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

Chapter 23b:

Scientists Speak

Evolutionist scientists say the theory is unscientific and worthless


Thoughtful scientists have concluded that, not only is evolutionary theory a total waste of time, but it has greatly hindered scientific advancement as well. Scientists work at a great disadvantage, try to make everything fit the theory, and ignore the mass of evidence which does not.

It is totally useless.

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde et la Vie (October 1983) [Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France].

It is a serious obstruction to biological science, and everything must be forced to fit it.

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but rather is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbildng, 1954, p. 11

It has resulted in a scientific retreat from factual thinking.

"The doctrine of continuity [evolutionary theory] has always necessitated a retreat from pure empiricism [facts and scientific testing], and contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 353.

It has produced a decline in scientific integrity.

"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species.


In this section, we shall listen to what scientists have to say about *Charles Darwin and his writings.

*John Dewey, the leader of "progressive education" and a confirmed evolutionist, said that *Darwin’s book affected all future views toward morals, politics, and religion.

"The Origin of Species introduced a mode of thinking that in the end was bound to transform the logic of knowledge, and hence the treatment of morals, politics, and religion."—*John Dewey, "The Influence of Darwinism on Philosophy," in Great Essays in Science, p. 18 (1957).

*Mora explains that all of Darwin’s theories run counter to the facts.

"Unfortunately for Darwin’s future reputation, his life was spent on the problem of evolution which is deductive by nature . . It is absurd to expect that many facts will not always be irreconcilable with any theory of evolution; and, today, every one of his theories is contradicted by facts."—*T. Mora, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 194.

*Darwin’s theory in relation to fossils is a theory and nothing more.

"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."—*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb (1882), pp. 181-182.

If one tiger is "fitter" than another, that does not prove that it evolved from something or is evolving into something else.

"Darwin made a mistake sufficiently serious to undermine his theory. And that mistake has only recently been recognized as such . . One organism may indeed be ‘fitter’ than another . . This, of course, is not something which helps create the organism . . It is clear, I think that there was something very, very wrong with such an idea." "As I see it the conclusion is pretty staggering: Darwin’s theory, I believe, is on the verge of collapse."—*Tom Bothell, "Darwin’s Mistake," Harper, February 1978, pp. 72, 75.

*Darwin tried hard to provide us with a comprehensive theory, and that is all that can be said in its favor. *Macbeth says it well:

"It seems that the standards of the evolutionary theorists are relative or comparative rather than absolute. If such a theorist makes a suggestion that is better than other suggestions, or better than nothing, he feels that he has accomplished something even if his suggestion will obviously not hold water. He does not believe that he must meet any objective standards of logic, reason, or probability."—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), pp. 71-78.

His theories have been found to be inadequate, outmoded, and invalid.

"I assert only that the mechanism of evolution suggested by Charles Darwin has been found inadequate by the professionals, and that they have moved on to other views and problems. In brief, classical Darwinism is no longer considered valid by qualified biologists."—*N. Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971).

*Darwin himself admitted that the evidence for evolutionwhich should be found in the fossil stratasimply was not there.

"Charles Darwin, himself the father of evolution in his later days, gradually became aware of the lack of real evidence for his evolutionary speculation and wrote: ‘As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?’ "—*H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1968), p. 139.

Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence.

"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence."—*R. Kirk "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review (May 27, 1983), p. 841.

*Darwin launched science into a maze of research in an effort to find proof for his theory, yet it is but the pursuit of a will-o’-the-wisp.

"A great deal of this work [research work stimulated by Darwinism] was directed into unprofitable channels or devoted to the pursuit of will-o’-the-wisps."—*W.R. Thompson (Introduction), Darwin’s Origin of Species, (1983), p. 20.

*Darwin’s underlying objective was to fight against God.

"The origin of all diversity among living beings remains a mystery as totally unexplained as if the book of Mr. Darwin had never been written, for no theory unsupported by fact, however plausible it may appear, can be admitted in silence."—*L. Agassiz on the Origin of Species, American Journal of Science 30 (1880), p. 154.

*Darwin convinced himself, and then tried to convince others. The result: fragile towers of hypothesis.

