forth. These are all examples of what evolutionists call "micro-evolution." No sane person would argue with the concept of micro-evolution since it is easily supported by empirical evidence. In other words, individual species have a wide range of practically unlimited possibilities in terms of characteristics - but these characteristics are limited to a "classification group" or species.

"Macro-evolution," on the other hand, states that every species on the planet today evolved from a single, one-celled organism. From this tiny cell evolved large classification groups, which in turn evolved into other completely different classification groups of organisms (for example, they say kangaroos eventually turned into humans). It is due to the obvious and total lack of empirical evidence that millions of people today continue to question the credibility of macro-evolution.

Is Evolution Science,
or Theory? The debate has raged for decades over whether the Theory of Evolution should be considered a mere theory (as many religious people believe), or science (as evolutionists affirm). So which is it, theory or science?

It actually depends on how you wish to define the term "science." If "science" is taken in the primary sense of its definition ("...knowledge verified by exact observation, organized experiment, and analysis..."), then evolution is clearly not science. This is because evolution makes its living entirely off circumstantial evidence.

If "science" is taken in the secondary definition sense ("...any of the various branches of such knowledge as biology, chemistry, [etc.]..."5), then it certainly may be considered science. This of course is the definition evolutionists prefer to use. Unfortunately, in the process of doing that many are misled into the belief that evolution is the product of empirical evidence.

Natural Selection Darwin used the concept of "Natural Selection" (sometimes called "Survival of the Fittest") to explain how evolution must have unfolded. Natural Selection in its most rudimentary form is simply nature selecting the fittest to live on and the weaklings to die.

An evolutionist might explain it like this: if 2 zebras mated to produced a weak, slow running zebra, this weakling would be much more likely to be eaten by lions and hyenas than if a strong, fast zebra were produced. And since the weakling zebra will probably be eaten at its weakest phase - infancy - it will likely have little time to mate and pass on its weak genes. Conversely, the strong one will survive to mate with other strong, surviving zebras to produce even stronger zebras. Thus a species may grow progressively stronger - a fact with which no reasonable person would disagree.

Natural Selection was the proof Evolutionists thought they needed for evolution. For they now felt they had practical, scientific evidence of how a species could visibly, albeit minimally, change to become a stronger and more robust species. It was a concept everyone could agree with, empirically observable in nature. All Darwin did was to extend this idea billions of years into the past by assuming that many tiny "natural selection" changes within a species would eventually lead to entirely different looking, acting, and functioning species which couldn't imagine mating with their original ancestors. And by simply applying this concept to the entire world of all living creatures, from the simplest of organisms (one-celled ocean critters) to the most complex (apes and humans), Darwin had all the evidence any 19th century biologist would need.

Although the scientific community merrily pounced upon the concept of Natural Selection as an explanation for evolution - still there were too many remaining assumptions. Evolutionists realized they would need more evidence than this if they expected to fend off the constant attacks of the religious opposition.

The Problem with Natural Selection Natural Selection alone fails to explain evolution because each species is limited to its own "gene pool." In other words, although billions of possible outcomes can exist within a species, there are boundaries beyond which that species cannot go.

Using the example of zebras mentioned above, among all the zebras of the world there is only a limited number of possible gene combinations. And regardless of what combinations of genes you use, the end result will still be a zebra. In other words, if you were to mate the two most extreme zebras (so far as their genes are concerned), the resulting offspring would still be a zebra. It would take mutations (which I'll notice shortly) to enter the gene pool to cause any changes that would make a zebra to no longer look, or function, like a zebra.

Scientists realized that Natural Selection alone was simply inadequate evidence for Evolution. All Evolutionists have here is an example of how "Nature" postpones the extinction of a species for as long as possible.

Does the Teacup Poodle
Prove Macro-Evolution? Dogs are excellent examples of how far the process of Natural Selection can and cannot go.

Dog breeders have successfully produced huge great Danes the size of ponies, all the way down to "teacup poodles" small enough to fit into a person's hand. It's readily apparent that attempting to mate these two extremes would be ridiculous, a fact which evolutionists interpret as evidence of reproductive isolation in the making. They claim to have created "speciation."6

Practically speaking, this example presents serious problems to evolutionists. First of all, whether it be the great dane or the teacup poodle it's obvious we simply still have a big dog and a small dog - but definitely a dog. Not a rat, not an alligator, not a gorilla. A Dog.

It should also be remembered that all dogs were wild at one time or another. If great Danes and teacups poodles were thrown out into the wild to fend for themselves, they would be the first dogs to become extinct. This is because, although we can breed all kinds of strange combinations, when left to itself nature tends to revert back to the norm. In other words, Natural Selection breaks down at the extreme points of the breeding process.

As one evolutionist admitted, ". . .natural selection usually argues for status rather than change."7 In laymen’s' terms, Natural Selection falls pitifully short in explaining macro-evolution.

Evolutionists Admit Problems
with Natural Selection Natural Selection is facing many attacks, and not just from outside the scientific community.

Evolutionists themselves admit that there is simply no evidence whatsoever that Natural Selection will produce true "reproductive isolation."8

("Reproductive isolation" is what Evolutionists call a process where a new species evolves by being separated by some environmental intrusion. For example, suppose a group of rhinos winds up split into two groups on two different sides of a mountain range. Suppose that over time the mountain range pushes upward, making it impossible for the two groups to come into contact with one another. The 2 groups of rhinos naturally continue to breed and produce more environmentally fit rhinos through Natural Selection over a vast period of time. Through sheer probability, changes accrue in behavior, anatomy and genetics. Evolution maintains that after a few million years, if the two groups of rhinos were somehow able to come into contact again they would no longer be able to mate. They believe this would represent the evolution of a new species that would have become "reproductively isolated." Trying to mate the two would be like trying to cross a rhino with a hippo - an exercise in futility.)

Modern experiments to prove speciation by reproductive isolation have proven the opposite. Species that were split geographically, when brought back together again, readily mated to produce offspring. This was in spite of the fact they had become very "adaptively differentiated," or had developed widely differing life-styles and habits. Even worse for the evolutionists, the two groups maintained genetic similarities. There was no proof when examining the DNA of the two groups that one group had made any more evolutionary progress than its ancestors. Natural Selection had failed.

What Evolution Has In It's Favor With this brief introduction, let's pause and take a candid view at what Evolutionists have in their favor. Let's examine the actual facts that might cause a reasonable person to accept the Theory of Evolution as fact. Then we'll notice what's wrong with Evolution - why it cannot be accepted by the reasonable person who has honestly assessed the facts.

Evolutionists have the following in their favor: First, there are many similarities of the structure and functionality of many organisms up and down the evolutionary chain from the simplest organisms to human beings. (Evolutionists call this chain the "fossil record"). Unfortunately, mere similarity does not at all imply, much less prove Evolution. Second, and perhaps the most compelling evidence of all, is that scientific dating has revealed that the order of life did appear essentially in the order that evolutionists claim life evolved. And unlike many in the religious world believe, I do not believe that scientists have attempted to fabricate dating techniques in order to favor the Theory of Evolution. It is an undisputed, empirically proven scientific fact that, regardless of exactly how accurate all of the dating techniques are (we will discuss them later), simple organisms apparently did exist on the earth before the more complex organisms existed.

An examination of the earth's strata reveals that only simpler fossils of organisms can be found in the older strata, while the upper, younger strata contains both the simple and complex fossils. Complex forms of life appear only in the upper, younger strata. Evolutionists have estimated fish to have existed as far back as 500 million years. More complex reptiles have been dated back to 300 million years. Birds go back to 200 million years. But the earliest humanoid fossils - the most complex organisms on earth - date to only 3.6 million years ago, while homo erectus (man) didn't come to the party until a mere 1.6 million years ago. Obviously, the complex forms of life did not exist in the earlier stages of the earth's existence. This is a fact no sincere seeker of truth can deny.

It should also be noted that just because the specific order of the fossil record still does not match the order that evolutionary scientific dating reveals. But as far as the general order is concerned, the fossil record does match with the scientific dating. However, does this mean that Evolution really occurred?

In a moment I'll show that evolution has other serious problems which render it likely impossible, while other viable options take it's place - options which evolutionists have completely ignored.

Evolutionists also present a mountain of other "evidence" which I'll examine in a moment. By and large, it can be characterized as a great deal of quantity and very little quality.

Why Evolution Is An Impossibility The total absence of empirical evidence renders Evolution highly unlikely. Even today, with all the advantages of modern medicine and technology, a bone'fide example of speciation has yet to be observed or produced in clinical settings - or anywhere on earth for that matter.

One of the first flags of suspicion is raised when one considers that evolution is based entirely upon circumstantial evidence. Of course, with solely circumstantial evidence it is possible to fabricate a wide range of possible theories.

Since empirical evidence is not expected of the scientist (evolution is perhaps the only accepted science where the absence of empirical evidence is acceptable), the door is opened wide for the introduction of theory piled upon ridiculous theory - as will soon be revealed.

When dealing with solely circumstantial evidence, other possibilities must not be ruled out. For example, does the fact that life appeared in the same basic order that evolutionists claim it evolved mean that life evolved indisputably by Evolution? Could it not have appeared by other means? Certainly, a great deal more evidence is needed before Evolution could be considered an undisputed truth.

Furthermore, in another chapter I'll detail the amazing and seemingly inexplicable phenomenon of the Biblical account of the creation of life. Incredibly, life was described to have appeared in essentially the same order that today's scientific dating reveals. How could Moses (the 1500 B.C. author of Genesis) have known the exact order life forms would appear on the earth? Furthermore, how could he have known that light had to exist before plants could live; that plants had to exist before animals could exist; and that mammals appeared before mankind - the last form of life - appeared on earth? Was this merely an amazing guess that turned out to be right, or was Moses what he claimed to be - an inspired man who spoke from God as the facts seem to indicate? It's obvious that most of these scientific facts (relating to the earth's strata which reveal the order of life) have only been discovered in the last few years.

(By the way, some believe that the Genesis account could accurately be interpreted to leave enough room for evolution. In other words, when the Bible says that God created each life form, it could have meant He, God, "created" all the creatures on earth by means of Evolution [this is called "Theistic Evolution".] Regardless of whether or not the Bible leaves enough room for this interpretation, the facts of science seem to reveal species did not come about by means of macro evolution. I'll notice the Genesis account in a lot more detail in a later chapter.)In other words, the circumstantial evidence evolution heavily relies upon does not irrefutably crown it as the only possible explanation for how life appeared on earth.

