Evolving Double Standards

National Review ^ | April 01, 2004 | John West

[Heartlander]

April 01, 2004, 9:00 a.m.

Evolving Double Standards
Establishing a state-funded church of Darwin.

By John G. West

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is on the front lines of the battle to keep religion out of the nation's science classrooms. A group whose self-described mission is "Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools," the NCSE routinely condemns anyone who wants to teach faith-based criticisms of evolutionary theory for trying to unconstitutionally mix church and state.

But in an ironic twist, it now turns out that the NCSE itself is using federal tax dollars to insert religion into biology classrooms. Earlier this year, the NCSE and the University of California Museum of Paleontology unveiled a website for teachers entitled "Understanding Evolution." Funded in part by a nearly half-million-dollar federal grant, the website encourages teachers to use religion to promote evolution. Apparently the NCSE thinks mixing science and religion is okay after all — as long as religion is used to support evolution.

The purpose of the "Understanding Evolution" website is to instruct teachers in how they should teach evolution, and the federal government (through the National Science Foundation) came up with $450,000 for the project. As might be expected, the science presented on the website is rather lopsided. Although there are vigorous arguments among biologists about many aspects of neo-Darwinism, teachers aren't informed about those scientific debates, ignoring guidance from the U.S. Congress in 2001 that "where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist."

But the strangest part of the website, by far, is the section that encourages educators to use religion to endorse evolution. Teachers are told that nearly all religious people, theologians, and scientists who hold religious beliefs endorse modern evolutionary theory, and that indeed such a view "actually enriches their faith." In fact, teachers are directed to statements by a variety of religious groups giving their theological endorsement of evolution.

For example, educators can read a statement from the United Church of Christ that "modern evolutionary theory... is in no way at odds with our belief in a Creator God, or in the revelation and presence of that God in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit." Needless to say, statements from thoughtful religious groups and scholars who critique Darwinism because of its claim that the development of life was an unguided process are not included. Nor is there any indication of the fact that, according to opinion surveys, the vast majority of Americans continues to be skeptical of Darwin's theory of unguided evolution.

This effort to use religion to endorse evolution is part of a larger public-relations strategy devised by the NCSE to defuse skepticism of neo-Darwinism. On its own website, the group advises inviting ministers to testify in favor of evolution before school boards, and it has created a Sunday-school curriculum to promote evolution in the churches. The NCSE even has a "Faith Network Director" who claims that "Darwin's theory of evolution... has, for those open to the possibilities, expanded our notions of God."

Eugenie Scott, the group's executive director, is an original signer of something called the Humanist Manifesto III, which proclaims that "humans are... the result of unguided evolutionary change" and celebrates "the inevitability and finality of death." Although a non-believer herself, Scott apparently understands the political utility of religion.

Of course, as a private group, the NCSE has every right to use religion to promote its pro-Darwin agenda, whether or not it is sincere. But what about using government funds to do so?

Taxpayers might wonder why it's the government's business to tell them what their religious beliefs about evolution should or shouldn't be. Presumably this government grant was supposed to be spent on science, not on convincing people that evolution comports with "the revelation and presence of...God in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit." Where's the ACLU when you really need it? It's difficult to see how the website's presentation of religion even comes close to following Supreme Court precedents on the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

One wonders whether those at the NCSE appreciate the irony of their situation. All over the country they have tried to prevent the teaching of scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory as an unconstitutional establishment of religion. But here they spend tax money to promote evolution, explicitly invoking religion, and that's supposed to be okay.

It seems the Darwinists have overseen the evolution of a new species of religion-science crossbreed: one that fits their agenda.

— John West is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and an Associate Professor of Political Science at Seattle Pacific University.

[Dimensio]

I beg your pardon, but they do sight "nothing" in public school text books.

You mean 'cite'. I'll bite. Quote a public school text that cites 'nothing' as the origin of the species.

Also, you have to start from "nothing" because there had to be a beginning at some time.

Yes, there has to be a beginning. Why would that necessitate "nothing"?

[Cowgirl]

First, I have seen the text books, I don't own them.
Second, there had to be nothing because time started at
the point of creation. Before that there was no time.
The evolutionists are saying we evolved but they have
no idea how we life first began or even matter. They
are only guessing at what they see.

[Dimensio]

First, I have seen the text books, I don't own them.

So you made an assertion that you can't support.

Second, there had to be nothing because time started at the point of creation.

Problem 1: assuming a "creation".
Problem 2: this has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

The evolutionists are saying we evolved but they have no idea how we life first began or even matter.

How life first began and how matter first began are not relevant to the theory of evolution.

They are only guessing at what they see.

Who is this "they", and to what specific guesses are you referring?

[Junior]

Regardless of what you may have seen or not seen, the theory of evolution does not cover the origins of life, or the universe. Your claiming so shows that you cannot even get the simple stuff right. Your credibility with more complex issues is therefore shot.

[Heartlander]

This ‘irony’ that you enjoy is at your own expense. Though a fool and his ‘worth’ have no transactions…

[Heartlander]

I agree with the Discovery Institute on this one issue. Science courses should not mention religion, period. Going through a list of religions which endorse evolution is getting too close to an establishment of religion for my taste.

How very Bright of you…
(assuming you are still a member of the established ‘bright’ organization that is organized against established religion…)

I hope and believe you were being sarcastic in post #54…
(Is it OK to hope and believe in a ‘bright’?)

[Heartlander]

The Miller-Urey Experiment is very basic OOL theory and falls under the evolution subject matter in high school textbooks. This has been shown to you many times.
You should question the ‘motives’ of the writers of high school textbooks to save your own credibility.…

[Junior]

It falls under the heading of "biology experiment" in text books, not "evolution." Your conflating the two is wrong.

[Cowgirl]

I have seen what the text books in the grade schools teach and they lie all the time by saying something is a fact when they don't know it as fact. They use phoney charts. The whole thing is fraudulant. I think that means THEIR credibility is in question, not mine.

[Cowgirl]

What evidence do you have? In fact, I just hear mantras
from you guys. The issue is that text books are teaching lies in order to prove evidence of evolution. If it is so
proven, why do they have to use lies to make their case?

[Dimensio]

What evidence do you have?

Well, for starters, how about "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" (thanks to PH for the link).

Please debunk every point offered there before asking for more evidence.

In fact, I just hear mantras from you guys.

The only possible explanation for this is that you are debliberately ignoring people when they provide evidence for evolution.

The issue is that text books are teaching lies in order to prove evidence of evolution.

So you say. You've yet to provide a single example of a textbook doing this.

If it is so proven, why do they have to use lies to make their case?

If these alleged sources (which you have yet to cite) are using "lies", have you not considered the possibility that they are mistaken and unaware that the information that they are providing is invalid?

That question is, of course, predicated upon the assumption that any such "lies" are being used to support evolution. Thus far, you've not provided a single example of a textbook doing any such thing.

[general_re]

This ‘irony’ that you enjoy is at your own expense.

Funny that you're getting so aggravated about it, then.

Though a fool and his ‘worth’ have no transactions…

LOL. So I guess when you complained about the personal attacks you imagined up above, that was basically you setting the stage for your own. Hypocrite, heal thyself.

[Stultis]

A bird can adapt to a climate or be bred to look quite different than what it started out to be, but it will still be a bird.

So, are you suggesting that "birds" might comprise a "created kind"? And yet still claiming that macroevolution is nonesense? The differences between, say, a falcon, an ostrich, a penguin and a pelican are microevolutionary? This would be an exceedingly bizarre notion of microevolution!

[Stultis]

We have evidence of micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.

The only genuinely objective definition of macroevolution versus microevolution is with reference to the species taxon since this is the only taxon -- level of classification -- that is operationally defined.

Microevolution is evolution below the species level. Macroevolution is evolution above the species level.

If a new species emerges (or one species splits into two) then that is, by definition, macroevolution. Since there are a number of instances where speciation has actually been observed, or can be securely inferred to have recently occurred, there is in fact observational evidence of macroevolution.

[Cowgirl]

You have no evidence of any kind of bird turning into something else. An ostrich and a pigeon are still birds.
You can call it anything you want to.

[Cowgirl]

"Horses are among the best-documented examples of evolutionary development."—World Book Encyclopedia (1982 ed.), p. 333.

"The development of the horse is allegedly one of the most concrete examples of evolution. The changes in size, type of teeth, shape of head, number of toes, etc., are frequently illustrated in books and museums as an undeniable evidence of the evolution of living things."—Harold G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), p. 193.

"Once portrayed as simple and direct, it is now so complicated that accepting one version rather than another is more a matter of faith than rational choice. Eohippus, supposedly the earliest horse, and said by experts to be long extinct and known to us only through fossils, may in fact be alive and well and not a horse at all—a shy, fox-sized animal called a daman that darts about in the African bush."—Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 31.

"The supposed pedigree of the horse is a deceitful delusion, which . . in no way enlightens us as to the paleontological origins of the horse."—Charles Deperet, Transformations of the Animal World, p. 105 [French paleontologist].

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.

"By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information. What appeared to be a nice, simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem [with the fossil record] has not been alleviated."—David M. Raup, in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979), p. 29.

"It was widely assumed that [Eohippus] had slowly but persistently turned into a more fully equine animal . . [but] the fossil species of Eohippus show little evidence of evolutionary modification . . [The fossil record] fails to document the full history of the horse family."—The New Evolutionary Timetable, pp. 4, 96

NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE—A leading 20th-century evolutionist writer, George Gaylord Simpson, gave this epitaph to the burial of the horse series:

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."—G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

Earlier, Simpson said this:

"Horse phylogeny is thus far from being the simple monophyletic, so-called orthogenetic, sequence that appears to be in most texts and popularizations."—George G. Simpson, "The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals" in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85:1-350.


"The ancestral family tree of the horse is not what scientists have thought it to be. Prof. T.S. Westoll, Durham University geologist, told the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Edinburgh that the early classical evolutionary tree of the horse, beginning in the small dog-sized Eohippus and tracing directly to our present day Equinus, was all wrong."—Science News Letter, August 25, 1951, p. 118.