"When I was asked to write an introduction replacing the one prepared a quarter of a century ago by the distinguished Darwinian, Sir Anthony Keith [one of the "discoverers" of Piltdown Man], I felt extremely hesitant to accept the invitation . . I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial. If arguments fail to resist analysis, consent should be withheld and a wholesale conversion due to unsound argument must be regarded as deplorable. He fell back on speculative arguments.

"He merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others.

"But the facts and interpretations on which Darwin relied have now ceased to convince.

"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman’s Library issue of Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1958 edition).

*Himmelfarb spent years analyzing *Darwin’s writings.

"[Darwin could] summon up enough general, vague and conjectural reasons to account to this fact, and if these were not taken seriously, he could come up with a different, but equally general, vague and conjectural set of reasons."—*Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and Darwinian Revolution (1988), p. 319.

An ever-higher mountain of speculations was gradually erected by *Darwin.

"[In Darwin’s writings] possibilities were assumed to add up to probability, and probabilities then were promoted to certitudes."—*Op. cit., p. 335.

*Kuyper, a contemporary of *Darwin’s, recognized the terrible danger to those new theories.

"The doctrine of evolution is a newly invented system, a newly concerted doctrine, a newly formed dogma, a new rising belief which places itself over against the Christian faith and can only found its temple on the ruins of our Christian confession."—*Dr. Abraham Kuyper, "Evolution," speech delivered in 1899.

Evolutionary theory may not be the root of the tree of evil, but it lies close to it. The root is the love of evil; evolution provides an excuse for continuing that indulgence.

"This monkey mythology of Darwin is the cause of permissiveness, promiscuity, pills, prophylactics, perversions, abortions, pornography, pollution, poisoning, and proliferation of crimes of all types."—*Braswell Dean, 1981 statement, quoted in Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 92 (Atlanta Judge).

*Denton, a careful Australian scientist, gets to the heart of the problem: There is no evidence for the theory.

"[Darwin’s theory that all evolution is due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes] remains as unsubstantiated as it was one hundred and twenty years ago. The very success of the Darwinian mode at a microevolutionary level [finding change within species] . . only serves to highlight its failure at a macroevolutionary level [finding change across species]."—*Michael Denton, Evolution; A Theory in Crisis (1985), pp. 344-345.

While he was alive, *Darwin admitted it.

[In a letter written to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology:] "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."—*Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1918), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].

It is all just a myth.

"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century . . the origin of life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the Beagle."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 358.

A century and a half of research has provided not one whit of evidence.

"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . .

"Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say, this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."—*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devani la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.

Fallacious solutions without any real answers.

"The theory of evolution gives no answer to the important problem of the origin of life and presents only fallacious solutions to the problem of the nature of evolutionary transformations."—*Jean Rostand, quoted in *G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Tiansformisme devani la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 419.

It is too easy to complacently think that a theory has, with the passing of time, changed into a fact.

"Because scientists believe in Darwinism, there is a strong social tendency in this kind of situation for everybody to become satisfied with a weak explanation."—*Op. cit., p. 22

Haugton is quoted as having said this to *Darwin in 1858, a year before the publication of Origin:

"When Darwin presented a paper [with *Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, ‘All that was new was false, and what was true was old.’ This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and *N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.

Haugton is also quoted as having said this to *Darwin:

[Speaking to Darwin:] "[If your theory accomplishes what you intend,] humanity, in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it, and sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen, since its written records tell us of its history."—*Ibid.


One thing is certain: If scientists—and the rest of us—decide not to accept the folly of evolution, the only alternative is Creation. If stars, planets, plants, animals, and men did not make themselves,then the only alternative is that God made them!

"Either evolutionary change or miraculous divine intervention lies at the back of human intelligence."—*S. Zuckerman, Functional Activities of Man, Monkeys and Apes (1933), p. 155.

Either God created everything, or everything made or evolved itself.

"Such explanations tend to fall into one or the other of two broad categories: special creation or evolution. Various admixtures and modifications of these two concepts exist, but it seems impossible to imagine an explanation of origins that lies completely outside the two ideas."—*Davis and *E. Solomon, The World of Biology (1974), p. 395.

Everywhere we turn, in the animate and inanimate, we see specific design and careful purpose. Only an Intelligent Being of massive intellect and understanding could have produced it all.