Massive Extinction Rate Renders
Evolution Highly Unlikely The actual scientific facts reveal a most agitating problem for Evolutionists - the extinction rate. As stated before, it has been estimated that roughly 200 million species once existed. But today we have only a meager 2 million (a mere 1% of the original number!). What does this mean? Obviously, that existing species are disappearing while no new forms are evolving. How could Evolution ever have happened with this trend? It would clearly be impossible.

Therefore Evolutionists are left in the uncomfortable position, once again, of having to explain why the situation was exactly the opposite millions of years ago to what it is today. Remember, Evolutionists say the exact opposite happened - that there was an explosion of 200 million species from 1 tiny organism. But why is this not happening today? Why have species been going extinct instead of speciating? Why is it that today we continue to observe species going extinct at alarming rates without a single documented case of noteworthy speciation since Darwin's day? Evolutionists clearly have to come up with some quick explanations, yet since they have no scientific evidence they must once again fabricate new theories about why Evolution is "factual," just as they had to do in the case of Chemical Evolution.

The honest person must admit that the extinction rate poses a major problem for the Theory of Evolution. Some scientists say species are going extinct at a rate of 5 species per hour! Some say it's occurring at a rate of 1 species per day. And still others believe it's only 1 species per year. And meanwhile, no new species are evolving - hardly the picture of the explosion of 200 million species from 1 tiny cell!

Can We Blame the human Race
For the Extinction Rate? In an attempt to distract from these gargantuan problems, some Evolutionists try to argue that today's high extinction rate is because of environmental factors introduced by the human race - but remember, Evolutionists themselves claim that perhaps 99% of all species had already gone extinct before the human race had even evolved! And even the most conservative evolutionists admit that species will go extinct at a rate of at least one per year with no human intervention whatsoever. Keep in mind that if we use the higher extinction estimates, it's possible that since Darwin's day, close to 7 million species have gone extinct! Yet no new species have evolved since that time. Zero. Absolutely none.

The Evolutionist's Problem
With the Law of Entropy Entropy was noticed in some detail in chapter 1. It is one of the most fundamental and undeniable laws of our universe. To summarize, it states that everything in the universe is moving from a state of order, complexity, and higher potential energy to a state of disorder, randomness, and lower potential energy. Of course, Evolution suggests the very opposite: that all organisms started out in the simplest possible state and many evolved into the most complex possible states - that all humans, for example, started out as simple, 1-celled organisms and now have become complex, multi-cellular beings. One can quickly see that this is in obvious, direct opposition to the Law of Entropy.

How Does the Evolutionist Manage
To Dismiss Entropy? One might wonder how the Evolutionist can go home every day with a clear conscience knowing that his theory is in obvious, direct opposition to the most fundamental and universally accepted Laws of our universe. Here's how Entropy is explained away. Evolutionists point out that although the universe as a whole is losing potential energy and although closed systems within the universe will as a whole lose energy, that it is actually possible for closed systems to gain potential energy from other systems nearby which are losing energy themselves. Species that evolve are thus gaining energy from sources around them (food, sun, oxygen, etc.). Since the species which evolve are actually gaining energy, Evolutionists suggest that the Laws of Entropy therefore do not apply to Evolution. Evolution is immune to the Laws of Entropy - it is an exception.

Of course, by suggesting these things the Evolutionist does not diminish his problem, but compounds it. Because, as was noticed in chapter 1, to feed energy into a system means that you are much more likely to increase the rate of disorder and destruction than to cause random construction to take place. For instance, if you build a house out in the woods and abandon it, it will gradually deteriorate due to Entropy. But if you feed more energy into the house (more sunlight, wind, earthquakes) it's much more likely to increase the rate of the house's destruction than it is to "build the house" for you from scratch by accident. As was pointed out in detail in chapter 1, unless the energy being fed into a system is intelligent energy, it is far more likely to be destructive than constructive. In other words, it takes intelligent human energy to build a house, not just energy in general.

Evolutionists Openly Admit
Their Problems One evolutionist actually had the honesty to admit that "the production of a new animal species in nature has yet to be documented."9 Another evolutionist added: "Within species there normally is no progressive modification by natural selection." And Biologists Paul and Ann Ehrlich wrote: "In the vast majority of cases, the rate of change [of evolution] is so slow that it has not even been possible to detect an increase in the amount of differentiation [of species]."10

Certainly, there is a lot of micro-evolutionary proof showing there has been change within the grouping of horses, elephants, dogs, and even man - "but there is not a fossil proof for believing that there has ever been change from one large classification group to another."11

With such blinding evidence against Evolution, it is reasonable to conclude that Evolution is for all practical purposes a theory that - just as the many other past, rejected theories of science which were based on circumstantial evidence - should also be entirely rejected by all serious scientists of today.

Is There Really A "Lot of Evidence"
To Support Evolution? We have shown that, due to the reasons given above, current scientific evidence renders macro-evolution as highly improbable. But let's take a closer look at the best evidence Evolutionists exhibit. Evolutionists claim to have discovered supporting evidence from practically every field of science imaginable - including such impressive fields as archaeology, geography, medicine, and biology. In fact, some proudly acclaim that the entire field of biology is based upon the Theory of Evolution. 12 Since many claim that there is "overwhelming evidence" to support the Theory of Evolution as fact, let's examine the so-called evidence. We're going to find that there certainly is a lot of evidence, but it can best be characterized as quantity without much quality. The following is a list of the primary reasons given for scientific acceptance of the Theory of Evolution as fact (listed in probable order of decreasing popularity): 13

1) The Fossil Theory
2) The Mutations Theory
3) DNA Comparisons
4) The Geographic Distribution Theory
5) The Embryology Theory
6) The Vestigial Organs Theory
7) Evolution Directly Observed
8) Evolution by Artificial Selection

At first glance, this seems like an impressive line-up of biological all-stars - awe-inspiring enough to squelch the doubts of practically any disbeliever. But let's check out each of these witnesses more carefully and challenge them one-by-one to see how credible they really are.

The Fossil Theory
A "fossil" is an ancient skeleton that has been preserved in the earth's crust, typically in rock.f, g Amazingly, despite today's impressive technology (versus times past), the "Fossil Theory" is still the primary theory proposed to prove evolution. It's what Evolutionists consider putting their best foot forward. If the Fossil Theory falls, the Theory of Evolution goes down with it.

Simply put, the Fossil Theory amounts to digging up fossilized skeletal remains of animals and humans and arranging them in order from the smallest and simplest looking to the largest and most complex looking. The result is what scientists call the "fossil record." The Fossil Theory declares that since there seems to be similarities among fossils up and down the fossil record chain, this must prove that life started as simpler organisms and evolved to the more complex organisms.

Missing Links In A Missing Chain
If evolution truly has taken place, scientists must present a continuous chain of progressively more complex fossils from 1-celled creatures all the way up to man. And Evolutionists shouldn't have had a problem reconstructing this continuous fossil record since they had 200 million species past and present to work with. Furthermore, there are literally billions of fossils preserved from the past for them to pick from and arrange in the order of their choosing. But these advantages were not enough.

Much to the dismay of evolutionists, when constructing the fossil record they found that it had large gaps, or so-called "missing links." In other words, for a while the fossil record would appear to gradually increase in complexity - just as it was expected to do. And then - suddenly and without warning - there would be a missing link in the chain. No fossils could be found to fill in the missing link. After the missing link, the fossil record would proceed obediently for a bit before hitting yet another frustrating gap. And we're not talking about a mere one or 2 gaps - missing links abounded. The missing links were so abundant that the very term "missing link" was extremely deceitful, since it implies the fossil record had only one missing link. A better phrase might have been "missing chain." Not only were the first few links of the chain missing, but there were infinitely more missing links than existing ones. This was indeed a special problem, since the gaps in the fossil record further proved the Biblical account to be correct scientifically. This is because the Bible seems to imply that the species were created essentially in the species forms we see today, which would explain why there would be so many gaps between each species instead of the continuum Evolution called for. Of course, the Biblical record does not discount the possibility of micro-evolution within species (i.e., dogs mating to produce different sizes and shapes of dogs).

Darwin Concerned About
Missing Links
When Darwin began compiling his own fossil record he immediately noticed the missing links but wrote them off to the understanding that the Theory of Evolution was a new concept and scientists simply hadn't had enough time to discover enough fossils to fill in the gaps.i But 150 years have gone by - we've got jet airplanes, computers, space shuttles and sliced bread - and a fossil record that still looks worse than Swiss cheese.

Nevertheless, despite these discouraging setbacks to the Fossil Theory and thus the entire Theory of Evolution, scientists were determined to prove both of them authentic. Remember, evolution has always been considered a fact. The only problem has been coming up with real evidence. But how were they going to explain the huge number of "missing links" in the fossil record?

An Attempt To Explain Missing Links
All sorts of attempts have since been made to explain away this problem. One of the more popular approaches was to slightly modify the original theory that life had evolved gradually over vast periods of geologic time. The theory needed to be changed to the following: life evolved gradually over vast periods of time, but occasionally and suddenly evolved very quickly (impressively named "punctuated equilibrium")
14 Slow, gradual evolution was combined with quick, punctuated evolution, occurring repeatedly over the vast billions of years. Of course, during the "punctuated" spurts of growth there would be only short periods of time for the species to reproduce, so there plainly wouldn't be many fossils to excavate from this period of time. This gave evolutionists the loophole they needed - an excuse for the lack of evidence. Nonetheless, they still religiously believed that if they were given enough time to dig, even these elusive fossils would eventually be located, and all the "doubting Thomases" would be put to silence. There would be no gaps at all in the fossil record. Their fossil chain would look more like a chain and less like spaghetti.

As for fabricated "punctuated equilibrium" theory - the alleged sudden bursts of evolution - perhaps this was caused somehow by a sudden shift in genes, or mutations (we'll discuss mutations a little later). Perhaps a "genetic revolution" would take place resulting in a period of rapid evolution. For example, a crocodile might evolve into a horse in a brief 50,000 years.

It's easy to see that at its very best "punctuated equilibrium" was a desperate attempt to make sense of fossil record gaps using highly circumstantial evidence. Evolutionists were not happy, and their search continues today for better proof of evolution than the Fossil Theory alone.

