Home / Science VS Evolution / PDF /Encyclopedia  /Pathlights Home / Bookstore


You think what you have read is startling. Here is the rest. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

CONTENT: Six Strange Teachings of Evolution: 2

4: Evolution Operates from Less Complex to More Complex: Random actions tear down and destroy at least as often as they build
5: Evolution Operates from Less Perfect to More Perfect: How can random chance ever operate solely toward greater perfectness?
6: Evolution Is Not Repeatable: According to the theory, the same change could never happen twice. Evolution requires that changes be made which make brand new species that have never existed before.
Conclusion: The utter folly of these conclusions is remarkable

This material is excerpted from the book, MUTATIONS. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.


The accidents are said to keep making more complicated, organized systems.

Because of this hypothesis, evolutionists are particularly devastated by the statements of scientists that the forms of life in the Cambrian—the lowest—sedimentary level, are very complex.

"For years evolutionists have been constructing phylogenetic, or evolutionary, `family trees' on the basis of the supposed `one way' character of the fossil record. Using present day specialized forms, they have gone back into the fossil record, looking for more generalized ancestors of the present day forms."—Marvin L. Lubenow, "Reversals in the Fossil Record," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1977, p. 186.

The study of random action and random numerical order and operations is know as "probabilities." Any mathematician or student of probabilities will tell you that randomness never (1) works exclusively from less complex ordered designs to more complex ordered designs, and (2) in fact, randomness never produces any complex order of any kind! Random action only ruins, crumbles, scatters. It never builds or produces better organization or more involved complexity.


The accidents keep improving and making everything better.

This teaching directly clashes with another theory of Darwinists that evolution, produces useless organs or "vestiges" (discussed in Vestiges and Recapitulation).


The same wonderful accident can never happen twice the same way.

*Patterson declares that evolutionary theory is safe from the prying eye of scientific analysis, for it deals with events "which are unrepeatable."

"If we accept Popper's distinction between science and nonscience, we must ask first whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is scientific or pseudo-scientific (metaphysical) . . Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a simple process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable, and so not subject to test."—*Colin Patterson, Evolution (1978), pp. 145-146.

*Dobzhansky agreed:

"The evolutionary happenings . . [of paleontology and paleobiology are] unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible."—*T. Dobzhansky, "On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology," in American Scientist, 45 (1957), p. 388.

Elsewhere, *Patterson again reiterated the past occurrence of evolution, and agreed with *Popper that the theory was "metaphysical" and not "scientific."

"So, at present, we are left with neo-Darwinian theory: that evolution has occurred, and has been directed mainly by natural selection, with random contributions from genetics drift, and perhaps the occasional hopeful monster. In this form, the theory is not scientific by Popper's standards. Indeed, Popper calls the theory of evolution not a scientific theory by `a metaphysical research programme.' "—*Colin Patterson, Evolution (1978), p. 149.

Thus, the experts tell us that there is no evidence for evolution. Yet, if any evidence could be found in defense of the theory, you can be assured that evolutionists would be quick to bring it forward and triumphantly declare their theory to now rank in the category of "science."

Does evolution only deal with "unrepeatable" events? As far as the random evolving of each species is concerned, yes that would be true. Each species is unique and therefore—if evolutionary theory were true—the chance production of each species would indeed be a once-and-forever, nonrepeatable occurrence.

But, to the sorrow of the evolutionists, there is more to it than that: For each such species, a series of nonrepeatable transitional species leading up to it from the species it evolved out of—should also be found. If evolution is ongoing, and millions of species now exist, the fossil record should provide us with an abundance of evidence for transitional species in the past. We should find them all through the sedimentary strata, for there are millions of distinct fossil species there. We should also see large numbers of the transitional forms alive today. But such is not the case; all we find are separate and distinct species. One of the largest single sections of scientific quotations on a single topic—to be found anywhere in the set of books this web Encyclopedia is based on (Scientists Speak About Fossils), deals with admissions by scientists that there are only distinct species and only gaps between those species in the fossil record. That one (one!) point alone totally annihilates the possibility that biological evolution has occurred on this planet.

We know, from genetic and amino acid data in DNA and Cells, that an immense species barrier exists within each species; a barrier which cannot be crossed. But, before leaving the matter of "unrepeatable," let us consider one more factor:

If random action of harmful mutations and so-called "natural selection" is supposed to be able to produce only ONE of a kind of each type of new species—and never again be able to duplicate the feat,—then NO new species could be produced, for each nonrepeatable event task would have to happen TWICE—in order to produce both a male and a female! If that did not occur, the single new species could not breed and reproduce more of its kind.


The utter folly of these assumptions are remarkable.

Evolution reminds us of a giant puzzle, which keeps getting bigger the more we work at it. The more we try to solve the problem, the more there is to solve. It is a never-ending task.

Of course there is a simple solution: just trash the whole theory.

If the above six beliefs of evolutionists are to be accepted as true, then it means that which evolutionists are not willing to openly admit: Natural selection can only operate to improve the organism; mutations can only work to increase the size, complexity, and perfection of the structure. Yet these are obviously contradictions to scientific reality! Although evolutionists do not care to admit it, that is what their complete evolutionary teaching requires!

But, in truth, as we have observed, "natural selection" is nothing more than random reshuffling of the genes within the species in any direction, and "mutations" constitute nothing more than harmful damage to genes and DNA, and damage that is totally unpredictable in its outcome.

When fruit flies are irradiated, the veteran scientists working with them have absolutely no idea what the result will be. Never will an honest geneticist tell you that exposure damage from a typical X-ray irradiation exposure can only result in improvements: (1) bigger fruit flies, (2) more perfect fruit flies, (3) more complex fruit flies, or (5) new species which are not fruit flies.

The utter foolishness of evolutionary theory opens up before us as we consider these five requirements governing how it is supposed to operate. Evolutionary theory is truly childish. Only a child below the age of ten would come up with such a set of propositions. It is ridiculous. Marvelous organs—heart, blood vessels, liver, kidney, brain, eyes—that are said to originate only from the random action of extremely harmful mutations, thereafter improved by random accidents called "natural selection."

And then to say that these chance actions must only be permitted to occur along certain directional lines which, by the very nature of randomness, are irrational! The dreamy thinking underlying the speculations of these men is there revealed. It not only is not scientific, it lacks even common horse sense.

Why are such men allowed to coerce all 20th-century scientific thought and research into one desperate attempt to prove their silly tales? They consume the time and funding of universities and governments in their frenzied research. They dig into the deepest ocean and fly to outer planets in hope of proving their point. The truth is that evolution makes gods of the men who decree these ideas. All the world is told to bow down and worship their thinking as though it were infallible. They must be gods;—how else can any mere mortal be wise enough to defy the laws of logic and nature, and presume to inerrantly state the outworking of events in the distant past in a manner that is in violation of all law?


To the next topic in this series: FRUIT FLIES SPEAK UP: and they really have something to say! Those little fellows have disproved evolutionary theory!