"There was a time when the existing fossils of the horses seemed to indicate a straight-lined evolution from small to large, from dog-like to horse-like, from animals with simple grinding teeth to animals with complicated cusps of modern horses . . As more fossils were uncovered, the chain splayed out into the usual phylogenetic net, and it was all too apparent that evolution had not been in a straight line at all. Unfortunately, before the picture was completely clear, an exhibit of horses as an example . . had been set up at the American Museum of Natural History [in New York City], photographed, and much reproduced in elementary textbooks."—Garrett Hardin, Nature and Man’s Fate (1960), pp. 225-226. (Those pictures are still being used in those textbooks.)

". . [On February 14, 1981] in California he was on a network television program. The host asked him to comment on the creationist claim that there were no examples of transitional forms to be found in the fossil record. Dr. Eldredge turned to the horse series display at the American Museum and stated that it was the best available example of a transitional sequence."—L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 82.

Now for birds:



ARCHAEOPTERYX—(#3/7 Archaeopteryx) This is a big name for a little bird, and is pronounced "Archee-opter-iks." It means "early wing." If you have a hard time with it, just call the little fellow "Archee." He won’t mind.

There are high-quality limestone deposits in Solnhofen, Germany (near Eichstatt), which have been mined for over a century. From time to time, fossils have been found in them, and the sale of these has provided extra income for the owners of the Dorr quarry.

In 1861, a feather was found and it sold for a surprisingly good price. This was due to the fact that it had purportedly come from late Jurassic strata. Soon after, in the same quarry, a fossil bird was found with the head and neck missing. The name Archaeopteryx had been given to the feather and so the same name was given to the bird. The Jurassic specimen was sold for a high price to the British Museum. Finding unusual specimens was becoming an excellent way to bring in good profit. In 1877, a second specimen was said to have been discovered close to the first,—but this one had a neck and head. In that head were 13 teeth in each jaw; the head itself had the elongated rounded shape of a lizard head. This latest find made an absolute sensation, and was sure to sell for a great amount of money. And it surely did—going this time to the Humboldt Museum, in Berlin, as the highest bidder.

Including that feather, there are six specimens of Archaeopteryx in the world. All six came from that same German limestone area. In addition to the feather and the first two, three others are quite faint and difficult to use. It is almost impossible to tell what they are. Aside from the feather, the others are located at London, Berlin, Maxburg, Teyler, and Eichstatt—all in Germany. They all came from the same general area.

Only the first fossilized skeleton (the "London specimen") and the second one (the "Berlin specimen") are well-enough defined to be usable. Evolutionists declare them to be prime examples of a transitional species. If so, we would have here the ONLY definite cross-species transitions ever found anywhere in the world ONLY definite cross-species transitions ever found anywhere in the world.

"Evolutionists can produce only a single creature—one single fossil creature—or which it is possible to produce even a semblance of an argument. That creature is, of course, Archaeopteryx, of which about five fossil specimens have been found in Upper Jurassic rocks (assumed by evolutionary geologists to be about 150 million years in age). All have been found in the Solnhofen Plattenkalk of Franconia (West Germany)."—Duane Gish, Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 110.

The evolutionists consider Archaeopteryx to be a transition between reptile and bird. But there are two other possibilities.

The experts say that, if (if) it is genuine, it is a bird, not a transitional half-reptile, half-bird creature. But there is strong evidence that Archaeopteryx is a hoax—and not genuine. Some favor the first, others (including the present writer) believe the evidence favors the second. Here are both; take your pick.

[1] - ARCHAEOPTERYX IS A BIRD

If the Archaeopteryx specimens really are genuine, there are several reasons why Archaeopteryx can be considered to be a bird and not a reptile:

1 - Scientists say it is only a bird and not a transitional species. It is significant that a special scientific meeting was held in 1982, a year before the furor over the Hoyle-Watkins declarations that Archaeopteryx was a hoax (which we will discuss shortly). The International Archaeopteryx Conference was held in Eichstatt, Germany, not far from the limestone deposits where all the specimens were originally found. At this meeting, it was decided by the evolutionists that Archaeopteryx is a "bird" and not a reptile, or half-bird/half-reptile. It was also decided that Archaeopteryx was not necessarily the ancestor of modern birds.

Therefore, the scientific community now officially declares Archaeopteryx to be, not a transitional species, but only a bird!

2 - How could scales turn into feathers? Although zealous evolutionists have always claimed that this creature is a descendant of the reptiles and the ancestor of the birds, yet they do not explain how the scales on a reptile can change into feathers.

3 - Bones like a bird. Archaeopteryx is said to have thin, hollow wing and leg bones—such as a bird has.

4 - Not earlier than birds. Archaeopteryx does not predate birds, because fossils of other birds have been found in rocks of the same period (the Jurassic) in which Archaeopteryx was found.

5 - It has modern bird feathers. The feathers on Archaeopteryx appear identical to modern feathers. The feathers on Archaeopteryx appear identical to modern feathers.

"But in Archaeopteryx, it is to be noted, the feathers differ in no way from the most perfectly developed feathers known to us."—A. Feduccia and H.B. Tordoff, in Science 203 (1979), p. 1020.

6 - No intermediate feathers ever found. Transition from scales to feathers would require many intermediate steps, but none have ever been found.

7 - Well-developed wings. The wings of Archaeopteryx were well-developed, and the bird probably could fly well.

8 - Wings designed for flight. The feathers of Archaeopteryx are asymmetrical, that is the shaft does not have the same amount of feathers on both sides. This is the way feathers on flying birds are designed. In contrast, feathers on ostriches, rheas, and other flightless birds, or poor flyers (such as chickens) have fairly symmetrical feathers. The feathers of Archaeopteryx are asymmetrical, that is the shaft does not have the same amount of feathers on both sides. This is the way feathers on flying birds are designed. In contrast, feathers on ostriches, rheas, and other flightless birds, or poor flyers (such as chickens) have fairly symmetrical feathers.

"The significance of asymmetrical features is that they indicate the capability of flying; non-flying birds such as the ostrich and emu have symmetrical [feathered] wings."—E. Olson and A. Feduccia, "Flight Capability and the Pectoral Girdle of Archaeopteryx," Nature (1979), p. 248.

9 - No prior transitions. There ought to be transitional species from reptile to Archaeopteryx, but this is not the case. It cannot be a connecting link between reptile and bird, for there are no transitions to bridge the immense gap leading from it to the reptile. It has fully developed bird wing-bones and flight feathers.

10 - Bird-like in most respects. Archaeopteryx gives evidence of being a regular bird in every way, except that it differs in certain features: (1) the lack of a sternum, (2) three digits on its wings, and (3) a reptile-like head, but there are explanations for all three points. Here they are:

[a] - Lack of a sternum. Archaeopteryx had no sternum, but although the wings of some birds today attach to the sternum, others attach to the furcula (wishbone). Archaeopteryx had a large furcula, so this would be no problem.

"It is obvious that Archaeopteryx was very much a bird, equipped with a bird-like skull, perching feet, wings, feathers, and a furcula, wish-bone. No other animal except birds possess feathers and a furcula."—Duane Gish, Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 112.

[b] - Digits on its wings. Archaeopteryx had three digits on its "wings." Other dinosaurs have this also, but so do a few modern birds. Modern birds with wing claws include the hoatzin (Oplsthocomus hoatzin), a South American bird, which has two wing claws in its juvenile stage. In addition, it is a poor flyer, with an amazingly small sternum—such as Archaeopteryx had. The touraco (Touraco corythaix), an African bird, has claws and the adult is also a poor flyer. The ostrich has three claws on each wing. Their claws appear even more reptilian than those of Archaeopteryx.

[c] - The shape of its skull. It has been said that the skull of Archaeopteryx appears more like a reptile than a bird, but investigation by Benton says the head is shaped more like a bird.

"It has been claimed that the skull of Archaeopteryx was reptile-like, rather than bird-like. Recently, however, the cranium of the ‘London’ specimen has been removed from its limestone slab by Whetstone. Studies have shown that the skull is much broader and more bird-like than previously thought. This has led Benton to state that ‘Details of the braincase and associated bones at the back of the skull seem to suggest that Archaeopteryx is not the ancestral bird."—Duane Gish, Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), pp. 112-113.

"Most authorities have admitted that Archaeopteryx was a bird because of the clear imprint of feathers in the fossil remains. The zoological definition of a bird is: ‘A vertebrate with feathers.’ Recently, Dr. James Jenson, paleontologist at Brigham Young University, discovered in western Colorado the fossil remains of a bird thought to be as old as Archaeopteryx but much more modern in form. This would seem to give the death knell to any possible use of Archaeopteryx by evolutionists as a transitional form."—Marvin Lubenow, "Report on the Racine Debate," in Decade of Creation (1981), p. 65.

11 - Ornithologist agrees. F.E. Beddard, in his important scientific book on birds, maintained that Archaeopteryx was a bird; and, as such, it presented the same problem as all other birds: How could it have evolved from reptiles since there is such a big gap (the wing and feather gap) between the two.

"So emphatically were all these creature birds that the actual origin of Aves is barely hinted at in the structure of these remarkable remains."—F.E. Beddard, The Structure and Classification of Birds (1898), p. 160.

12 - Other birds had teeth. It may seem unusual for Archaeopteryx to have had teeth, but there are several other extinct birds that also had teeth.

"However, other extinct ancient birds had teeth, and every other category of vertebrates contains some organisms with teeth, and some without (amphibians, reptiles, extinct birds, mammals, etc.)."—P. Moody, Introduction to Evolution (1970), pp. 196-197.

13 - Could be a unique bird. Archaeopteryx could well be a unique creature, just as the duckbilled platypus is unique. The Archaeopteryx has wings like a bird and a head similar to a lizard, but with teeth. There are a number of unique plants and animals in the world which, in several ways, are totally unlike anything else.