Evolutionists Admit the Gaps of the Fossil Record Pose A Serious Problem
Unquestionably, one of the major problems with the Fossil Theory is the afore-mentioned missing links of the fossil record. And even where there seems to be a continuous chain, it's so subjective that even evolutionists can't agree on how it should be ordered. To suggest that these gaps are caused by sudden bursts of evolutionary development is an unprovable, hopeful, and desperate stretch. Evolutionist Dr. James Birx confessed: "Admittedly incomplete at this time, the fossil record is the single most important body of evidence to support the fact of organic evolution." 15 Evolutionist Robert Lewin put it like this: "The fossil record...does not reveal a continuum of transitional forms between species. Each species in the record is relatively unchanging through time."16

These are sobering words coming from the evolutionists themselves. For they are admitting that, not only is there not a continuous chain of life from the simplest to the most complex, but each species today shows no signs of significant genetic changes to the point of evolving to new species. A mosquito 10 million years ago looks like a mosquito today. In other words, speciation has still not been scientifically observed. At the same time, the Biblical account of creation continues to ring true. And if the fossil record is the "single most important body of evidence" for evolution, what does that say about the Theory of Evolution?

Problems With Dating Fossils
The ordering of the Fossil Record depends heavily upon scientific dating techniques. But just how accurate are these dating techniques, anyway?

Evolutionists are fond of saying things like "3.6 billion years ago the first organic cell appeared," and "500 million years ago the first fish evolved." They speak confidently and positively. Many people blindly accept these numbers without the slightest doubt. There is a noticeable absence of words and phrases such as "probably," "possibly," "perhaps," or "it is believed." Rather, Evolutionists try to leave an air of such confidence that no one will question them - certainly not the simple-minded and uneducated. But how can anyone possibly know what went on 1 million years ago, much less 500 million years ago or perhaps 3 billion years ago - especially since most of us have been on the earth considerably less than a meager 100 years? Can these dating conclusions really be trusted beyond even the remotest shadow of a doubt?

Such questions are quite pertinent, but represent a virtual "extinct" discussion among evolutionists. Evolutionists realize that to suggest their dating techniques could have weaknesses is to suggest that the fossil record has problems which means the Fossil Theory has problems which means the Theory of Evolution has problems. This is because a mere 10% error in dating could significantly re-arrange the fossil record.

Dating Accuracy Cannot Be Absolutely
Proven Beyond A Few Thousand Years
It should be quite obvious that scientists really have no way of properly testing their dating techniques beyond the age of known civilization, perhaps not much further than a mere 5,000 to 10,000 years back at the most. For example, if due to historical findings we know that an ancient tool is 5,000 years old, we can certainly test our dating technique to see how accurate that it really is. And one success does not necessarily mean our method is reliable in every case, either. It needs to be tested repeatedly. If it proves reliable, it can then be used with reasonable confidence on other ancient objects. But any attempt to try to date objects beyond the period of 5,000 years is taking the dating method further than it has been reliably tested, and should be used very cautiously. Particularly if the fossil being dated is believed to be millions or even billions of years old! To successfully date an object that is 5,000 years old is one thing - being able to date something 50,000 years old is quite another thing entirely, much less an object 500,000 years old, 5,000,000 old, or even the supposedly accurate dates of almost 5,000,000,000 years old! Let the reader be reminded that 5 billion years is 1 million times longer than 5,000 years, 1 million times longer than our ability to test accurately!

Maybe we could illustrate these dating dilemmas like this: Would you fly on a newly designed passenger airplane if you knew it had only been tested for 1 hour of flight? Would you feel any better if the aircraft technicians told you that on paper the plane should be able to fly 1,000,000 hours (or about 114 years) with no problems - all based on the 1 hour of testing? Or can you imagine a stock broker who tried to predict tomorrow's stock market based on one hour of its performance 114 years ago? Would you trust you life's savings to such a broker?

Let us not be misunderstood. We are not suggesting that today's dating techniques tell us nothing at all or should not be used at all. What we are suggesting is that dating the ages of objects, particularly greater than many thousands of years ago, cannot possibly be done with a great deal of provable accuracy. And we are suggesting that this reality is not revealed by Evolutionists to the public in the honest way that perhaps it should be.

Christians Must Be As Honest In Dealing With The Facts In The Same Way We Expect Evolutionists To Be
Many religious people try to suggest that the earth is only a few thousand years old. This comes from a popular view [Literal view, pdc] that the earth was created in six 24-hour days, a view popularized in the 1600's and passed down generation by generation. (Appendix A deals specifically with this issue.) Suffice it to say that this view has serious problems both Biblically and scientifically.)[Actually, the problems is not noticing that the age of man is shown in the Bible to be near 10,000 years --- but not the age of the earth ... pdc]

There is an enormous amount of unbiased, scientific proof that the earth is very likely much older than a mere 10,000 years.
17 Among the proofs which honest people cannot conscientiously ignore: the rate of rock formation and sedimentation, the rate of land erosion (which can be readily observed in the Grand Canyon), the rate of increased salt concentration, the rate uranium disintegrates into lead, the finding of millions of extinct species that were unquestionably extinct before human civilization began (for example, dinosaurs). Also, the clear absence of more complex life forms (man, apes) in lower strata. To ignore these facts is irresponsible and dishonest.

Just as evolutionists must admit to the glaring problems with the Theory of Evolution, so must those of the religious world who blatantly ignore the mass of scientific evidence concerning the great age of the earth and universe. God would not place this evidence upon the earth to deceive people into thinking that the earth was perhaps billions of years old if it were really only 10,000 years old. And the statement that the flood vastly altered the earth's makeup so as to make the earth appear much older than it really is, is extremely weak and scientifically unfounded. In Appendix A we show that the scientific reality of an old earth does not conflict with the Biblical account, but rather supports it. In fact, the theories about the earth being only a few thousand years old became popular in the 1600's with the influence of surprisingly few men, and that several notable "early church fathers" completely disagreed with this Genesis interpretation. Yet, because of its popularity, many Christians today are brought up to believe and dogmatically defend the "young earth theory" without questioning its truth with an unbiased and fresh look at the Genesis account of creation. Few religiously oriented people take the time to examine the undeniable scientific facts, and assume they can't be true based upon their own incorrect interpretation of God's word. Accepting new truth can sometimes be painful, but ignoring it is usually more painful.

A Look At Scientific
Dating Techniques
Even with the great age of the earth being a relatively obvious scientific fact, this does not suggest that the dating techniques can be utilized to the level of accuracy evolutionists have been guilty of. A mere 10% error could result in an error of more than 100,000,000 years! Such an adjustment would put the fossil record in a state of cyclonic disorder. Therefore let's take a look at the most popular dating techniques in use today and notice their weaknesses. There are at least 20 different methods scientists use to approximate the ages of fossils, rocks, and ancient objects.18, j (By the way, all of them independently verify that the earth is much older than 10,000 years.) Here are a few of them:

1) Argon-Potassium Dating - This method is only useful in dating rocks like lava. Since potassium tends to turn to argon in our current-day world at a constant rate, by measuring the current level of argon in a substance, scientists claim to be able to determine when the substance was originally formed. Scientists affirm that this method can date rocks as old as the earth itself, a whopping 4.6 billion years ago. But there are several problems. For instance, how can scientists be absolutely sure that all of the argon has remained in the rock over the years? If not, then dating results could be subject to large error margins.

2)Gamma Ray Spectrometry - This is used to date fossils, shells, and rocks. During fossilization, uranium accumulates in the bone - and uranium over time reduces to thorium. By measuring the amount of thorium, scientists try to determine dates of fossils. This is done by measuring the thorium gamma radiation emitted from the fossil. This method is advertised as capable of dating objects as far back as 400,000 years, which is not very far back when one considers that the first life supposedly appeared 3.5 billion years ago. Once again, if the thorium has not all remained in the fossil over the vast expanse of years, how can one trust the dating technique with to be very accurate?

3) Carbon 14 (Radiocarbon) Dating - This is the most popular dating method today. It is used to date bone, wood, plants, and any deceased living organism. Unfortunately, it can only date fossils as far back as 80,000 years, a mere speck of time when compared with the supposed age of the earliest living organisms. This greatly limits its usefulness so far as the Theory of Evolution is concerned. Here's how it works: Carbon 14 (scientifically written 14C) is commonly found in all living organisms. In fact, every time we eat, drink, or even breathe, more 14C is transferred into our bodies, most notably accumulating in our bones. But when we die, 14C ceases to be fed into our bodies, and actually starts to gradually disappear at a somewhat predictable rate. Therefore by measuring the amount of 14C which has disappeared from skeletal remains, scientists claim the age of the bones can be determined. Once again, accuracy problems plaguing the previous techniques also affect Carbon-14.k

One thing that the scientific dating techniques do show is that the earth is very probably much, much older than 10,000 years. But the accuracy of dating cannot be verified or proven, and evolutionists must always keep this in mind. For such an oversight could rearrange the fossil record significantly. We will show in another chapter that with a reasonable percent error calculated in to the evolutionists' figures as to when the various species evolved, the Biblical record of the order of species is amazingly accurate.

The Problems With Reconstructing Fossils
With all the talk evolutionists emit about fossils, one might think they have thousands of pristinely preserved replica's of the ancient creatures which roamed about the earth millions of years ago. But many would be surprised to know that the fossils in the fossil chain are not quite so complete as one might imagine. In fact, if evolutionists can find ancient human remains that are 40% complete they feel like they really have something to write home to mom about. 19 And typically the remains which are found are far less complete than 40%. And remember, human remains are the youngest remains of all - they are the easiest to find in semi-competed form. With other "species" finding complete remains becomes much more difficult.

Well, if fossils and ancient skeletal remains are so incomplete, how then do evolutionists come up with these amazing diagrams of ancient creatures that we see in our school text books? That's a question that more people ought to be asking. And the answer is quite simple: great imagination combined with unparalleled creativity.

To give an example, evolutionists have been known to reconstruct entire organisms from a single tooth - complete with height, weight, skin color and hair style. Perhaps nowhere else are the grand visions and rampant assumptions of evolution more fraudulently displayed than in the reconstruction of fossils.