"Honest thinkers must see, if they investigate, that only an infallible Mind could have adjusted our world and its life in its amazing intricacies."—Paul Francis Kerr, quoted in F. Meldau, Why We Believe in Creation, Not Evolution, pp. 50-51.

There are no other possibilities. "Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not."

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not . . If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.

Evolutionary theory is not a science, for it has no facts to support it.

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory. Is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation—both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction" to The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, pp. x, xi (1971 edition).

The alternative theory, Creation, has the facts to support it.

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.

The two cannot (cannot!) be reconciled. Either the first one must be accepted and the second rejected, or the second must be accepted and the first rejected. And the facts are only on one side.

"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms; but rather in the oldest rocks, developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].

The concept that the universe has no origin, no plan, and no norms—produces people with no purpose, no fulfillment, and no future.

"It was because Darwinian theory broke man’s link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 87 [Australian molecular biologist].

There are two alternatives, and no third one.

"The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position."—*George Wald, "Origin of Life," Scientific American, August 1954, p. 48.


The charge is frequently made that belief in a Creator and Creation is merely part of "religion" and devoid of scientific evidence. Throughout these series of books we have clearly observed that all the evidence is on the side of Creation, not evolution. Now we shall learn that it is evolution which is a religious faith. Yes, it is true that there are religious people who believe in Creation, but it does not take religiosity to accept scientific evidence. On the other hand, it requires the religious fervor of evolutionary theory to reject all that evidence and cling instead to a myth.

Darwinism is a mythology all in its own.

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loran Eisley, The Immense Journey (1957), p. 199.

It is a faith.

"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."—*L. Harrison Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of Species," pp. xxii (1977 edition).

Evolution makes man into his own god. It is "a non-theistic religion."

"Humanism is the belief that man shapes his own destiny. It is a constructive philosophy, a non-theistic religion, a way of life."—*American Humanist Association, promotional brochure.

This bewitching power that captivates men so that they will live and die in defense of pointless thinking and factless theory is termed by them a "religion."

"It is a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds over men’s minds."—*Encounter, November 1959, p. 48.

A co-developer of the Piltdown Man hoax, said this:

"A Belief in Evolution is a basal [basic] doctrine in the Rationalists’ Liturgy."—*Sir Arthur Keith, Darwinism and its Critics (1935), p. 53.

The theory of evolution, up the ladder from simple organisms to more complex ones,requires a level of faith not based on fact; this is astonishing.

"If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous."—*R.E.D. Clark, Victoria Institute, 1943, p. 63.

Is evolution, then, a science or a faith? Lacking evidence for its support, what is it?

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory. Is it then a science or faith?"—*L.N. Matthews, "Introduction" to *Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species (1971 edition), pp. x, xi (1971 edition).

There are thousands of facts in support of Creation and the existence of the Creator who made that Creation. But evolution is a solo fide; it is by faith alone.

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone . . exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."—*Louis Trenchark More, quoted in Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur, p. 33.

The best description of the facts discovered by geologistsis to be found in the book of Genesis.

"If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral, people such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis."—*Wallace Pratt, quoted by W.L. Copithorne, in "The Worlds of Wallace Pratt," The Lamp, Fall 1971, p. 14.

After looking over all the evidence, the Genesis account of Creation is far more believable than is the evolutionary tale.

"Given the facts, our existence seems quite improbable—more miraculous, perhaps, than the seven-day wonder of Genesis."—*Judith Hooper, "Perfect Timing," New Age Journal, Vol. 11, December 1985, p. 18.

*Rifkin glories in the fact that, because of evolutionary theory, he no longer needs to justify his behavior to any Higher Being. He desires to be the god in his own universe.

"We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else’s home and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of preexisting cosmic rules. It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We create the world; and because we do, we no longer feel beholden to outside forces. We no longer have to justly our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves; for we are the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever and ever."—*Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny (1983), p. 244.

*Rifkin tells us that "evolution somehow magically creates greater overall value and order." In blatant violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, *Rifkin sees all disorder producing more perfect order.