The platypus is an animal with a bill like a duck and has fur, but lays eggs; in spite of its egg-laying, it is a mammal and nurses its young with milk and chews its food with plates instead of with teeth. The male has a hollow claw on its hind foot that it uses to scratch and poison its enemies; it has claws like a mole; but, like a duck, it has webs between its toes. It uses sonar underwater.

The platypus is definitely far stranger than the Archaeopteryx, and there are no transitional half-platypus creatures linking it to any other species., and there are no transitional half-platypus creatures linking it to any other species.

14 - Totally unique. Regarding the Archaeopteryx, Romer, the well-known paleontologist, said this:Regarding the Archaeopteryx, Romer, the well-known paleontologist, said this:

"This Jurassic bird [Archaeopteryx] stands in splendid isolation; we know no more of its presume thecodont ancestry nor of its relation to later ‘proper’ birds than before."—A.S. Romer, Notes and Comments on Vertebrate Paleontology (19M), p. 144.

From his own study, Swinton, an expert on birds and a confirmed evolutionist, has concluded:

"The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."—W.E. Swinton, Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, Vol. 1 (1980), p. 1.

Other scientists agree. Here is an important statement by Ostrom:

"It is obvious that we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archaeopteryx lived."—J. Ostrom, Science News 112 (1977), p. 198.

"Unfortunately, the greater part of the fundamental types in the animal realm are disconnected [from each other] from a paleontological point of view. In spite of the fact that it is undeniably related to the two classes of reptiles and birds (a relation which the anatomy and physiology of actually living specimens demonstrates), we are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the Archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediate stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown."—L. du Nouy, Human Destiny (1947), p. 58.

15 - Modern birds in same strata. Bones of modern birds have been found in Colorado in the same geologic rock strata—the Jurassic—in which archaeopteryx

ARCHAEOPTERYX—That name surely sounds scientific. But it covers, what many scientists consider to be, yet another contrived hoax. According to evolutionary theory, this cannot be; for millions of years ought to be required for Archaeopteryx to change into a regular bird. If it was alive at the same time as modern birds, how can it be their ancient ancestor? Birds have also been found in the Jurassic limestone beds of by researchers in Utah.

16 - Modern birds below it! Not only do we find modern birds in the same strata with Archaeopteryx,—but we also find birds below it!

"Perhaps the final argument against Archaeopteryx as a transitional form has come from a rock quarry in Texas. Here scientists from Texas Tech University found bird bones encased in rock layers farther down the geologic column than Archaeopteryx fossils."—Richard Bliss, Origins: Creation or Evolution? (1988), p. 46 [also see Nature 322, August 21, 1986; Science 253, July 5, 1991].

No bird bones of any type have been found below the late Jurassic; but, within the Jurassic, they have been found in strata with Archaeopteryx, and now below it: Two crow-sized birds were discovered in the Triassic Dockum Formation in Texas. Because of the strata they were located in, those birds would, according to evolutionary theory, be 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx. More information on this Texas discovery can be found in Nature, 322 (1986), p. 677.

[Cowgirl]

This is from the book "The Evolution Cruncher"

ARCHAEOPTERYX IS A FAKE

Now we come to a totally opposite position: Archaeopteryx is not an extinct bird, but rather a planned hoax—and there is clear evidence to prove it!

At the same time that mounting evidence was beginning to indicate it to be a carefully contrived fake, confirmed evolutionists had been moving toward the position that Archaeopteryx was only an ancient bird, and not a half-reptile/half-bird. By calling it a "bird," they avoided the crisis that struck the scientific world—and the major museums—when Piltdown Man was exposed as a hoax in 1953.

THREE INITIAL PROBLEMS—Before considering the Hoyle/Watkins exposé, let us first look at some other facets of this overall problem.

You will observe, in the following discussion, that there are some observational differences between this and the preceding approach to the problem. For example, while some experts consider Archaeopteryx to have had a body like a bird, those who consider it a fake believe the fossilized body to be that of a reptile. Somebody took a reptile fossil and carefully added wings to it!

Here is an important analysis. You will want to read it carefully:

"Like the later Piltdown man, Archaeopteryx seemed a perfect intermediate form . . There are, however, disturbing analogies between Piltdown man and Archaeopteryx that have come to light with careful study. Both are hodgepodges of traits found in the forms they are supposed to link,—with each trait present in essentially fully developed form rather than in an intermediate state! Allowing for alterations, Piltdown’s jaw was that of an orangutan; Archaeopteryx’s skull was a dinosaur skull. Moreover, Piltdown man’s cranium was a Homo sapiens skull; Archaeopteryx’s feathers were ordinary feathers, differing in no significant way from those of a strong flying bird such as a falcon . . The lack of proper and sufficient bony attachments for powerful flight muscles is enough to rule out the possibility that Archaeopteryx could even fly, feathers notwithstanding."—W. Frair and P. Davis, Case for Creation (1983), pp. 58-60.

1 - A profitable business. There are those who believe that Archaeopteryx was a carefully contrived fake. It would have been relatively easy to do. The nature of the hard limestone would make it easy to carefully engrave something on it. Since the first Archaeopteryx sold for such an exorbitant price to the highest bidder (the British Museum), the second, produced 16 years later, had a reptile-like head—and sold for a tremendous amount to the museum in Berlin. The owner of that quarry made a small fortune on the sale of each of those two specimens.

2 - Feathers added to a fossil? In these specimens we find powerful flight feathers on strong wings, shown as faint streaks radiating out from what appears to be a small reptile body. The head and body of Archaeopteryx is similar to that of a small coelurosaurian dinosaur, Compsognathus; the flight feathers are exactly like those of modern birds. If they were removed, the creature would appear to be only a small dinosaur. If you carefully examine a photograph of the "London specimen," you will note that the flight feathers consist only of carefully drawn lines—nothing else!

It would be relatively easy for someone to take a genuine fossil of a Compsognathus—and carefully scratch those lines onto the surface of the smooth, durable limestone. All that would be needed would be a second fossil of a bird as a pattern to copy the markings from,—and then inscribe its wing pattern onto the reptile specimen. That is all that would be required, and the result would be a fabulous amount of profit. And both specimens did produce just that!

3 - All specimens came from the same place. Keep in mind that all six of those specimens were found in the Solnhofen Plattenkalk of Franconia, Germany, near the city of Eichstatt. Nowhere else—anywhere in the world—have any Archaeopteryx specimens ever been discovered!

Living in Germany, at the same time that these six specimens were found, was Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919). He would have been in the prime of life at the time both specimens were brought forth. Haeckel was the most rabid Darwinist advocate on the continent; and it is well-known that he was very active at the time the finds were made. He was continually seeking for new "proofs" of evolution, so he could use them in his lecture circuit meetings. He loved verbal and visual illustrations; and it is now known that he spent time, on the side, enthusiastically inventing them!

It is also known that Haeckel had unusual artistic ability that he put to work, producing pro-evolution frauds. He would fraudulently touching up and redrawing charts of ape skeletons and embryos so that they would appear to prove evolutionary theory. He had both the ability and the mind set for the task. He could also make the money he would make. You will find more information on his fraudulent artistry in chapter 16, Vestiges and Recapitulation. There is no doubt that Haeckel had the daring, the skill, the time, and the energy to forge those Archaeopteryx specimens. In those years, he always seemed to have the money to set aside time for anything he wanted to do in the way of lecturing or drawing charts. He even supported a mistress for a number of years. Perhaps some of that money came from engraving bird feathers onto reptile fossils and, then, splitting the profits of Archaeopteryx sales with the quarry owners.

The most delicate tracery can easily be etched onto limestone blocks. About 35 years ago, the present writer had opportunity to work for several weeks with two of the best 19th-century art materials: copper engraving and stone lithography. Both were used, in the 19th-century, in printing and able to reproduce the most delicate of marks. This is because both copper and high-quality limestone have such a close-grained, smooth surface. Bavarian and Franconian limestone quarries produced the best lithographic blocks. ("Lithos" and "graphos" means "stone writing.") Our present lithographic process, which uses thin metal plates, is a descendant of the limestone block method (which utilized printing from a flat surface because oily ink in the markings would not mix with the water on the smooth surface between the markings). The other primary method, that of copper engraving, used the intaglio method of fine tracery marks cut into a smooth surface. There is no doubt but that any good engraver could easily superimpose the marks of outward radiating flight feathers over an actual small dinosaur fossil. The delicate tracery which could be drawn onto limestone blocks, made it possible to print banknotes and bond certificates with them.. About 35 years ago, the present writer had opportunity to work for several weeks with two of the best 19th-century art materials: copper engraving and stone lithography. Both were used, in the 19th-century, in printing and able to reproduce the most delicate of marks. This is because both copper and high-quality limestone have such a close-grained, smooth surface. Bavarian and Franconian limestone quarries produced the best lithographic blocks. ("Lithos" and "graphos" means "stone writing.") Our present lithographic process, which uses thin metal plates, is a descendant of the limestone block method (which utilized printing from a flat surface because oily ink in the markings would not mix with the water on the smooth surface between the markings). The other primary method, that of copper engraving, used the intaglio method of fine tracery marks cut into a smooth surface. There is no doubt but that any good engraver could easily superimpose the marks of outward radiating flight feathers over an actual small dinosaur fossil. The delicate tracery which could be drawn onto limestone blocks, made it possible to print banknotes and bond certificates with them.

"The feathers of Archaeopteryx suggest that the creature was a skillful flyer or glider, at the same time that its skeleton suggests otherwise. Archaeopteryx is a mosaic of characteristics almost impossible to interpret, let alone to base evolutionary theories on!"—W. Frair and P. Davis, Case for Creation (1983), p. 81.