But evolutionists complain that it's difficult to find complete remains when an organism is very old. This compels them to use great creativity in their reconstructions. But their failure to properly inform the general public of their tremendous inventiveness is where problems arise. The impression is that reconstructions are irrefutably accurate when in fact they may be entirely erroneous. Most tourists visiting the Smithsonian are totally oblivious to these facts, and evolutionists are more than happy to keep people in the dark since evolutionary evidence is so sparse.

Evolutionists are right - there certainly are many problems associated with reconstructing remains. Here's what typically happens:20

1) Most animals die a violent death, after which they are devoured by scavengers, and by the time the scavengers are through only hard bone is left.
2) These hard bones dry out under the sun and become brittle.
3) The brittle bones are crushed under the hoofs of grazing herds.
4) The bones are crushed, scattered, trampled and kicked around. Within only a few months of the kill the remains of an African zebra might be scattered over several hundred square meters, with some being literally miles away in the dens of hyenas.
5) By this time only the most durable portions of the skeleton are even recognizable, typically the lower jaw and teeth. (This explains the fan-fared announcements of ancient skeletal discoveries which usually consist of an interesting jawbone or a couple of teeth.)
6) If it / they are to be fossilized, the remaining bone(s) must be quickly buried in fine alkaline deposits. This is why most fossils are found near rivers and lakes, where many alkaline deposits exist.
7) Burial of the bones typically occur by flooding rivers which cover the bones gently. Even then, the bones are often uncovered and thus not preserved by fossilization. But since moving water is usually involved in fossilization, bones are harshly treated. A jaw bone might be torn apart with the teeth scattered all along a riverbed. Sometimes all that's left of a discovery is a single tooth.

To put it plainly, the situation with reconstruction of fossils is so unsatisfactory that some taphonomists (those who study how bones become buried) believe that reconstructing the distant past is practically impossible.xxi Sometimes even rock disturbances can make it look like a "new species" has been discovered when in fact the bones of the find have simply been distorted.
22

Java man" was reconstructed from a skull cap, a left femur, a piece of jaw, and 3 teeth. The Heidelberg man as seen in books is part beast part man. It was entirely reconstructed from a single lower jaw. We don't want to leave the impression that all reconstructions are exclusively examples of artistic inventiveness, since when sufficient skeletal remains exist sufficient artistic reconstructions can more accurately be made. Unfortunately, many of the most famous evolutionary finds do not fall into the latter category. 23

But this has not stopped evolutionists. They continue to imaginatively reconstruct their versions of ancient species from almost nothing. In an odd sort of way this actually helps them along in their proof of evolution, because their imagination can be used to fill in the gaps where the actual evidence is lacking. It can be used to reinvent creatures that will fit more nicely into the missing links of the fossil chain.

Boule's monster
As an example of the creativity of evolutionists going berserk we reference the disgraceful case of a supposedly ancient human skeleton discovered in 1908 in La Chapelle-Aux-Saints, France.
24 Evolutionists were thrilled in what appeared to be a virtually complete skeleton matching Neandrathal Man in posture. Marcellin Boule, the premier French paleoanthropologist, went to work trying to pictorially reconstruct the man's external appearance. When he was through, his reconstruction favored a slumping monster. Evolutionists merrily placed the "monster" in its appropriate spot in the evolutionary chain, and for several decades his position in the chain affected scientific thinking. It was not until years later that it was finally concluded the hunched Neandrathal was simply a humanoid with an advanced case of osteoarthritis. This embarrassing event exposed the wholesale extremes evolutionists were willing to travel to prove their theory correct. Even obvious facts were ignored. The truth, as usual, was the first casualty in the mad dash for scientific fame. Evolutionists had forgotten the proverb: "overzealousness leads to a lack of judgment."

Nebraska "Man"?
If an almost complete skeleton could be grossly misconstrued when reconstructed externally - such as the case of Boule's monster - one can imagine how far off some of the artistic reconstructions would be when all they had to start with was a lowly tooth.

Consider the case of the so-called "Nebraska Man."25Harold Cook uncovered the fossil of the Nebraska Man. It was announced that the remains dated back a mind-boggling 1,000,000 years - and that was considered a conservative estimate. The scientific world was in a state of wobbly bliss. From this single tooth, not only did evolutionists completely reconstruct the Nebraska Man but incredibly they went on to assume he was part of an extinct and previously unknown race of North America. This new race was in turn respectfully named after Mr. Harold Cook: Hesperopithecus Haroldcookii. Clearly, the evolutionists' imagination did not simply stop with reconstructing fossils, but it even went to the ridiculous extremes of recreating entire new races. Such creativity was even put to use in labeling their new finds.

Imaginations went wild about this new North American race. Literature abounded about Haroldcookii. Artistic depiction emerged displaying not only Nebraska Man himself, but his wife also. Humanity finally had proof that man lived at least 1,000,000 years ago!

With all of the excitement about Nebraska Man, only a few people doubtlessly realized that the reconstructions had hardly come from a complete skeleton, but a single tooth. The "Nebraska Man" would have been more accurately named "Nebraska Tooth." Yet from this single tooth evolutionists managed to stir up incredible publicity. In 1927, the reconstructed Nebraska Man was even placed into the fossil record much like a retired athlete is inducted into the Hall of Fame. Some called it the "million dollar tooth." Evolutionary thinking was influenced accordingly.

But once again the smiles turned to frowns, for it was later discovered that not only did the tooth not belong to a man, but it belonged to an extinct pig! This embarrassing event disclosed once again how incredibly foolish evolutionary scientists could be when they allowed themselves to be blinded from truth in the mad dash for fame. It showed that in the frenzied pursuit of proving a theory that was already assumed to be true, they too could be guilty of overlooking the obvious facts. For if evolutionists could reconstruct an entire human race from a pig's tooth, one wonders what else they've gotten badly wrong in the fossil record. One wonders about the reconstructions in the museums of our country. One wonders about the amazing diagrams found in our school textbooks.

It doesn't take a genius to see that any reconstruction from a small number of bone fragments should be viewed with a huge amount of skepticism. Although most non-evolutionists have known this all along through common sense, over-eager evolutionists have had to find out the hard way !If these cases were not so sad they would be humorous, but unfortunately these are the men who write the textbooks taught to our children.

Java "Man"?
In 1891 the most famous of all ape-men was found. Dr. Eugene Dubois, a Dutch evolutionist and physician, decided it was time to discover the missing link between apes and men. Such a find would ignite instant fame. He decided to do his archaeological digging in "out of the way" Java. After long and laborious work his excavations eventually turned up the top of a skull, a bone fragment (left thigh), and the expected molar teeth (3 to be exact). We can understand problems with reconstructing a human from a single tooth - but 3 teeth and the top of a skull was really something to work with. The entire evolutionary community was in ecstasy. They approximated the age of the bones to 750,000 years. Of course, there were a few "minor" problems, such as how could bones be preserved for 750,000 years in sand, which typically dissolves a skeleton within 5,000 years. And then that "little" thing of the bones being scattered over a good part of an acre - 70 feet apart to be exact. And, oh yes - there was the matter about the many other bones (of extinct animals) and debris mixed indiscriminately in the same pit.

It became obvious that Dubois had simply fished among some bones until he found 2 which looked like a match, and then located some teeth to go with the wardrobe. It's no wonder we see such "missing link monsters" in our school text books today. An artist could re-create some remarkable monsters if he had hundreds of bones out of a pit of extinct animals from which to make his selections!

To be fair, after further analysis even some evolutionists were skeptical. Several weren't sure the bones even came from a man. Some said man, some said ape, some said baboon, some said monkey. In fact, in a meeting of 24 eminent European scientists: 10 said ape, 7 said man, but only 7 believed the bones to represent the elusive "missing link." 26 Even H.G. Wells, the devout evolutionary historian, believed that not only did the bones belong to an ape, but probably 2 apes. And Dr. Dubois himself finally reversed his position, declaring that the bones aptly belonged to a gibbon. Yet even though the majority of evolutionists were dubious, "Java Man" is evidently still considered the most important proof of a missing link between man and ape.

Another search began for Java Man, and in 1926 the Science Newsletter announced another exciting find, this time evidently a complete skull of an ape-like creature which some believed to be the "missing link." Evolutionists were dismayed to learn that the "skull" was actually the knee-bone of an extinct elephant!

Heidelberg Man
Another famous museum exhibit is "Heidelberg Man," a massive jaw-bone discovered near Heidelberg (Germany) believed to be 700,000 years old. The date was later revised to 375,000 years old, which tends to make one a little suspicious about the accuracy of scientific dating techniques. Once again, with only a jaw to go on scientists differed in their opinions. Some believed it to be worth-while and others believed it was worth-less. Some said it definitely was not an intermediate between man and ape. One scientist demonstrated Heidelberg jaw to be practically an exact match to the skull of the modern day Eskimo. Another scientist pointed to an entire race of South Sea islanders possessing massive jaw bones.

And still yet another scientist observed that one may stroll down the streets of any major city and see example after example of men - and even a few women - with "Heidelberg jaw." Since there was confusion among scientists over how worthwhile the find really was, evolutionists had to resort to the old rule of thumb: when in doubt, always choose the assumption which best favors the evidence starved Theory of Evolution. Thus, Heidelberg Man can be seen today in reconstructed form within museums and biology books across the world.

Piltdown "Man"?
Just when we thought we'd heard it all, along comes the case of the "Piltdown Man." In 1912 an amateur fossilologist named Charles Dawson was doing some digging in a pit at Piltdown, Sussex, in southern England. He unearthed the piece of a skull, a piece of a jaw, and 2 molar teeth. Evolutionists acclaimed the find to be 500,000 years old. The famous creature was named respectfully Eoanthropus dawsoni in honor of its finder.27 Piltdown Man was considered so famous that he ranked second only to Java Man himself. Some believed him to be even older than Java Man. More concerned with proving the Theory of Evolution correct than proving the evidence correct, they lavishly re-created the Piltdown Man and proudly placed him in the illustrious British Museum. How could any sane-minded person doubt evolution now?