"We believe that evolution somehow magically creates greater overall value and order on earth. Now that the environment we live in is becoming so dissipated and disordered that it is apparent to the naked eye, we are beginning for the first time to have second thoughts about our views on evolution, progress, and the creation of things of material value . . Evolution means the creation of larger and larger islands of order at the expense of ever greater seas of disorder in the world. There is not a single biologist or physicist who can deny this central truth. Yet, who is willing to stand up in a classroom or before a public forum and admit it?"—*Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View (1980), p. 55.

Evolution has became a scientific religion which men come and bow before and yield their reasoning powers.

"In fact [subsequent to the publication of Darwin’s book, Origin of Species], evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit with it . . To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all . . If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being? . . I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me; but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p. 138 (1980) [emphasis his].

We do not know how it could have happened, we have no evidence, and appealing to it as our religion is no solution.

"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical method of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, ‘Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.’—The recent researches of workers like Dean and Henshelwood (1964) already suggest the possibility of incipient cracks in the seemingly monolithic walls of the neo-Darwinian Jericho."—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London 177:8 (1966).

The theory is merely an article of faith, part of the atheistic creed.

"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.

It has become an orthodoxy that is preached with religious fervor. Only those lacking in faith hesitate to accept this theory with no evidence supporting it.

"Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically, Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy. Preached by its adherents with religious fervour and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith."—*M. Grene, "Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, November 1959, p. 49.

It takes plenty of faith, boys, plenty of faith.

"Evolution requires plenty of faith: a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which if generated spontaneously would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that in reality would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken but would only hopelessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that when realized always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionist; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist’s arguments to zero and facing the need to invoke a supernatural creator."—R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1981), p. 455.

Evolution would require incredible miracles; and it matters not whether they be fast or slow. They would still be incredible miracles.

"Slowness has really nothing to do with the question. An event is not any more intrinsically intelligible or unintelligible because of the pace at which it moves. For a man who does not believe in a miracle, a slow miracle would be just as incredible as a swift one."—*G.K. Chesterton (1925).

By deifying *Darwin, men have retarded the progress of science.

"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They’ve seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—*Colin Patterson, The Listener (senior paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London).

Evolution is based on faith alone, for there is no fact to accompany it.

"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."—*Arthur N. Field.

"Acceptance of evolution is still based on a great deal of faith."—L.W. Klotz, Lutheran Witness Reporter, November 14, 1965 [college science teacher].

It has become the great religion of science.

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.

It gives to mankind the most incredible of deities: random chance.

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity: omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.

It is a creed dispensed by the intellectuals to the great masses of mankind.

"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors."—*S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982).

It is an entrenched dogma that substitutes for religion.

"[Karl] Popper warns of a danger: ‘A theory, even a scientific theory, may become an intellectual fashion, a substitute for religion, an entrenched dogma.’ This has certainly been true of evolutionary theory."—*Colin Patterson, Evolution (1977), p. 150.

It is the underlying mythology in the great temple of modern atheism.

"Evolution is sometimes the key mythological element in a philosophy that functions as a virtual religion."—*E. Harrison, "Origin and Evolution of the Universe," Encyclopaedia Britannica: Macropaedia (1974), p. 1007.

*Lessl says that *Sagan’s boastful declarations, about evolutionary theory, actually changes matter and energy into a god with moral qualities.

"By calling evolution fact, the process of evolution is removed from dispute; it is no longer merely a scientific construct, but now stands apart from humankind and its perceptual frailties. Sagan apparently wishes to accomplish what Peter Borger calls ‘objectification,’ the attribution of objective reality to a humanly produced concept . . With evolution no longer regarded as a mere human construct, but now as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, evolution becomes a sacred archetype against which human actions can be weighed. Evolution is a sacred object or process in that it becomes endowed with mysterious and awesome power."—*T. Lessl, "Science and the Sacred Cosmos: The Ideological Rhetoric of Carl Sagan," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71:178 (1985).

The American Humanist Association, founded in 1933, is the 20th-century equivalent of the 19th-century American Atheist Association and is one of the leading evolutionists’ bastions in the United States. A decade later it became a non-profit organization. Notice that they themselves consider it a "religion":

"Humanism is the belief that man shapes his own destiny. It is a constructive philosophy, a non-theistic religion, a way of life . . The American Humanist Association is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization, incorporated in the early 1940’s in Illinois for educational and religious purposes . . Humanist counselors [can be called upon] to solemnize weddings and conduct memorial services and to assist in individual value counseling."—*American Humanist Association promotional literature.