THE HOYLE/WATSON EXPOSÉ—It was not until the 1980s that the most formidable opposition to these Solnhofen limestone specimens developed, Here is the story of what took place:

1 - Background of the investigations. In 1983, M. Trop wrote an article questioning the authenticity of the specimen ("Is Archaeopteryx a Fake?" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 20, pp. 121-122). Two years later, a series of four articles appeared in the British Journal of Photography (March-June 1985 issues), declaring Archaeopteryx to be a carefully contrived hoax.

Those articles were authored by some of the leading scientists in England: Fred Hoyle, R.S. Watkins, N.C. Wickramasinghe, J. Watkins, R. Rabilizirov, and L.M. Spetner. This brought the controversy to the attention of the scientific world. They declared in print that Archaeopteryx was a definite hoax, just as much as Piltdown man had been a hoax.

Keep in mind as we discuss these specimens that, of all six, only the London and Berlin specimens are usable; the rest are hardly recognizable as anything. So all the evidence, pro and con, must come from one or the other of those two specimens.

In 1983, these six leading British scientists went to the London Museum and carefully studied and photographed the specimen. The specimen is contained in a slab and a counterslab—thus giving a front and back view of it. Here is what these well-known scientists discovered:

2 - Slab mismatch. The two slabs do not appear to match. If the specimen was genuine, the front and back slabs should be mirror images of one another, but they are not. This one fact, alone, is not to prove the specimen a fake.

A comparison of the present specimen with an 1863 drawing indicates an alteration had been later made to the left wing of the specimen. The 1863 left wing was totally mismatched on the two slabs; the later alteration brought the match closer together.

3 - Artificial feathers. Hoyle, Watkins, and the others decided that the body skeleton and arms were genuine, but the feather markings (those shallow lines radiating outward from the forelimbs) had been carefully imprinted on the fossil by an unknown hand.

4 - Cement blobs. They also found additional evidence of the forgery: Cement blobs had been used during the etching process.

"They suggested the following procedure for creating the feather impressions: 1) the forgers removed rock from around the tail and ‘wing’ (forelimb) regions, 2) they then applied a thin layer of cement, probably made from limestone of the Solnhofen quarries, to the excavated areas, and 3) they impressed feathers on the cement and held them in place by adhesive material (referred to as ‘chewing gum’ blobs). Attempts to remove the blobs from the rock were obvious—the slabs were scraped, brushed, and chipped. However, an oversight remained in the cleaning process: one ‘chewing gum’ blob and fragments of others were left behind."—Venus E. Clausen, "Recent Debate over Archaeopteryx.

5 - Museum withdraws specimen. After their initial examination of the London specimen, they requested permission for a neutral testing center to further examine the blob areas, utilizing electron microscope, carbon 14 dating, and spectrophotometry. Three months later, museum officials sent word that the specimen was being withdrawn from further examination.

6 - History of forgeries. Hoyle, Watkins, and the others then checked into historical sources, and declared that they had discovered that, dating back to the early 18th century, the Solnhofen limestone area was notorious for its fossil forgeries. Genuine fossils, taken from the limestone quarries, had been altered and then sold to museums. These non-Archaeopteryx fossils brought good money because they appeared to be strange new species.

7 - Discoveries follow prediction. Thomas H. Huxley, Darwin’s British champion, whom he called his "bulldog," had predicted that fossils of strange new species would be found. Hoyle, et. al, believe that, thus encouraged, the forgers went to work to produce them.

8 - The Meyer connection. Of the six Archaeopteryx fossils, only three specimens show the obvious feather impressions. These three specimens were sent to Hermann von Meyer, in Germany, who, within a 20-year period, analyzed and described them. Hoyle and company suggest that they came in to Meyer as reptiles and left with wings! It just so happens that Meyer worked closely with the Haberlein family, and they acquired his two best feathered reptile fossils—and then sold them to the museums. It was the Haberlein family that made the profit—not the quarry owners. It would be relatively easy for them to split some of it with Meyer.

You can find all of the above material in four issues of the British Journal of Photography (March-June 1985). Also see W.J. Broad, "Authenticity of Bird Fossil Is Challenged" in New York Times, May 7, 1985, pp. C1, C14; T. Nield, "Feathers Fly Over Fossil ‘Fraud,’ " in New Scientist 1467:49-50; and G. Vines, "Strange Case of Archaeopteryx ‘Fraud’ " in New Scientist 1447:3.

9 - Aftermath. As might be expected, a torrent of wrath arose from the evolutionary community as a result of these four articles. Defenders of evolutionary theory went into an absolute rage, but the six scientists held to their position.As might be expected, a torrent of wrath arose from the evolutionary community as a result of these four articles. Defenders of evolutionary theory went into an absolute rage, but the six scientists held to their position.

This brought still further uproar. It had been the same British Museum that had been duped into the Piltdown Man hoax, which had been exposed only 32 years earlier ("found" from 1908 to 1912 only a few miles from Darwin’s old home, publicly announced that same year and shown to be a hoax in 1953).

For a time, the British Museum refused to relent, but the pressure was too great, so the museum arranged for a special committee, composed of a select variety of scientists, to review the matter. They examined the slabs; and in 1986 reported that, in their opinion, Archaeopteryx had no blobs. With this, the British Museum announced that the case was closed and the slabs would be unavailable for further examination. But the slab mismatch was not denied, and it was far greater evidence than the blobs.

Is Archaeopteryx a flying reptile, just another bird, or a fraud—a reptile with wings added?

Take your pick; either way it is definitely not a transitional species, and has no transitions leading to or from it.

3 - OTHER PROOFS

This article contains the "showcases of evolution"—the best evidences it has to offer that evolution has actually occurred and the theory is true.

In addition to the horse series and Archaeopteryx, there are several other special "evidences" in favor of evolution, which are discussed in some detail in the book The Evolution Cruncher. These include:

1 - The peppered moth ("industrial melanism’) is discussed in chapter 9, "Natural Selection" (#1/7 Peppered Moth).

2 - Darwin’s Finches are discussed in chapter 9, "Natural Selection."

3 - Trilobites are discussed in chapter 12, "Fossils and Strata." - Trilobites are discussed in chapter 12, "Fossils and Strata."

4 - Mutated bacteria and sickle-cell anemia are discussed in chapter 10, "Mutations."

5 - Radiodating and radiocarbon dating are discussed in chapter 6, "Inaccurate Dating Methods."

6 - The dates attributed to the rock strata are discussed in chapter 12, "Fossils and Strata."

7 - The existence of dinosaurs in the past is discussed in chapter 12, "Fossils and Strata."

8 - The existence of cavemen and the discovery of "hominid bones" is discussed in chapter 13, "Ancient Man."

9 - Subspecies changes ("microevolution") is discussed in chapter 9, "Natural Selection."

10 - Changes in genes by mutations is discussed in chapter 12, "Fossils and Strata." is discussed in chapter 12, "Fossils and Strata."

11 - Similarities of body parts and chemistry are discussed in chapter 15, "Similarities and Divergence."

12 - "Useless organs" is discussed in chapter 16, "Vestiges and Recapitulation."

13 - Embryonic similarities are discussed in chapter 16, "Vestiges and Recapitulation."

14 - The concept that evolutionary theory is not under natural laws that would invalidate it is discussed in chapter 18, "Laws of Nature."

15 - The "overwhelming support" given by scientists to evolutionary theory is discussed throughout this book, but especially in chapters 1, "History of Evolutionary Theory" and 23, "Scientists Speak" [For an online account, go to History of Evolutionary Theory. Many, many quotations by scientists refuting evolution can be found here.]

16 - The idea that evolution is any kind of help to humanity or society is discussed in chapter 19, "Evolution, Morality and Violence." is discussed in chapter 19, "Evolution, Morality and Violence."

In addition, other "evidences" and "proofs" of evolution are discussed elsewhere in this book. The evolutionary evidences we have not discussed are of secondary, or even minuscule, importance. Some of them are so complex that they are difficult for most people to grasp.

There are definite scientific facts that totally refute the evolution of matter, stars, planetoids, plants, or animals. These powerful refutations stand as a strong rock in the midst of angry waves beating upon them. Learn the most powerful of these proofs and share them with others! Remember the story of the attorney who appeared in court before the judge and said: "There are ten reasons why my client cannot be here today. The first is that he is dead." The judge replied, "That one is good enough; I do not need to hear the rest." So emphasize a few of the strong basic evidences against evolution, and you are more likely to win your hearers. Remember the story of the attorney who appeared in court before the judge and said: "There are ten reasons why my client cannot be here today. The first is that he is dead." The judge replied, "That one is good enough; I do not need to hear the rest." So emphasize a few of the strong basic evidences against evolution, and you are more likely to win your hearers.

THREE SPECIAL EVIDENCES AGAINST STELLAR ORIGINS—Four of the powerful evidences against the chance origin of matter, stars, planets, or moons would be these: (1) The impossibility of nothing making itself into something (chapter 2). (2) The impossibility of gaseous matter (hydrogen gas clouds) sticking together and forming itself by gravity or otherwise into stars or planetoids (chapter 2). (3) The impossibility of random actions of any kind in producing the intricate, interrelated, and complicated orbits of moons, planets, stars, galaxies, and galactic clusters (chapter 2). (4) The impossibility of linear, outward-flowing gas from a supposed Big Bang changing to orbital or rotational movements (chapter 2).

TWO SPECIAL EVIDENCES AGAINST THE CHANCE ORIGIN OF LIFE—Two of the powerful evidences against the chance origin of life would be these: (1) The impossibility of random formation of the DNA molecule, amino acids, proteins, or the cell (chapter 8). (2) The impossibility of non-living matter producing living organisms (chapter 7).

SEVEN SPECIAL EVIDENCES AGAINST THE EVOLUTION OF LIFE—Seven of the powerful evidences against the chance origin or evolution of life would be these: (1) The total lack of past evidence of trans-species changes, as shown in the fossil evidence (chapter 12). (2) The total lack of present evidence of change from one species to another (chapters 9-10). (3) The impossibility of random, accidental gene reshuffling ("natural selection") to produce new species (chapter 9). (4) The impossibility of mutations, either singly or in clusters, to produce new species (chapter 10). (5) The fact that there is no other mechanism, other than natural selection or mutations, which could possibly produce trans-species changes (chapters 9-10). (6) The fact that changes within species, are not evolution (chapter 11). (7) The beauty shown in the things of nature. An example of this would be the beauty of the flowers. Random changes would not produce such attractive forms and colors. (8) The marvelous purposive designs of the things of nature. (We have a special section on our website on the wonders of design in nature.)