More than 40 years went by, when in October, 1956 a closer examination of the find was rendered. The results were titanically shocking. For it was determined that the jaw bone actually belonged to an ape that had died only 50 years prior! Worse, the teeth had actually been filed down to disguise their original shape, and both the teeth and bones had been artificially covered with bichromate of potash. It was a horrendous fraud. And yet for several generations schools had religiously taught the importance of Piltdown Man in the fossil record. Evolutionists were so eager to find evidence of the missing link that - for almost half a century - apparently no one bothered to stop and examine the finds scientifically! If there truly were no ulterior motives in attempting to prove the Theory of Evolution correct, if evolutionists truly were "skeptical" of suspicious and poorly documented answers, they would have immediately discounted the Piltdown reconstruction instead of sending it to the landmark British Museum as factual proof of their theory.28

Once again, the pre-disposed motives of evolutionists to prove their theory correct were exposed, and the evidence itself was "post-disposed of." But one wonders what other announcements of incompetencies await the unsuspecting general public.

More fraud. The 1959 discovery by Dr. Louis B. Leaky in Africa of a so-called primitive man was dated at over 1 million years old. But before his death in 1972, Leaky admitted it was nothing more than the skull of an ape.29

Evolutionists should be honest with the public. Few of the hundreds of thousands of people who file through the American Museum of Natural History realize how dubious the scientific evidence is when they gaze admiringly at the reconstructions of Java Man and Heidelberg Man, or any of the other forms the tourists ponder so acceptingly. What supposedly sets apart scientists from non-scientists is that they "ask questions about nature, pose hypotheses to answer the questions, and test the hypotheses. They are also skeptics, suspicious of poorly documented or contrived answers to their questions."30 Perhaps many evolutionary scientists need to re-read their own textbooks.

Again, we do not want to leave the impression that all dating techniques and skeletal reconstructions are completely erroneous. We do however want to make it clear that evolutionists have not been entirely honest with the public in their feverish quest to prove evolution to the religious world. We challenge them to examine the facts and be careful about the conclusions they draw - and when the evidence is not actually there, to avoid the temptation of trying to ram a square peg into a round hole. It's time evolutionists took another look at their true motives. It's time they told the truth. It's time they examined the evidence and admitted that the empirical proof of macro-evolution is conspicuously absent.

The Mutations Theory
Due to the many glaring problems with the Fossil Theory, it was evident that more proof would be needed for the Theory of Evolution. Along came the Mutations Theory.31 The Mutations Theory contends that Natural Selection was "helped along" by mutating species. If the Mutations Theory could be proven correct, it would provide the explanation evolutionists badly needed for why species changed so drastically - for as we've already noticed, the concept of Natural Selection simply didn't provide adequate proof of this. Evolutionists were hoping that mutations would offer an empirical, modern-day explanation for how rapid shifts of evolution among species could occur.

What Is A "Mutation?"
A mutation is an abnormal characteristic which appears in a newborn organism - it is the result of altered DNA within a gene or genes. Of course, the DNA making up the genes is what contains the codes determining the characteristics we inherit from our parents.

To be more descriptive, every human body is made up of millions of cells. Each cell (except reproductive cells)has 46 chromosomes, 23 which come from the mother and 23 from the father. Every single cell of the body contains an exact copy of all these 46 chromosomes, or hereditary instructions, defining the characteristics of the entire body. For example, inside the genes is stored the information determining a person's hair color, skin color, left / right handedness, etc. As with human beings, most animals and plants also have in each cell a set of paired chromosomes.

Sometimes, however, sections of the chromosomes (or genes) get mixed up, changed, or "mutated." Things such as chemicals and radiation can cause these mutations to occur. When mutations occur, new, unusual and abnormal hereditary characteristics are often introduced. When the mutations are simply minor errors in the genes, the results aren't severe and the changes are minor. But when the gene mix-ups are major the abnormal, results can be horrifying.

For example, a child might be born without legs, with one eye in the middle of its forehead, with no brain, etc. One can readily see that the vast majority of mutations - if not all mutations - would be of no use at all to the Theory of Evolution. That's because a mutated species would probably be one of the first creatures to be eliminated by Natural Selection - hardly a more robust creature capable of surviving beyond the norm. And, of course, the mutation will not be passed on to the offspring unless the mutation occurred directly to the reproductive cells.

The odds that Mutations could create a new species is enormous. It is mind-boggling to ponder the galactically huge improbability of cells accidentally rearranging themselves along the DNA strand into such an order that it would - by repeating the process - eventually propagate an entirely new organism. But Evolutionists claim this is exactly what happened. They call these mutations "favorable mutations." They claim that through sheer probability over the vast periods of geologic time, multitudes of chance "favorable" mutations have produced characteristics that have produced sufficient change in the species to account for macro-evolution. For a moment, let's give them the benefit of the doubt.

Consider the following: typically only 1 birth within a species out of 1,000,000 births will be mutated. A rare occasion for most species, needless to say. Of the mutations that actually do occur, most result in the death of the organism. Those which remain alive are usually neutral - in other words, changes made to the organism are small and insignificant. But Evolutionists think that every once in a very long while, a "favorable mutation" occurred.

But they say that the ratio of favorable versus harmful mutations ranges from 1 favorable mutation in 10,000 mutations to 1 favorable mutation in 1,000,000,000 mutations. If this latter estimate is anywhere close, this means that it would take a minimum of 10 billion births before a single "favorable" mutation occurred.32

Once again, the scientific facts produce another major problem for Evolutionists: most species will have long since become extinct before favorable mutations could possibly have had a chance to accumulate, interbreed, and ultimately reproduce new and evolutionarily advanced "species." At this rate, extinction of the species in question would have already occurred due to environmental conditions or other factors! The only exception would be a species with a huge population and a short generation, allowing many possibilities for mutations. Evolutionists claim that species with 1,000,000,000,000,000 individuals and a life cycle of 3 months or less might be able to adapt to minor environmental challenges. Ants, termites, bacteria, and viruses would fall into this category. But it should be readily pointed out that even if these organisms were to "evolve," they would quickly find themselves in the more advanced categories of species which reproduce far less frequently. Then the reputed process of evolution would come to a screeching halt.

It's plain to see that if the above estimates are accurate, a species will typically become extinct long before mutating enough to constitute a speciation. Remember, one "favorable mutation" does not mean we have a new species, it merely means we have a new characteristic introduced into a single individual. Also, the mutation would have to affect the organisms reproductive cells or the trait would not be passed on. Then this gene would need to be passed down to posterity which would hopefully, after millions of more births, experience another mutation, and so forth. The accumulation of mutations would then need to be arranged so perfectly as to eventually produce entirely different offspring. Even if this happened (and all the evidence suggests that it did not), how long do you suppose it would take for a larger species (such as a snake species) to develop into a lizard? Far more time than the age of the universe, to be sure. And keep in mind that (according to Evolutionists) the average species goes extinct every 5,000,000 -10,000,000 years, and vertebrates every 2 million years. 33

And think of what would be required for an eyeless creature to somehow, by random changes of DNA, develop a fully functioning eye! Nothing as advanced as the development of new organs is possible by mere mutation, much less the development of new species.m Once again, the empirical scientific evidence disagrees with the Theory of Evolution.

Rather than to abandon Evolution, Evolutionists have chosen to manufacture yet more new theories. They have theorized that at times in the past there may have been larger numbers of mutations produced. This falls pitifully short of a viable explanation, because such large numbers would threaten the survival of all individuals, mutated and unmutated alike. This would cause decrease in the population rate and therefore a decrease in the mutation rate.34 The honest seeker of truth must admit that mutations aren't the solution to the evolutionists' problems.

Banana flies prove disappointing. Because banana flies reproduce so rapidly, scientists decided to use them to prove that mutations could create entirely new species - species totally different from their ancestors and more advanced in survival, more suited to the environment. Their plan was, among other things, to expose the banana flies to extremely high doses of radiation. This would significantly increase the normal rate of mutation. Perhaps they could accelerate the rate of Evolution by the equivalent of hundreds of millions of years.n The high mutation rate combined with the short generation span of the banana fly would surely produce some interesting new species. Their intention was to separate mutated specimens and continually try to breed stranger and stranger banana flies until a new species was developed. And the first person to come up with a new species would of course become instantly famous - perhaps some scientists envisioned Nobel prizes and world tours.

The experiments started in the 1940s and have evidently continued relentlessly for 50 years. Banana flies were mutated, bred, and separated billions of times. Did the banana fly change into a bumble bee? Or perhaps a June bug? Surely a common housefly at the very least? Once again, dreams turned to nightmares, for in spite of the enormous efforts to create a new species nothing of the sort happened. But what they did succeed in doing was to create an unparalleled freak show of banana flies with red eyes, white eyes, little wings, and big wings. They produced live flies and dead flies. But after many, many generations what they basically still have today is a banana fly.35 And although testing has been expanded to other organisms other than the banana fly, still no new species have been documented.

DNA Comparisons
As mentioned, DNA contains the instructions regarding every aspect of our body. DNA is inherited from an organism's parents. There have been some amazing new breakthroughs in modern science concerning our understanding of DNA, and evolutionists were hoping these discoveries would help prove the Theory of Evolution - which they already "knew" was correct - to in fact be correct.

Eventually someone made a comparison between the DNA of apes and humans using the protein albumin, common to both species.34 The hope was that these DNA protein comparisons would prove that apes and humans were genetically similar, and in fact they were able to find similarities between the two.

It must be understood that what evolutionists did in this experiment - namely, picking out one of the many proteins in the human body and comparing it to the same protein in an ape - is practically meaningless. There are tens of thousands of different kinds of proteins in the human body alone. Obviously, with this many proteins you are eventually going to be able to find some proteins that are similar in all living creatures. But regardless of this, whether a single protein in the human body is found to resemble or even be identical to a protein of an orangutan, chimpanzee, hippo, goose, or any other creature, proves nothing at all for the Theory of Evolution. Life forms should be expected to be similar - after all, they are all life forms! If we define an automobile to be something with 4 wheels and a place for passengers to travel, should we be amazed when we find similarities among certain cars? Likewise, if life is defined to be something which can reproduce, respond to stimuli, maintain internal organization and metabolism, etc., shouldn't we expect even the most varied examples to be somewhat similar? But to suggest that protein similarity implies evolution is distant circumstantial evidence.

Why don't chromosome comparisons agree with the Fossil Record? We have seen - when it comes to comparing DNA in apes and humans - that the practically meaningless DNA results tell us little (if anything) so far as evolution is concerned. But further DNA comparisons revealed some very troubling results for Evolutionists, because the progression they expected was no where to be found.