The Mexican fly, Ululodes, lays a batch of eggs in clumps on the underside of a twig, then moves farther down the twig and lays another clump. But the second batch has no eggs in it. It is a brown fluid with smaller club-shaped kernels. This fluid neither hardens nor evaporates, but remains liquid for the three or four weeks till the eggs farther up the twig hatch. Along comes an ant, searching for food, and runs into the brown liquid. Touching it, the ant jumps back, cleans itself frantically, and quickly leaves. The eggs are safe.


Billions of processes occur every second within every square inch of your body, requiring the direct guidance of God.

For example, your body is composed of tiny cells—so small that there are 1,000 of them in an area the size of the dot at the end of this sentence. Here is how protein is made within each of those cells:

Among many other things, there are codons in your cell DNA. The sequence they are in determines the precise order in which amino acids will be linked up, so that proteins and enzymes (a type of protein) can be made. There are 20 types of amino acids and over 2,000 different types of proteins and enzymes, each with its own complicated structure which must be continually manufactured—and they are constructed extremely fast by protein particles which have no brains!

In brief, the DNA contains the blueprint, and the RNA uses it to make the various proteins and enzymes.

Messenger RNA (mRNA) copies the code from a part of the DNA strand (the process is called "transcription"). The mRNA then travels with the information over to the ribosomes, an assembly area made of ribosomal RNA (rRNA). Meanwhile, transfer RNA (tRNA) in the cytoplasm is busily combining with exactly the right amino acids needed by the rRNA for the task, and then carries them over to the ribosomes to be matched up with the mRNA. All done by particles without brains.

At the same time, other ignorant proteins go to the cell wall and haul back amino acids which just entered by themselves (usually just the exact amount needed!) to the DNA for this assembly operation.

Where do those additional amino acids come from? Exactly the correct number and type of amino acids must jump off the blood cells which are speeding by at fairly fast rate, and push through the solid wall of the cell. (The wall itself keeps everything not needed from entering.) Once inside, the amino acids are taken to the assembly area. All these functions are done by mindless substances, yet everything is done extremely fast and in just the right way. From piles of 20 different kinds of amino acids, over 2,000 different—extremely complex—proteins and enzymes are formed, to replace worn-out ones. Also see pp. 280-281.

But that is not the end of the amazing story. As soon as each new protein is made, it instantly folds into an apparently tangled heap— which is always in the exact shape that the protein should be in.

This process is repeated trillions of times every second in your body by unthinking particles, lacking nerve cells attached to your brain.




1 - In section 1 (Evolutionists Explain Their Objectives), evolutionists explain their purposes in devising these strange theories. List some of them.

2 - The evolutionists have had over a hundred years to come up with outstanding scientific evidence supporting their theory. But, instead, in section 2 (Best Evidences of Evolution), they list a strange set of "best evidences." What are they? Why do not the evolutionists, instead, present scientific facts in support of their theory?

3 - Section 3 (Scientists Speak against Evolution) discusses several urgent reasons why people must be warned against evolutionary teaching. Discuss some of them.

4 - In section 4 (Scientists Declare Evolution to be Unworkable and Useless), conscientious scientists have something to say about the foolishness and underlying fallacies of the theory. Write out two of the statements that you think summarizes the situation well. Which writer said it best? Why?

5 - In section 5 (Scientists Maintain that Evolution Hinders Science), scientists speak about the great damage an adherence to the theory has done to scientific progress in the 20th century. Thoughtfully explain three ways it has hindered the acquirement of learning by scientists.

6 - Charles Darwin is the man who got the full-blown theory started over a century ago. Scientists have words to say about him also. Discuss four problems that they find with Darwin and/or his writings (Section 6, Scientists Speak about Darwin and His Book).

7 - It is of highest significance that there are only two alternatives: One must either choose evolutionary theory or the facts about Creation and the Flood. In section 7 (Only Two Alternatives), recognized scientists acknowledge this. Which writer says it the best? Why?

8 - A key issue is the fact that evolutionary theory is itself a religion! In section 8 (Evolution Is a Religious Faith) are statements establishing the fact. Write out two quotations that say it well.