TWO SPECIAL EVIDENCES AGAINST ALL TYPES OF EVOLUTION—Two of the most powerful evidences negating both inorganic and organic evolution, either in origin or development, would be the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics (chapter 25).

We have elsewhere discussed in detail all of the above proofs of Creationism.

4 - TEXTBOOK PROOFS

The textbooks generally have a trite one-two-three set of evolutionary "evidences," which generally consist of the fact that there once were dinosaurs and cavemen along with theories about "apeman" bones, fossils and strata dates, mutations, similarities, vestiges, and recapitulation.

ALL THE PROOFS OF EVOLUTION

The book, Evolution, by F.H.T. Rhodes (1974), lists all the evidences and "proofs" of evolution. It is a fascinating book. Looking through these "evidences," we find that three-fourths of them consist of neutral biological, geological, or chemical facts—which provide no actual evidence in favor of evolution. The others consist of a variety of suggestive possibilities. As a rule, the strongest "evidences" for the theory center around variations within species.

Here is a brief overview of the well-presented material in Rhodes exhaustive book, covering the evidences of evolution. You will notice that none of them constitute any real evidence in favor of evolution. Seventy-nine proofs are listed here. It is astonishing to read the following list!. You will notice that none of them constitute any real evidence in favor of evolution. Seventy-nine proofs are listed here. It is astonishing to read the following list!

Many different species exist. Aristotle taught evolution. Spontaneous generation could not be a cause of the origin of life. Ray and Linnaeus developed plant and animal classification systems. Lamarck’s theory of inheritable changes was an error. History of evolutionary thought for past 200 years. Darwin’s finding of various creatures on the Galapagos islands. Wallace and Malthus’ search for a mechanism whereby evolution could occur. Darwin’s idea of "natural selection." Darwin’s influential book.

Darwin’s theory revised by later discovery of mutations. Mendel’s law of genetics. DeVries discovers mutations. Morgan and Sutton study fruit flies. Surely, mutations must be the cause of all evolutionary change. General information on chromosomes. Variations in fruit flies.

Species always appear to reproduce their own kind. Aging changes in the lifetime of an individual is a strong proof of evolution. All living things have cells, protoplasm, metabolism, reproduction, and growth; therefore they must all have come from a common source. All living things are interdependent, so this shows evolution.

Different birds have similarities, therefore they must have a common ancestor. Embryos are alike, so they must have evolved from a common source. Organic degeneration and "useless organs" (vestiges) are strong evidences of evolution. Biochemical similarities indicate common ancestry. Woodpeckers punch holes in trees, so they must have evolved this ability. Men can selectively breed new types of dogs, therefore random mutations can develop new species.

Evolution must be implied in the fact that although some birds breed in northern climates others breed in warmer areas (population evolution). Drugs given to bacteria must have caused mutations that damaged them. Peppered moths come in two types, dark and light; and birds like to eat them. There are different species of extinct fossils. There may be a "fossil series" among Ceratopsian dinosaurs. The horse series. Archaeopteryx. The platypus. The "earliest" organisms in the sedimentary rock strata were smaller and slower, and the later ones were faster and larger. A larger number of species are found in the later strata than in the earlier strata.

Facts about genes, chromosomes, cell division, Mendelian inheritance patterns, and laws of inheritance. Probabilities of accomplishing changes within species (via Mendelian genetics). Coin tossing. XX and XY mechanisms in reproduction. Genes control reproduction. DNA is the key to inheritance. Protein manufacture. Population genetics: variations exist among people (eye color, height, etc.). Gene reshuffling through recombination and crossing-over to produce changes within species.

Mutations produce new characteristics. Genetic drift and geographic isolation also produces changes within a species. Migration of populations into new areas may cause evolution. Evolution can occur through natural selection (mating preferences, predatory killing, etc.). Owls eat the white mice first. Ocean currents brought creatures from South America rather than Central and North America to Galapagos Islands. Birds eating peppered moths is natural selection in action. Growth differences in fossil bears must be due to the fact that they hibernated in different caves. Teeth become smaller with age. Different sub-species of the same bird have different length bills. Flowers, insects, etc., copycat one another’s shape, color, etc. (mimicry). Sexual preferences of animals might make changes within species. Sickle-cell anemia proves that natural selection occurs within mankind.

A Devonian fish probably climbed out of the water and become an amphibian; but, unfortunately, we do not have the missing link when this happened. Transitional fossil forms prove evolution, and we have one: the reptile-bird, Archaeopteryx.

Given enough time, evolution can occur. Rock strata time charts prove long ages. Evolution is occurring now in the Solomon Islands, as the Golden Whistler [bird] makes new subspecies [picture of them indicates they all look just about alike]. Minks change color in winter, and this surely must have been caused by mutations at some time in the past.

Hydrogen must have clumped together to form stars. Perhaps it only happened in the past, but perhaps it is happening now. A cloud came together and formed the earth. All the planets have six of the elements, so this is an important proof of something.

Miller and Urey took complicated lab equipment and produced some dead amino acids.

There are many fossil outlines, impressions, casts, tracks, etc. Stone artifacts [arrowheads, etc.] are the most common remains of prehistoric man. The oldest fossils are about 2.7 billion years old. Most fossil animals suddenly appeared about 600 million years ago. Fossilized marine invertebrates. The oldest vertebrates [bony fish], insects, land animals, and plants. The reptiles and dinosaurs. The mammals.

Apes and monkeys. Reconstructed "ape-men." Suggested evolution of man from monkey. Stone tools. Cave paintings. "Evolution" of human societies. Evolutionary theory, although intrinsically separate from morality, is still not bad for society. The "future evolution" of man in regard to pollution control, dwindling resources, overpopulation.

—That summarizes the evidence for evolution in an entire, excellent book dedicated to the subject. Throughout it all, did you find even one clear-cut evidence for evolution?

LISTING THE PROOFS OF EVOLUTION

In concluding this chapter, let us briefly overview the strongest evidences of evolution, as presented in a number of evolution textbooks:

1 - Aristotle taught evolution.

2 - Linnaeus classified plants and animals.

3 - Darwin wrote an influential book.

4 - Morgan studied fruit flies.

5 - Every living thing has chromosomes.

6 - People age as they become older.

7 - All living things have cells.

8 - All birds have feathers.

9 - Woodpeckers punch holes in trees.

10 - Birds breed in different climates.

11 - There are both light and dark moths.

12 - Some species have become extinct.

13 - Mendel discovered inheritance patterns.

14 - Coin tossing exemplifies evolution.

15 - DNA is the key to inheritance.

16 - Variants exist among people.

17 - Changes have taken place within species.

18 - Mutations produce new characteristics.

19 - Migration may cause evolution.

20 - Mating preferences can cause evolution.

21 - Predatory killing can cause evolution.

22 - Owls eat white mice first.

23 - Birds eat peppered moths.

24 - Different bears are different sizes.

25 - Teeth become smaller with age.

26 - Mutations produced sickle-cell anemia.

27 - A fish must have climbed out of water.

28 - Time can produce evolution.

29 - Evolutionary charts prove long ages.

30 - Minks change color in winter.

31 - Stone tools have been found.

32 - Dinosaurs became extinct.

33 - Some earlier peoples lived in caves.

34 - Cave paintings have been found.


Evolutionists might as well claim the wetness of water as proof for evolution.

[Cowgirl]

From "The Evolution Cruncher"

BRIEF HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY



First a little background:

Introduction: Stellar evolution is based on the concept that nothing can explode and produce all the stars and worlds. Life evolution is founded on the twin theories of spontaneous generation and Lamarckism (the inheritance of acquired characteristics);--yet, although they remain the basis of biological evolution, both were debunked by scientists over a century ago.

Science is the study of the natural world. We are thankful for the many dedicated scientists who are hard at work, improving life for us. But we will learn that their discoveries have provided no worthwhile evidence supporting evolutionary theory.

Premises are important. They are the concepts by which scientific facts are interpreted. For over a century, efforts have been made to explain scientific discoveries by a mid-19th century theory, known as "evolution." It has formed the foundation for many theories. Yet none of them are founded on scientific facts! They are the concepts by which scientific facts are interpreted.

Here are the two premises on which the various theories of evolution are based:

1 - This is the evolutionary formula for making a universe:

Nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order.

2 - This is the evolutionary formula for making life:

Dirt + water + time = living creatures.

Evolutionists theorize that the above two formulas can enable everything about us to make itself--with the exception of man-made things, such as automobiles or buildings. Complicated things, such as wooden boxes with nails in them, require thought, intelligence, and careful workmanship. But everything else about us in nature, such as hummingbirds and the human eye, is declared to be the result of accidental mishaps, random confusion, and time. You will not even need raw materials to begin with. They make themselves too.

How did all this nonsense get started? We will begin with a brief overview of the modern history of evolutionary theory.

But let us not forget that, though it may be nonsensical, evolutionary theory has greatly affected--and damaged--mankind in the 20th century. Will we continue to let this happen, now that we are in the 21st century? The social and moral impact that evolutionary concepts have had on the modern world has been terrific.

Morality and ethical standards

Morality and ethical standards have been greatly reduced. Children and youth are taught in school that they are an advanced level of animals; there are no moral principles. Since they are just animals, they should do whatever they want. Personal survival and success will come only by rivalry, strife, and stepping on others.

Here is a brief overview of some of the people and events in the history of modern evolutionary theory. But it is only a glimpse.