Consider the following comparisons of the number of chromosomes (chromosomes are segments of DNA) in a selected number of species. The number of chromosomes in each somatic (non-reproductive) cell of the species is listed:

Plants: alga 24 and 48 (depending on species)
moss 40
bracken fern 64
pine 24
onion 16
lily 48
wheat 20
peas 14
Animals: protozoan 1600 (approx.)
earthworm 32
snail 48
crayfish 208
housefly 12
trout 24
chicken 18
horse 60
cattle 16
man 48

Note that the above groups are arranged in the approximate order that Evolutionists believe they evolved.37 Evolutionists were of course expecting the number on the right to become progressively larger as the organism became progressively more complex. Plainly, the relationship Evolutionists expected didn't exist. Evolutionists apparently have no explanation for this. They can't explain why a crayfish would have more chromosomes than a man if man is the most complex organism in the fossil chain. Or why a simple earthworm would have more chromosomes than cattle. Or why an uncomplicated snail has the same number of chromosomes as a human. How is this to be explained by evolutionists? And practically the simplest of all organisms - the protozoan - has more chromosomes than them all!

Not only do these genetic comparisons not imply Evolution, but - once again - they join the mounting evidence which suggests the high improbability of macro-evolution ever happening in the first place.

The Geographic Distribution Theory
The Geographic Distribution Theory makes one quickly understand why the Fossil Theory is the trump card of evolution. This theory was developed after Evolutionists recognized that there were certain species in certain isolated regions of the world which could not be found in any other location of the world. This, they assumed, must mean these species evolved.

Take the famous case of the Grand Canyon squirrels.38
Evolutionists have observed that one species of squirrel - harrisi - has apparently been geographically isolated by the huge canyon from another species of squirrel - leucurus. They have come to this assumption because the 2 squirrel families are similar. Leucurus lives on the north side of the canyon and harrisi lives to the south. Because the leucurus is slightly smaller and has a shorter tail which is white underneath, while the harrisi is slightly larger with a longer tail which is not white underneath, Evolutionists actually provide this as evidence that a new species has evolved.

It's fairly easy to recognize that about all this is another example of the changes that can occur within an already existing species through repeated breeding. It's an example of micro-evolution. Much like we can breed dogs to be black, white, big and small, geographic distribution has allowed some species to be isolated and produce their own unique characteristics. Like Natural Selection, it hardly comes close to proving that such inbreeding eventually leads to vastly different looking creatures that bear no resemblance to their ancestors. In other words, when it's all said and done you still have squirrels - and only squirrels.

Moreover, the changes we see in connection with Geographic Distribution are easily explained: white furred animals are more likely to survive in snow-covered regions and be killed in other regions, with the opposite being true in non-snow-covered regions. This is simply a common-sense fact of nature, not some obscure proof of evolution.39 Needless to say, the Theory of Geographic Distribution does not prove anything so far as the mainstream Theory of Evolution is concerned.

The Embryology Theory
Of all the attempted explanations of Evolution, perhaps the Embryology Theory is the most absurd. This theory insinuates the following: since an embryo in the womb of a pregnant woman (or any other "mammal") gradually progresses from one cell to a fully developed organism; and since, during pregnancy and at various stages, one can observe (with some imagination) certain evolutionary ancestral characteristics; this must mean that "mother nature" has left behind testimony of how we macro-evolved over the past 3.5 billion years.

Although this sounds like an old wives fable, it is actually a seriously promoted theory among many Evolutionists. One can read of it repeatedly among evolutionary authors, where it is presented with utmost gravity. In fact, in The World Book Encyclopedia the Embryology Theory is proudly presented as one of the main proofs of evolution.40 At one time perhaps it was understandable that people could be coaxed into believing this theory. Technology was not very advanced and the public had to rely solely on what "experts" told them. And such trust was a free ticket for fraud. Some of the first drawings presented to the public, done by Ernst Haeckel (showing different embryos and common characteristics) were later admitted by Haeckel to be distorted to help prove Evolution. He admitted that they were not true to life and confessed that he would feel condemned by admitting this had it not been for the fact that many other scientists had also doctored, schematized and reconstructed their drawings.41 Perhaps the public of past decades had reason to believe in scientists of dubious character and motivation. Today, however, there is little excuse for placing credibility in the Embryology Theory.

Major problems. One can immediately see the problems with this theory. If you look at an evolutionary flow chart of how man supposedly evolved from a one-celled organism - and you compare this with the stages of embryological development - there are practically no similarities.42 One has difficulty finding sea squirts, 4-finned fish, reptilian iguanas, or gorillas inside the womb of a pregnant human at any given time. Or when has a woman miscarried at some stage of pregnancy only to produce an eel, shark, crocodile, kangaroo, or chimpanzee? (Although Evolutionists do not suggest that a miscarriage would produce these creatures, this is what a logical follow-through of the Embryology Theory would lead one to believe. If the Embryology Theory is to be taken seriously, all of the ancestors from the evolutionary chain should be observable during pregnancy. It is not logical to point to 1 or 2 stages of pregnancy and suggest these may resemble an evolutionary ancestor when all of the many other species in the fossil record are entirely absent in the developing embryo.) This is something that we would expect to read about in the National Inquirer rather than a college text book. It is truly insulting to the reputable science of biology. If given enough time, empirical science will almost surely bear this out.

Take a look at an illustration of human evolution and see if you can match all of the ancestors of humanity to some stage of embryological development. Remember, every single stage of human embryological development should look like a creature down the human fossil chain if the Embryology Theory is to be taken seriously.

Now, what about those "clues" that Evolutionists claim "Mother Nature" left behind? The zygote resembles the amoebae. Does the 1-celled embryo (the zygote) look like the first entry into the fossil record - does it look like a prokaryotic cell? The chief similarity between the 2 is that they are both small and they are both 1-celled. Yet in actuality they are very different organisms. One is prokaryotic and the other eukaryotic (the embryo). And unlike the human embryo, a prokaryotic cell has the ability to locate food, capture food, eat food, and reproduce itself entirely. It is completely self-sufficient. The human embryo, on the other hand, is a very specialized cell designed to grow into a vast array of amazing cells. It will become nerve cells, blood cells, bone cells, muscle cells, brain cells, stomach cells, and lung cells to name a few.

Fish in the womb. Evolutionists have suggested that the human embryo lives like a fish and has gills. But such is not the case. First, an embryo does not live in water but in amniotic fluid. Second, a fish "breathes" oxygen from the water while an embryo does not breath at all. Oxygen comes from the bloodstream of the mother. Third, Evolutionists say the human embryo has "gills" which is a sign of past evolution. But the folds of flesh they refer to as "gills" never form slits or openings at all. This tissue actually later develops into jaws, larynx and glands - none of which have anything to do with respiration.

Tails in the womb. Some will say: "But what about the tail an embryo develops during pregnancy? Surely that is proof-positive we used to be a mammal with a tail, such as a chimp, dog, or even an alligator." It is true that at some stage of pregnancy the human embryo grows something that resembles a tail. But the "tail" is simply the terminal portion of the backbone, which, like anything else, does need an end! The backbone has a faster rate of growth than some of its surrounding parts, causing it to project beyond the surrounding parts at certain stages of pregnancy. Does this mean "Mother Nature" is leaving clues, or could it be true that the backbone is the logical first stage of growth much like a foundation is the first stage of a building? The former explanation is certainly lacking in evidence.

Hairy babies. "But what about the hair a baby develops and sheds shortly before birth - this must be nature telling us we used to be apes," Evolutionists will say. But the truth is, there are hair follicles all over the human body. The fact that these follicles grow more vigorously at certain stages in pregnancy has no more to do with demonstrating evolution than a rooster's crow makes the sun rise.

It's time for Evolutionists to accept the Embryology Theory entirely or reject it completely. Evolutionists admit that human embryos have retained only some of the developmental features of our evolutionary ancestors. But where are the others? As suggested before, shouldn't we be able to see the whole chain of evolution if we can see any part of it? Why are practically all stages missing? And why is it true that the vast majority of stages in the human embryo's development could not possibly have been included in evolution?

Evolutionists cannot have it both ways. It's time Evolutionists came up with some scientific answers instead of wishful thinking. Evolutionists need to either accept the Embryology Theory entirely along with the embarrassing consequences of defending their position, or reject it completely and leave it out of the biology textbooks. They should stop trying to have their own cake while eating it too.

One may ask: "If the Theory of Evolution is based upon such overwhelming evidence then why should evidence like this be presented at all?" That's a good question. Why should such evidence take up so much space and time in college textbooks? A great deal of highly circumstantial evidence is usually proof that there is very little real evidence. For if there were a great deal of real evidence there would be no need for the circumstantial.

Scientists should be embarrassed. To think that grown scientists present such a venture as evidence of evolution is truly embarrassing. Such should be ranked with the snake potion theories of out-dated medicine. Even though we are living in the 20th Century, such old-wives fables continue to be presented as scientific evidence in our school textbooks. Truly the Embryology Theory illustrates the level of desperation to which Evolutionists are reduced in proving their theory. The Embryology Theory is not science - it's wild speculation. Yet many Evolutionists still cannot understand why billions of people today continue to view the Theory of Evolution with such skepticism.

The Vestigial Organs Theory
The Vestigial Organs Theory is another example of presumed circumstantial evidence for the Theory of Evolution. A vestigial organ is a bodily organ that performs no recognizable function, but which Evolutionists believe used to perform a meaningful function inside the body of an evolutionary ancestor.

The Appendix
The appendix is one of Evolutionists' favorite vestigial organ examples. In the human body there seems to be no known use for the appendix. Some even argue it is harmful. Yet each ape has an appendix which is undoubtedly useful in helping it to digest plant material. Therefore Evolutionists maintain that the appendix in the human body is a vestigial organ. It exists in the apes, but when humans evolved from apes there was no more use for the lowly appendix. It simply ceased to function while remaining in the body.

But if there truly is no use for the appendix any more, why hasn't the process of evolution removed the appendix entirely from the species? Why would it leave the organ behind? If evolution is smart enough to produce larger, stronger, and more intelligent species - and eliminate all the other organs it doesn't need while creating highly complex new organs which it does need - why hasn't it eliminated the appendix? Of course, the Evolutionists will respond that evolution moves in all directions: positive, negative, and unchanging. This allows them to categorize any irk or quirk of nature as evidence of evolution, including their so-called "Vestigial Organs Theory" which - if the truth be known - actually opposes the mainstream notion of evolution. As we've already noticed, evolution implies that species generally go from small, weak, and witless to large, strong, and intelligent - more capable of surviving in the environment while packing around no useless luggage.

As far as the latest understanding of the appendix's usefulness is concerned, scientists are in disagreement. Some think it adds lubricating fluids to the contents of the intestines; others think that it may have an endocrine function; other say it secretes small amounts of digestive juices; and still others think that it may manufacture some white blood cells. It may even serve a combination of functions. But to jump to the conclusion that it is vestigial is highly presumptuous.43

Blind Fish. Another example Evolutionists point to are certain fish which appear to have eyes that can't see, in some cases where the optic nerves are not even attached. Meanwhile, Evolutionists have observed that their "evolutionary ancestors" did in fact have eyes. To say that the eyes therefore serve no function since they serve no known function is a bit presumptuous, for it may be later determined that the eyes were used for deceptive purposes or other reasons. For example, in the case of 2-headed fish it has been noted that one head (which is not really a head, but a look-alike) is used as a decoy for survival.44

If a fish does not have eyes but its ancestor does, once again evolution is moving in the wrong direction. Instead of producing more complex, more capable creatures, it's producing less capable, less complex creatures. Organisms which, if anything, have less of a chance of surviving instead of the opposite. It would be difficult to conceive of how a creature could be better off without eyes. Is it more capable of surviving without eyes? Wouldn't the species be better off with the capability of using eyes when it migrated to regions where food was visible? Which direction is the fossil chain going, anyway?

Snake Legs and more. It's been observed that some snakes have spur-like structures where you would expect to find hind legs in other animals. Are these proof that the snake had ancestors possessing legs? Evolutionists certainly believe so. But it has been discovered that the spurs actually have a use after all. Biologists have apparently noticed that they are used in combat to strike the enemy, and some believe they are also used to secure traction for locomotion.xliv

Endocrine glands. Until recently, Evolutionists also thought that endocrine glands were vestigial remnants. Now medicine has found a purpose for them as well.45

More Assumptions. By now the reader is used to hearing about assumptions and circumstantial evidence. Once again, to use vestigial organs as evidence of evolution, one must first assume that the organ in question has no beneficial use for the body. Needless to say, scientists have been wrong more than once about the function of bodily organs. After all, bodily organs do, for the most part, seem to have reasons for being there! And isn't it amazing how our list of vestigial organs decreases as our storehouse of scientific knowledge increases? Remember, the extent to which an organ is used is not the issue - the issue is whether or not it's used at all.46

Evolution Directly Observed
One of the main complaints that continues to be lodged against evolution is simply that it has never been directly observed. If a phenomenon has never been observed, then one is forced to rely largely upon circumstantial evidence to prove it happened. But some Evolutionists claim they have actually seen the process of evolution with their own two eyes.

The peppered moth of Britain. As an example of evolution directly observed Evolutionists use the peppered moth of Britain. At one time the moths in Britain were all white, seemingly so they could easily blend in with the white plants (such as lichens) that grew there abundantly. But in the mid 1800s, unregulated factories in Britain poured out soot that killed plants and blackened trees. Consequently the birds had trouble finding the black moths to eat, but the white moths were easy to spot. Not surprisingly, since the birds fed mostly upon the white moths, the black moths prevailed and white moths practically disappeared. The surviving black moths mated with other black moths to produce more black moths. Later, in the 1900s when government regulation forced factories to "clean up their act," the white moths became more abundant. Thus Evolutionists say we have here an example of Natural Selection - the evolution of white moths into black moths and then back into white moths. We have proof that species change.

No one disagrees with the plain fact that we have certain types of moths being eliminated because they were vulnerable. But we do not have a case of white moths turning black because of evolution - because both white and black moths already existed prior to this time! Moths already had the genes for black and white in their DNA. White moths prevailed because black moths were being eliminated, and vice-versa. Obviously, about all Evolutionists have here is an example of why some species may have become extinct.

Does this mean the Jews are an example of evolution? Calling the moth example "evolution" would be like calling Hitler's appalling and horrific genocide of the Jews from Germany "evolution." Simply because Jews at one time lived in Germany, then at one time did not, and today a few have returned, is no indication of human evolution at all - because Jews and Germans both existed prior to the mass executions. The genocide simply made one race of the human species far less in number in a certain area for a certain period of time. Yet this terrible catastrophe is actually an example of what Evolutionists would call "Evolution directly observed."

To date, regardless of what Evolutionists will say, a bonified example of evolution has yet to be directly observed. Therefore they are reduced to using such pointless examples as the peppered moth of Britain.

Evolutionists attempt to explain how organs evolved. Since true, direct observation of evolution is currently impossible, Evolutionists have been forced to explain how bodily organs evolved. If it's impossible to demonstrate the macro-evolution of species, then the next best thing would be to display an example of a single, complex organ developing - wouldn't it?

Think about it. How would an organ such as an eye evolve? How could it be formed as a result of Natural Selection? How could it be the result of mutations? The eye is a massively complex organ. More technology exists within it than in all the modern world combined. Remember too that the first 1-celled creature didn't have an eye. How did nature know to develop eyes and put them in exactly the right places, perfectly aligned on our heads?

Evolutionists, as always, have an answer. Upon the body of an eyeless creature ages ago there was evidently a pimple, freckle, or possibly a pigment of skin. When light shone on the creature, the pimple was more sensitive than the rest of the skin. It must have felt good. Apparently the little creature turned the sensitive spot towards the sun to absorb more sunlight, much like a vacationer at the beach. Over untold millions of years the spot became increasingly irritated and gradually became a nerve and finally turned into an eye. It's that simple. (To get legs, simply start with a wart. The creature finds that the wart can be used to help propel itself along, and over the vast ages the wart turns into a leg.)p Such "explanations," though apparently believed by many Evolutionists, hardly dignify a response in this age of scientific advancement.

In all cases, arms, legs, eyes, and wings are always fully developed. If evolution were true, we should be able to see many cases of intermediate forms of development! In fact, we should be able to see practically all the intermediate forms of development of the various organs. But not only are there "missing links" in the fossil record, there are no intermediate links at all between internal organs from one individual in the chain to the next. And a key question remains: how could an organism "know" it needed to develop an eye, and thus start evolving it millions of years in advance, while none of the intermediate forms would be of use to the organism at all! When Evolutionists can explain how an organ such as this could have developed, then perhaps they will covert more to their incredible beliefs. As it stands, it is truly unimaginable that the myth of evolution is actually being sold to millions of people across the world.

II. Evolution by Artificial Selection
Finally, we have those who say that "Artificial Selection" is more proof of evolution. Artificial Selection is simply the breeding of certain animals such as dogs. Dog breeders will take dogs and farm them to produce all kinds of interesting results, some clearly superior in certain qualities (i.e., size, intelligence, agility), and some not so superior but just as lovable.

Certainly no one in the world would deny that it is possible, by artificial breeding, to create different looking dogs. But as has already been pointed out numerous times, the evidence has yet to show that micro-Evolution could produce macro-Evolution. There is no proof that, over the process of millions of years of breeding dogs, a dog might become a horse, elephant, or kangaroo. Not surprisingly, Artificial Selection turns out to be Artificial Evidence.

What Must We Conclude? About his new-fangled Theory of Evolution, Darwin wrote: "The main conclusion arrived at in this work, namely that man is descended from some lowly organized form, will, I regret to think, be highly distasteful to many."47 Darwin was right. The overwhelming lack of tangible, competent evidence still makes the Theory of Evolution highly distasteful to many today. The theory that nothing evolved into something which evolved into a 1-celled organism, which evolved into a worm, which evolved into a fish, which evolved into an amphibian, which evolved into a reptile, which evolved into a mammal, which evolved into man - is untenable.

Even the most prejudiced of Evolutionists must admit that there is more than reasonable doubt to be suspicious of the Theory of Evolution. It is a totem pole of assumption built upon assumption. Assumptions within themselves rouse suspicion, but many of the evolutionary assumptions are utterly preposterous. Indeed, every major point of the Theory of Evolution remains under attack. And yet, there is no other atheistic explanation for how life got here.

Although most people outside the scientific world don't know and for the most part probably don't care, the Theory of Evolution is in trouble. Evolutionists Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall wrote the following (speaking of evolution): "To date, no set of ideas about anything has remained inviolate [inviolated]. Change of ideas so far seems inevitable. This includes most of our fondly cherished ideas..."48

Roger Lewin in Human Evolution confessed that "geological history, and therefore the history of life on earth, is much more unpredictable than thought before". 49 Practically the entire Theory of Evolution has been based upon a predictable, continuing process from billions of years ago until now. This assumption is also the foundation for the scientific dating techniques, which depend upon chemical content remaining constant within artifacts throughout time. And if the dating techniques are wrong, the fossil record is wrong.

Even with all of the problems and doubts, because the origin of life has no other "scientific" explanation, evolution continues to be accepted by much of the scientific community. It is still considered a fact. Many scientists are unwilling to admit that the entire Theory of Evolution itself may be a farce.

Scientific theories have been very wrong before! There was a time in the distant past when society gullibly accepted what the "intellectuals" of the day told them, without questioning the "facts." There was a time when, if scientists said there were 777 stars in the universe, many would have believed them. There was a time when, if a doctor said having leaches suck out a person's blood was actually good for one's health, many would have believed him. There was a time when, if scientists said the earth was flat, many would have believed them. There was a time when many robotically accepted any form of human authority as truth, whether it originated from the newspaper, the television, the government, or the scientific majority.

But that time has long since passed. Such evolutionary assumptions insult the intelligent mind. Building one assumption atop another and expecting humanity to blindly accept the end result is gross optimism. If the world stands long enough, the honest pursuit of technological science will doubtlessly be forced to place the Theory of Evolution alongside the many other fallen, fallacious theories of science history. Nor should the existence of advanced technology today lead one to believe that science is infallible. For technology does not assure the absence of scientific failures, it merely makes the failures more respectable.

Revised 2-20-2000, 3-7-2000, 3-20-2000 by Rick Cutter. All materials herein are copyrighted and may be reproduced for non-commercial use only, unless permission granted by author. All rights reserved.