18th AND 19th CENTURY SCIENTISTS

Prior to the middle of the 1800s, scientists were researchers who firmly believed that all nature was made by a Master Designer. Those pioneers who laid the foundations of modern science were creationists. They were men of giant intellect who struggled against great odds in carrying on their work. They were hard-working researchers.

In contrast, the philosophers sat around, hardly stirring from their armchairs and theorized about everything while the scientists, ignoring them, kept at their work.

But a change came about in the 19th century, when the philosophers tried to gain control of scientific endeavor and suppress research and findings that would be unfavorable to their theories. Today’s evolutionists vigorously defend the unscientific theories they thought up over a century ago.

William Paley (1743-1805), in his 1802 classic, Natural Theology, summarized the viewpoint of the scientists. He argued that the kind of carefully designed structures we see in the living world point clearly to a Designer. If we see a watch, we know that it had a designer and maker; it would be foolish to imagine that it made itself. This is the "argument by design." All about us is the world of nature, and over our heads at night is a universe of stars. We can ignore or ridicule what is there or say it all made itself, but our scoffing does not change the reality of the situation. A leading atheistic scientist of our time, Fred Hoyle, wrote that, although it was not difficult to disprove Darwinism, what Paley had to say appeared likely to be unanswerable (Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, 1981, p. 96).

It is a remarkable fact that the basis of evolutionary theory was destroyed by seven scientific research findings,--before Charles Darwin first published the theory.

Carl Linn (Carolus Linnaeus, 1707-1778) was a scientist who classified immense numbers of living organisms. An earnest creationist, he clearly saw that there were no halfway species. All plant and animal species were definite categories, separate from one another. Variation was possible within a kind, and there were many sub-species. But there were no crossovers from one kind to another (R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, p. 276).

First Law of Thermodynamics (1847). Heinrich von Helmholtz stated the law of conservation of energy: The sum total of all matter will always remain the same. This law refutes several aspects of evolutionary theory. Isaac Asimov calls it "the most fundamental generalization about the universe that scientists have ever been able to make" (quoted in Isaac Asimov, "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even," Journal of Smithsonian Institute, June 1970, p. 6).

Second Law of Thermodynamics (1850). R.J.E. Clausius stated the law of entropy:: All systems will tend toward the most mathematically probable state, and eventually become totally random and disorganized (Harold Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution, 1968, p. 201). In other words, everything runs down, wears out, and goes to pieces (R.R. Kindsay, "Physics: to What Extent is it Deterministic," American Scientist 56, 1968, p. 100). This law totally eliminates the basic evolutionary theory that simple evolves into complex. Einstein said the two laws were the most enduring laws he knew of (Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View, 1980, p. 6).

Guadeloupe Woman Found (1812). This is a well-authenticated discovery which has been in the British Museum for over a century. A fully human skeleton was found in the French Caribbean island of Guadeloupe inside an immense slab of limestone, dated by modern geologists at 28 million years old. (More examples could be cited.) Human beings, just like those living today (but sometimes larger) have been found in very deep levels of strata.

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) was a creationist who lived and worked near Brunn (now Brno), Czechoslovakia. He was a science and math teacher. Unlike the theorists, Mendel was a true scientist. He bred garden peas and studied the results of crossing various varieties. Beginning his work in 1856, he concluded it within eight years. In 1865, he reported his research in the Journal of the Brunn Society for the Study of Natural Science. The journal was distributed to 120 libraries in Europe, England, and America. Yet his research was totally ignored by the scientific community until it was rediscovered in 1900 (R.A. Fisher, "Has Mendel’s Work Been Rediscovered?" Annals of Science, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1936). His experiments clearly showed that one species could not transmute into another one. A genetic barrier existed that could not be bridged. Mendel’s work laid the basis for modern genetics, and his discoveries effectively destroyed the basis for species evolution (Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, 1984, pp. 63-64).

Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) was another genuine scientist. In the process of studying fermentation, he performed his famous 1861 experiment, in which he disproved the theory of spontaneous generation. Life cannot arise from non-living materials. This experiment was very important; for, up to that time, a majority of scientists believed in spontaneous generation. (They thought that if a pile of old clothes were left in a corner, it would breed mice! The proof was that, upon later returning to the clothes, mice would frequently be found there.) Pasteur concluded from his experiment that only God could create living creatures. But modern evolutionary theory continues to be based on the out-dated theory disproved by Pasteur: spontaneous generation (life arises from non-life). Why? Because it is the only real basis on which evolution could occur. As Adams notes, "With spontaneous generation discredited [by Pasteur], biologists were left with no theory of the origin of life at all" (J. Edison Adams, Plants: An Introduction to Modern Biology, 1967, p. 585).

August Friedrich Leopold Weismann (1834-1914) was a German biologist who disproved Lamarck’s notion of "the inheritance of acquired characteristics." He is primarily remembered as the scientist who cut off the tails of 901 young white mice in 19 successive generations, yet each new generation was born with a full-length tail. The final generation, he reported, had tails as long as those originally measured on the first. Weismann also carried out other experiments that buttressed his refutation of Lamarckism. His discoveries, along with the fact that circumcision of Jewish males for 4,000 years had not affected the foreskin, doomed the theory (Jean Rostand, Orion Book of Evolution, 1960, p. 64). Yet Lamarckism continues today as the disguised basis of evolutionary biology. For example, evolutionists still teach that giraffes kept stretching their necks to reach higher branches, so their necks became longer! In a later book, Darwin abandoned natural selection, as unworkable, and returned to Lamarckism as the cause of the never-observed change from one species to another (Randall Hedtke, The Secret of the Sixth Edition, 1984).

Here is a brief, partial overview of what true scientists were accomplishing in the 18th and 19th centuries. All of them were Creationists:

Louis Agassiz (1807-1873): glacial geology, ichthyology.
Charles Babbage (1792-1871): actuarial tables, calculating machine, foundations of computer science.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626): scientific method of research.
Robert Boyle (1627-1691): chemistry, gas dynamics.
Sir David Brewster (1781-1868): optical mineralogy, kaleidoscope.
Georges Cuvier (1769-1832): comparative anatomy, vertebrate paleontology.
Sir Humphry Davy (1778-1829): thermokinetics.
Jean Henri Fabre (1823-1915): entomology of living insects.
Michael Faraday (1791-1867): electric generator, electro-magnetics, field theory.
Sir John A. Fleming (1849-1945): electronics, thermic valve.
Joseph Henry (1797-1878): electric motor, galvanometer.
Sir William Herschel (1738-1822): galactic astronomy, double stars.
James Joule (1818-1889): reversible thermodynamics.
Lord William Kelvin (1824-1907): absolute temperature scale, energetics, thermodynamics, transatlantic cable.
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630): celestial mechanics, ephemeris tables, physical astronomy.
Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778): classification system, systematic biology.
Joseph Lister (1827-1912): antiseptic surgery.
Matthew Maury (1806-1873): hydrography, oceanography.
James C. Maxwell (1831-1879): electrical dynamics, statistical thermodynamics.
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884): genetics.
Samuel F.B. Morse (1791-1872): telegraph.
Isaac Newton (1642-1727): calculus, dynamics, law of gravity, reflecting telescopes.
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662): hydrostatics, barometer.
Louise Pasteur (1822-1895): bacteriology, biogenesis law, pasteurization, vaccination, and immunization.
Sir William Ramsey (1852-1916): inert gases, isotropic chemistry.
John Ray (1827-1705): natural history, classification of plants and animals.
John Rayleigh (1842-1919): dimensional analysis, model analysis.
Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866): non-Euclidean geometry.
Sir James Simpson (1811-1870): chloroform, gynecology.
Sir George Stockes (1819-1903): fluid mechanics.
Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902): pathology.

18th AND 19th CENTURY EVOLUTIONISTS

And now we will view the armchair philosophers. Hardly one of them ever set foot in field research or entered the door of a science laboratory, yet they founded the modern theory of evolution:

Emmanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) was a do-nothing expert. In his 1734 book, Principia, he theorized that a rapidly rotating nebula formed itself into our solar system of sun and planets. He claimed that he obtained the idea from spirits during a séance. It is significant that the nebular hypothesis theory originated from such a source.

Comte de Buffon (1707-1788) was a dissolute philosopher who, unable to improve on the work of Linnaeus, spent his time criticizing him. He theorized that species originated from one another and that a chunk was torn out of the sun, which became our planet. As with the other philosophers, he presented no evidence in support of his theories.

Jean-Baptist Lamarck (1744-1829) made a name for himself by theorizing. He accomplished little else of significance. He laid the foundation of modern evolutionary theory, with his concept of "inheritance of acquired characteristics," which was later given the name Lamarckism. In 1809, he published a book, Philosophie zoologique, in which he declared that the giraffe got its long neck by stretching it up to reach the higher branches, and birds that lived in water grew webbed feet. If you pull hard on your feet, you can increase their length; and, if you decide in your mind to do so, you can grow hair on your bald head, and your offspring will never be bald. This is science?

Lamarck’s other erroneous contribution to evolution was the theory of uniformitarianism. This is the conjecture that all earlier ages on earth were exactly as they are today, calm and peaceful with no worldwide Flood or other great catastrophes.

Robert Chambers (1802-1883) was a spiritualist who regularly communicated with spirits. As a result of his contacts, he wrote the first popular evolution book in all of Britain. Vestiges of Creation (1844), was printed 15 years before Charles Darwin’s book, Origin of the Species.

Charles Lyell (1797-1875). Like Charles Darwin, Lyell inherited great wealth and was able to spend his time theorizing. Lyell published his Principles of Geology in 1830-1833, and it became the basis for the modern theory of sedimentary strata,--even though 20th-century discoveries in radiodating, radiocarbon dating, missing strata, and overthrusts (older strata on top of more recent strata) have nullified the theory.