Intelligent Design Molecular Evidence
“Because of enormous advances in biochemistry, it has become possible to compare not just the visible features of organisms, but also their molecules." [Darwin on Trial, Phillip E. Johnson, pg. 92-101]

Molecular mechanisms are irreducibly complex. What this means is simply that they are made up of many parts that interact in complex ways, and that all the parts need to work together. Any single part has no useful function unless all the other parts are also present. There is no pathway of unctional intermediate stages by which a Darwinian process could build such a system step by step. The example of a tornado tearing through a wrecking yard and assembling a working Boing 747 --- is not even a possible “Alice in Wonderland” concept here for the Darwinists..

1) Life consists not just of matter (chemicals), but of matter and information (DNA).
2) Information (DNA) is not reducible to matter, but a different kind of “stuff” altogether. A theory of life thus has to explain not just the origin of matter, but also the independent origin of the information.
3) Complex, specified information of this kind found in a book or a biological cell cannot be produced either by chance or at the direction of physical and chemical laws.

[Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, Phillip E. Johnson, pg 75, 77]

So, then, how is it possible that the information (DNA) arrived “by random chance” at the precise time it was needed to produce life?

References1. World Book Encyclopedia (Chicago, Illinois: World Book Incorporated, 1993), vol. 6, page 439.
2. Roger Lewin, Human Evolution, An Illustrated Introduction (New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1984), page 3.
3. Birx, Theories of Evolution, page 13.
4.W.A. Criswell, Did Man Just Happen?, page 54
5. Webster's Illustrated Contemporary Dictionary (Chicago, Illinois: J.G. Ferguson Publishing Company, 1984).
6. Dr. Hugh Ross, Creation and Time (Colorado Springs, Colorado: NavPress Publishing Group, 1994), page 78.
7. Ross, page 78.
8. Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982) page 51.
9. Ehrlich and Ehrlich, Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species, page 33.
10. Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species (New York: Ballantine, 1981), page 23.
11. Cora Reno, Evolution: Fact or Theory? (Chicago: Moody Press, 1953), page 37.
12. Neil A. Campbell, Lawrence G. Mitchell, Jane B. Reece, Biology Concepts and Connections (Redwood City, CA: The Benjamin / Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., 1994), page 4.
13. World Book Encyclopedia (Chicago, Illinois: World Book Incorporated, 1993), vol. 6, page 439.
14. Lewin, Human Evolution, An Illustrated Introduction, page 9
15. Birx, Theories of Evolution, page 315.
16. Lewin, Human Evolution, An Illustrated Introduction, page 9
17. Cora Reno, Evolution: Fact or Theory? (Chicago: Moody Press, 1953), pages 31-35.
18. Pierce and Alberto Angela, The Extraordinary Story of Human Origins (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1993), page 289-.
19. Lewin, Human Evolution, An Illustrated Introduction, page 33.
20. Lewin, page 32-33.
21. Lewin, page 32.
22. Cora Reno, Evolution: Fact or Theory? (Chicago: Moody Press, 1953), page 37.
23. Cora Reno, Evolution: Fact or Theory? (Chicago: Moody Press, 1953), pages 74-75.
24. Eldredge and Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, page 76.
25. W.A. Criswell, Did Man Just Happen? (Lewisville, Texas: Accelerated Christian Education, Inc., 1982), page 64.
26. W.A. Criswell, page 66.
27. Charles Blinderman, The Piltdown Inquest (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books), page 4
28. Harold Hill, How did it all begin? (Plainfield, New Jersey: Logos International, 1976), page 35.
29. Harold Hill, How did it all begin? (Plainfield, New Jersey: Logos International, 1976), page 36.
30. Neil A. Campbell, Lawrence G. Mitchell, Jane B. Reece, Biology Concepts and Connections (Redwood City, CA: The Benjamin / Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., 1994), page 6.
31. World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 6, page 437.
32. Dr. Hugh Ross, Creation and Time, page 79.
33. Lewin, Human Evolution, An Illustrated Introduction, page 3.
34. Ross, page 80.
35. W.A. Criswell, Did Man Just Happen? (Lewisville, Texas: Accelerated Christian Education, Inc.), page 85.
36. Lewin, page 18-21.
37. A.O. Baker and L.H. Mills, Dynamic Biology Today (Rand McNally & Co., 1949), page 590.
38. Neil A. Campbell, Lawrence G. Mitchell, Jane B. Reece, Biology Concepts and Connections (Redwood City, CA: The Benjamin / Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., 1994), page 282.
39. Cora Reno, Evolution: Fact or Theory? (Chicago: Moody Press, 1953), page 61.
40. World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 6, page 436.
41. Cora Reno, Evolution: Fact or Theory? (Chicago: Moody Press, 1953), pages 65-66.
42. Victor B. Eichler, Atlas of Comparative Embryology (St. Louis: The C.V. Mosby Company, 1978), page 186-189.
43. Cora Reno, Evolution: Fact or Theory? (Chicago: Moody Press, 1953), page 48.
44. Cora Reno, Evolution: Fact or Theory? (Chicago: Moody Press, 1953), page 50.
45. W.A. Criswell, Did Man Just Happen? page 98.
46. Cora Reno, Evolution: Fact or Theory? (Chicago: Moody Press, 1953), page 47.
47. Lewin, Human Evolution, An Illustrated Introduction, page 6.
48. Eldredge and Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, page 65.
49. Lewin, Human Evolution, An Illustrated Introduction, page vii.
50. Lewin, Human Evolution, An Illustrated Introduction, page 8.

e In the previous chapter we noticed the problems of Chemical Evolution - Evolutionists latest theory to explain how life came from random chemical reactions. The only problem is that, given today's atmosphere, even the most fundamental of required reactions could not have taken place. Therefore they were forced to fabricate an entirely new atmosphere to accommodate this beleaguered attempt.

f The study of fossils is called "paleontology" or "fossilology."

g There are many different kinds of fossils: casts of fossils found in mud, petrified bone, organisms captured in resin or gum, animals trapped in frozen mud, animals trapped in tar, etc. (W.A. Criswell, pages 48-49).

h One ledge in California is exposed 600 feet deep for about 1/2 mile. It is estimated that this one ledge alone contains more than 10 billion fossils.

I Darwin wrote: "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can [be] urged against the theory."

j Geologists split the earth's history into various "eras:" Azoic (began at formation of the earth), Archeozoic (began 2.6 billion years ago), Proterozoic (began 650 million years ago), Paleozoic (began 570 million years ago), Mesozoic (began 225 million years ago), and Cenozoic (began 65 million years ago). Eras are further subdivided as well [Giovanni Pinna, The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Fossils (New York: Facts on File, Inc., 1990), page 21, 32].

k There are also other problems with Carbon 14 dating. Scientists can't be sure of atmospheric conditions thousands of years ago, therefore they can't be sure about the amount of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere, which would affect the amount of it accumulating in living organisms. Sunspots, Aurora Borealis (Northern lights), and filtration from the atmosphere all affect the amount of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere. Furthermore, at one time there must have been a universal tropical climate across the earth. We know this because dinosaurs would have needed about 1000 lbs of tropical vegetation a day. How would climate and vegetation changes affect Carbon 14 in the atmosphere? (Harold Hill, How did it all begin? (Plainfield, New Jersey: Logos International, 1976), page 47.)

l A great stir was also generated by the exciting discovery of "Southwest Colorado Man," another tooth. After completely reconstructing Southwest Colorado Man, it was later found that the tooth belonged to a horse.

m Some viruses reproduce every 30 minutes, meaning scientists can observe over 17,000 generations within 10 years. But where is the evidence of speciation?

n ABC news reported that after only 10 years of high exposure to radiation fallout from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine, the organisms remaining in the area underwent the equivalent of 9,000,000 years of Evolution. Unfortunately for the Evolutionists, no new characteristics had been introduced into any of the organisms in the fallout area.

o Another example of evolution going in the wrong direction is the whale, which has fins that supposedly used to be the legs of an ancestor. Evolutionists need to explain why the whale started out a fish, crawled onto land and then decided to go back to the ocean a few million years later. Meanwhile, some of the same original fish supposedly developed legs for land and then decided to become apes and humans. Such nonsense is insulting to the intelligent mind. One would also tend to think that humans, the most advanced "species," should have more legs than horses, their evolutionary ancestor. At the very least they should have been like apes, using the front "legs" as arms and legs. Some animals have as many as 100 legs. Why did humans evolve backwards?.

p Evolutionists also need to explain how organs evolved that needed to be complete before they could be used at all. Take the spider's highly specialized web-spinning organs, for instance. While the spider was busy evolving these organs of millions of years - organs which were vital for trapping its food so it could survive - it would have starved to death since they couldn't be used until they were completed.

WHAT CAN YOU DO? You can look at the evidences for God as our creator and accept the authority of Christ [again, by examining the evidence] by doing what He commanded (Matthew 7:21; John 14:15; 15:10-14; Luke 6:46). Notice the pattern for becoming a Christian as revealed in the Scriptures. The Gospel was heard, resulting in faith (Romans 10:17). Repentance of (turning away from) sin (Acts 17:30) and confession of Jesus as the Son of God followed (Romans 10:10). Believers were baptized INTO Christ for the remission (forgiveness) of sins (See Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Mark 16:16; Romans 6:3-5; 1 Peter 3:20-21), and added to His church (Acts 2:47). Christians were taught to be faithful even to the point of death (Revelation 2:10).

WE WELCOME YOU Following the instructions of the Scriptures, members of Christ’s body assemble as congregations for worship, encouragement, and Bible study. The congregation in your community welcomes you to investigate the Bible with us. With a spirit of brotherly love we would seek to reconcile any differences by following the Bible ONLY. We recognize the Bible as God’s inspired word, the ONLY reliable standard of faith and practice. We desire the unity for which Christ prayed and which the Bible emphasizes in the expression, “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” Together we seek to maintain “the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

A friendly welcome awaits you. We do not wish to embarrass you in any way. You will not be asked for contributions. We assemble for Bible study and worship each Sunday morning and we welcome you to meet with us. We would be happy to talk to you about your questions and we want to be of encouragement.

Please contact me, Dennis Crawford, at BibleTruthsToU@gmail.com, or 253-396-0290 (cell) for comments or further Bible information, or for the location of a congregation belonging to Jesus Christ near you.

Read more!