In order to prove his theory, Lyell was quite willing to misstate the facts. He learned that Niagara Falls had eroded a seven-mile [11 km] channel from Queenston, Ontario, and that it was eroding at about 3 feet [1 m] a year. So Lyell conveniently changed that to one foot [.3 m] a year, which meant that the falls had been flowing for 35,000 years! But Lyell had not told the truth. Three-foot erosion a year, at its present rate of flow, would only take us back 7000 to 9000 years,--and it would be expected that, just after the Flood, the flow would, for a time, have greatly increased the erosion rate. Lyell was a close friend of Darwin, and urged him to write his book, Origin of the Species.

Alfred Russell Wallace (1823-1913) is considered to be the man who developed the theory which Darwin published. Wallace was deeply involved in spiritism at the time he formulated the theory in his Ternate Paper, which Darwin, with the help of two friends (Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker), pirated and published under his own name. Darwin, a wealthy man, thus obtained the royalties which belonged to Wallace, a poverty-ridden theorist. In 1980, Arnold C. Brackman, in his book, A Delicate Arrangement, established that Darwin plagiarized Wallace’s material. It was arranged that a paper by Darwin would be read to the Royal Society, in London, while Wallace’s was held back until later. Priorities for the ideas thus having been taken care of, Darwin set to work to prepare his book.

In 1875, Wallace came out openly for spiritism and Marxism, another stepchild of Darwinism. This was Wallace’s theory: Species have changed in the past, by which one species descended from another in a manner that we cannot prove today. That is exactly what modern evolution teaches. Yet it has no more evidence supporting the theory than Wallace had in 1858 when he devised the theory while in a fever.

In February 1858, while in a delirious fever on the island of Ternate in the Molaccas, Wallace conceived the idea, "survival of the fittest," as being the method by which species change. But the concept proves nothing. The fittest; which one is that? It is the one that survived longest. Which one survives longest? The fittest. This is reasoning in a circle. The phrase says nothing about the evolutionary process, much less proving it.

In the first edition of his book, Darwin regarded "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" as different concepts. By the sixth edition of his Origin of the Species, he thought they meant the same thing, but that "survival of the fittest" was the more accurate. In a still later book (Descent of Man, 1871), Darwin ultimately abandoned "natural selection" as a hopeless mechanism and returned to Lamarckism. Even Darwin recognized the theory was falling to pieces. The supporting evidence just was not there.

Charles Darwin (1809-1882) was born into wealth and able to have a life of ease. He took two years of medical school at Edinburgh University, and then dropped out. It was the only scientific training he ever received. Because he spent the time in the bars with his friends, he barely passed his courses. Darwin had no particular purpose in life, and his father planned to get him into a nicely paid job as an Anglican minister. Darwin did not object.

But an influential relative got him a position as unpaid "naturalist" on a ship planning to sail around the world, the Beagle. The voyage lasted from December 1831 to October 1836.

It is of interest that, after engaging in spiritism, certain men in history have been seized with a deep hatred of God and have then been guided to devise evil teachings, that have destroyed large numbers of people, while others have engaged in warfare which have annihilated millions. In connection with this, we think of such known spiritists as Sigmund Freud and Adolf Hitler. It is not commonly known that Charles Darwin, while a naturalist aboard the Beagle, was initiated into witchcraft in South America by nationals. During horseback travels into the interior, he took part in their ceremonies and, as a result, something happened to him. Upon his return to England, although his health was strangely weakened, he spent the rest of his life working on theories to destroy faith in the Creator.

After leaving South America, Darwin was on the Galapagos Islands for a few days. While there, he saw some finches, which had blown in from South America and adapted to their environment, producing several sub-species. He was certain that this showed cross-species evolution (change into new species). But they were still finches. This theory about the finches was the primary evidence of evolution he brought back with him to England.

Darwin, never a scientist and knowing nothing about the practicalities of genetics, then married his first cousin, which resulted in all seven of his children having physical or mental disorders. (One girl died after birth, another at 10. His oldest daughter had a prolonged breakdown at 15. Three of his six sons became semi-invalids, and his last son was born mentally retarded and died 19 months after birth.)

His book, Origin of the Species, was first published in November 1859. The full title, On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, reveals the viciousness of the underlying concept; this concept led directly to two of the worst wars in the history of mankind.

In his book, Darwin reasoned from theory to facts, and provided little evidence for what he had to say. Modern evolutionists are ashamed of the book, with its ridiculous arguments.

Darwin’s book had what some men wanted: a clear out-in-the-open, current statement in favor of species change. So, in spite of its laughable imperfections, they capitalized on it. Here is what you will find in his book:

Darwin would cite authorities that he did not mention. He repeatedly said it was "only an abstract," and "a fuller edition" would come out later. But, although he wrote other books, try as he may he never could find the proof for his theories. No one since has found it either.

When he did name an authority, it was just an opinion from a letter. Phrases indicating the hypothetical nature of his ideas were frequent: "It might have been," "Maybe," "probably," "it is conceivable that." A favorite of his was: "Let us take an imaginary example."

Darwin would suggest a possibility, and later refer back to it as a fact: "As we have already demonstrated previously." Elsewhere he would suggest a possible series of events and then conclude by assuming that proved the point.

He relied heavily on stories instead of facts. Confusing examples would be given. He would use specious and devious arguments, and spent much time suggesting possible explanations why the facts he needed were not available.

Here is an example of his reasoning: To explain the fossil trans-species gaps, Darwin suggested that species must have been changing quickly in other parts of the world where men had not yet examined the strata. Later these changed species traveled over to the Western World, to be found in strata there as new species. So species were changing on the other side of the world, and that was why species in the process of change were not found on our side! To explain the fossil trans-species gaps, Darwin suggested that species must have been changing quickly in other parts of the world where men had not yet examined the strata. Later these changed species traveled over to the Western World, to be found in strata there as new species. So species were changing on the other side of the world, and that was why species in the process of change were not found on our side!

With thinking like this, who needs science? But remember that Charles Darwin never had a day of schooling in the sciences.

Here is Darwin’s explanation of how one species changes into another: It is a variation of Lamarck’s theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics (Nicholas Hutton III, Evidence of Evolution, 1962, p. 138). Calling it pangenesis, Darwin said that an organ affected by the environment would respond by giving off particles that he called gemmules. These particles supposedly helped determine hereditary characteristics. The environment would affect an organ; gemmules would drop out of the organ; and the gemmules would travel to the reproductive organs, where they would affect the cells (W. Stansfield, Science of Evolution, 1977, p. 38). As mentioned earlier, scientists today are ashamed of Darwin’s ideas.

In his book, Darwin taught that man came from an ape, and that the stronger races would, within a century or two, destroy the weaker ones. (Modern evolutionists claim that man and ape descended from a common ancestor.)

After taking part in the witchcraft ceremonies, not only was his mind affected but his body also. He developed a chronic and incapacitating illness, and went to his death under a depression he could not shake (Random House Encyclopedia, 1977, p. 768).

He frequently commented in private letters that he recognized that there was no evidence for his theory, and that it could destroy the morality of the human race. "Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without in some degree becoming staggered" (Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, 1860, p. 178; quoted from Harvard Classics, 1909 ed., Vol. 11). "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy" (Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229).

Thomas Huxley (1825-1895) was the man Darwin called "my bulldog." Darwin was so frail in health that he did not make public appearances, but remained secluded in the mansion he inherited. After being personally converted by Darwin (on a visit to Darwin’s home), Huxley championed the evolutionary cause with everything he had. In the latter part of the 19th century, while Haeckel labored earnestly on the European continent, Huxley was Darwin’s primary advocate in England.

The X Club was a secret society in London which worked to further evolutionary thought and suppress scientific opposition to it. It was powerful, for all scientific papers considered by the Royal Society were first approved by this small group of nine members. Chaired by Huxley, its members made contacts and powerfully affected British scientific associations (Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, 1984, p. 64). " ‘But what do they do?’ asked a curious journalist. ‘They run British science,’ a professor replied, ‘and on the whole, they don’t do it badly’ " (R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, p. 467). In the 20th century, U.S. government agencies, working closely with the National Science Federation and kindred organizations, have channeled funds for research to universities willing to try to find evidence for evolution. Down to the present day, the theorists are still trying to control the scientists.

The Oxford Debate was held in June 1860 at Oxford University, only seven months after the publication of Darwin’s Origin of the Species. A special meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, it marked a major turning point in England,--just as the 1925 Scopes Trial would be the turning point in North America. Scientific facts had little to do with either event; both were just battles between personalities. In both instances, evolutionists won through ridicule. They dared not rely on scientific facts to support their case, because they had none.

Samuel Wilberforce, Anglican bishop of Oxford University, was scheduled to speak that evening in defense of creationism. Huxley had lectured on behalf of evolution in many English cities and was not planning to attend that night. But Chambers, a spiritualist adviser to Huxley, was impressed to find and tell him he must attend.

Wilberforce delivered a vigorous attack on evolution for half an hour before a packed audience of 700 people. His presentation was outstanding, and the audience was apparently with him. But then Wilberforce turned and rhetorically asked Huxley a humorous question, whether it was through his grandfather or his grandmother that Huxley claimed descent from an ape.

Huxley was extremely sharp-witted and, at the bishop’s question, he clasped the knee of the person sitting next to him, and said, "He is delivered into my hands!"

Huxley arose and worked the audience up to a climax, and then declared that he would feel no shame in having an ape as an ancestor, but would be ashamed of a brilliant man who plunged into scientific questions of which he knew nothing (John W. Klotz, "Science and Religion," in Studies in Creation, 1985, pp. 45-46).

At this, the entire room went wild, some yelling one thing and others another. On a pretext so thin, the evolutionists in England became a power which scientists feared to oppose. We will learn that ridicule heaped on ridicule, through the public press, accomplished the same results for American evolutionists in Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925.

The Orgueil Meteorite (1861) was one of many hoaxes perpetrated, to further the cause of evolution. Someone inserted various dead microbes, and then covered it over with a surface appearing like the meteorite. The objective was to show that life came from outer space. But the hoax was later discovered (Scientific American, January 1965, p. 52). A remarkable number of hoaxes have occurred since then. Men, working desperately, tried to provide the scientific evidence that does not exist. In the mid-1990s, a meteorite "from Mars" with "dead organisms" on it was trumpeted in the press. But ignored were the conclusions of competent scientists, that both "discoveries" were highly speculative.

Sir Francis Galton (1865). Galton was Charles Darwin’s cousin, who amplified on one of the theory’s logical conclusions. He declared that the "science" of "eugenics" was the key to humanity’s problems: Put the weak, infirm, and aged to sleep. Adolf Hitler, an ardent evolutionist, used it successfully in World War II (Otto Scott, "Playing God," in Chalcedon Report, No. 247, February 1986, p. 1).

Wallace’s Break with Darwin. Darwin’s close friend, Russell Wallace, eventually separated from Darwin’s position--a position he had given Darwin--when Wallace realized that the human brain was far too advanced for evolutionary processes to have produced it (Loren C. Eiseley, "Was Darwin Wrong about the Human Brain?" Harpers Magazine, 211:66-70, 1955).

Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), along with certain other men (Friedrich Nietzche, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, John Dewey, etc.) introduced evolutionary modes and morality into social fields (sociology, psychology, education, warfare, economics, etc.) with devastating effects on the 20th century. Spencer, also a spiritist, was the one who initially invented the term, "evolution" (R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, p. 159; cf. 424). Spencer introduced sociology into Europe, clothing it in evolutionary terms. From there it traveled to America. He urged that the unfit be eliminated, so society could properly evolve (Harry E. Barnes, Historical Sociology, 1948, p. 13). In later years, even the leading evolutionists of the time, such as Huxley and Darwin, became tired of the fact that Spencer could do nothing but theorize and knew so little of real-life facts.

Archaeopteryx (1861, 1877). These consisted of several fossils from a single limestone quarry in Germany, each of which the quarry owner sold at a high price. One appeared to possibly be a small dinosaur skeleton, complete with wings and feathers. European museums paid high prices for them.

Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), a teacher at the University of Jena in Germany, was the most zealous advocate of Darwinism on the continent in the 19th century. He drew a number of fraudulent charts (first published in 1868) which purported to show that human embryos were almost identical to those of other animals. Reputable scientists repudiated them within a few years, for embryologists recognized the deceit. Darwin and Haeckel had a strong influence on the rise of world communism (Daniel Gasman, Scientific Origins of National Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League, 1971, p. xvi).

Marsh’s Horse Series (1870s). Othniel C. Marsh claimed to have found 30 different kinds of horse fossils in Wyoming and Nebraska. He reconstructed and arranged them in a small-to-large evolutionary series, which was never in a straight line (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1976 ed., Vol. 7, p. 13). Although displayed in museums for a time, the great majority of scientists later repudiated this "horse series" (Charles Deperet, Transformations of the Animal World, p. 105; G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution, 1960, p. 149).

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). Nietzsche was a remarkable example of a man who fully adopted Darwinist principles. He wrote books declaring that the way to evolve was to have wars and kill the weaker races, in order to produce a "super race" (T. Walter Wallbank and Alastair M. Taylor, Civilization Past and Present, Vol. 2, 1949 ed., p. 274). Darwin, in Origin of the Species, also said that this needed to happen. The writings of both men were read by German militarists and led to World War I. Hitler valued both Darwin’s and Nietzche’s books. When Hitler killed 6 million Jews, he was only doing what Darwin taught.

It is of interest, that a year before he defended John Scopes’ right to teach Darwinism at the Dayton "Monkey Trial," Clarence Darrow declared in court that the murderous thinking of two young men was caused by their having learned Nietzsche’s vicious Darwinism in the public schools (W. Brigan, ed., Classified Speeches).

Asa Gray was the first leading theistic evolutionary advocate in America, at the time when Darwin was writing his books. Gray, a Presbyterian, worked closely with Charles W. Eliot, president of Harvard, in promoting evolution as a "Christian teaching," yet teaching long ages and the book of Genesis as a fable.

The Challenger was a British ship dispatched to find evidence, on the ocean bottom, of evolutionary change. During its 1872-1876 voyage, it carried on seafloor dredging, but found no fossils developing on the bottom of the ocean. By this time, it was obvious to evolutionists that no fossils were developing on either land or sea, yet they kept quiet about the matter. Over the years, theories, hoaxes, false claims, and ridicule favoring evolution were spread abroad; but facts refuting it, when found, were kept hidden.

Karl Marx (1818-1883) is closely linked with Darwinism. That which Darwin did to biology, Marx with the help of others did to society. All the worst political philosophies of the 20th century emerged from the dark cave of Darwinism. Marx was thrilled when he read Origin of the Species and he immediately wrote Darwin and asked to dedicate his own major work, Das Kapital, to him. Darwin, in his reply, thanked him but said it would be best not to do so.

In 1866, Marx wrote to Frederick Engels, that Origin of the Species contained the basis in natural history for their political and economic system for an atheist world. Engels, the co-founder of world communism with Marx and Lenin, wrote to Karl Marx in 1859: "Darwin, whom I am just now reading, is splendid" (C. Zirkle, Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene, 1959, p. 85). In 1861, Marx wrote to Engels: "Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural selection for the class struggle in history" (op. cit., p. 86). At Marx’s funeral, Engles said that, as Darwin had discovered the law of organic evolution in natural history, so Marx had discovered the law of evolution in human history (Otto Ruhle, Karl Marx, 1948, p. 366).

As Darwin emphasized competitive survival as the key to advancement, so communism focused on the value of labor rather than the laborer. Like Darwin, Marx thought he had discovered the law of development. He saw history in stages, as the Darwinists saw geological strata and successive forms of life.

William Grant Sumner (1840-1910) applied evolutionary principles to political economics at Yale University. He taught many of America’s future business and industrial leaders that strong business should succeed and the weak perish, and that to help the unfit was to injure the fit and accomplish nothing for society (R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, pp. 59, 446, 72). Millionaires were, in his thinking, the "fittest." Modern laissez-faire capitalism was the result (Gilman M. Ostrander, The Evolutionary Outlook: 1875-1900, 1971, p. 5).

William James (1842-1910) was another evolutionist who influenced American thinking. His view of psychology placed the study of human behavior on an animalistic evolutionary basis.

Tidal Hypothesis Theory (1890). George Darwin, son of Charles Darwin, wanted to come up with something original, so he invented the theory that four million years ago the moon was pressed nearly against the earth, which revolved every five hours.--Then one day, a heavy tide occurred in the oceans, which lifted it out to its present location! Later proponents of George’s theory decided that the Pacific Basin is the hole the moon left behind, when the large ocean waves pushed it out into space.

[Junior]

You have no evidence of any kind of bird turning into something else.

What about archaeopteryx? It has features of both birds and therapod dinosaurs; indeed, if it hadn't left feather imprints, it would have been classed as the latter. Now it is recognized as an intermediary between dinosaurs and birds.

[Cowgirl]

|



ARCHAEOPTERYX IS A FAKE

Now we come to a totally opposite position: Archaeopteryx is not an extinct bird, but rather a planned hoax—and there is clear evidence to prove it!

At the same time that mounting evidence was beginning to indicate it to be a carefully contrived fake, confirmed evolutionists had been moving toward the position that Archaeopteryx was only an ancient bird, and not a half-reptile/half-bird. By calling it a "bird," they avoided the crisis that struck the scientific world—and the major museums—when Piltdown Man was exposed as a hoax in 1953.

THREE INITIAL PROBLEMS—Before considering the Hoyle/Watkins exposé, let us first look at some other facets of this overall problem.

You will observe, in the following discussion, that there are some observational differences between this and the preceding approach to the problem. For example, while some experts consider Archaeopteryx to have had a body like a bird, those who consider it a fake believe the fossilized body to be that of a reptile. Somebody took a reptile fossil and carefully added wings to it!

Here is an important analysis. You will want to read it carefully:

"Like the later Piltdown man, Archaeopteryx seemed a perfect intermediate form . . There are, however, disturbing analogies between Piltdown man and Archaeopteryx that have come to light with careful study. Both are hodgepodges of traits found in the forms they are supposed to link,—with each trait present in essentially fully developed form rather than in an intermediate state! Allowing for alterations, Piltdown’s jaw was that of an orangutan; Archaeopteryx’s skull was a dinosaur skull. Moreover, Piltdown man’s cranium was a Homo sapiens skull; Archaeopteryx’s feathers were ordinary feathers, differing in no significant way from those of a strong flying bird such as a falcon . . The lack of proper and sufficient bony attachments for powerful flight muscles is enough to rule out the possibility that Archaeopteryx could even fly, feathers notwithstanding."—W. Frair and P. Davis, Case for Creation (1983), pp. 58-60.

1 - A profitable business. There are those who believe that Archaeopteryx was a carefully contrived fake. It would have been relatively easy to do. The nature of the hard limestone would make it easy to carefully engrave something on it. Since the first Archaeopteryx sold for such an exorbitant price to the highest bidder (the British Museum), the second, produced 16 years later, had a reptile-like head—and sold for a tremendous amount to the museum in Berlin. The owner of that quarry made a small fortune on the sale of each of those two specimens.

2 - Feathers added to a fossil? In these specimens we find powerful flight feathers on strong wings, shown as faint streaks radiating out from what appears to be a small reptile body. The head and body of Archaeopteryx is similar to that of a small coelurosaurian dinosaur, Compsognathus; the flight feathers are exactly like those of modern birds. If they were removed, the creature would appear to be only a small dinosaur. If you carefully examine a photograph of the "London specimen," you will note that the flight feathers consist only of carefully drawn lines—nothing else!

It would be relatively easy for someone to take a genuine fossil of a Compsognathus—and carefully scratch those lines onto the surface of the smooth, durable limestone. All that would be needed would be a second fossil of a bird as a pattern to copy the markings from,—and then inscribe its wing pattern onto the reptile specimen. That is all that would be required, and the result would be a fabulous amount of profit. And both specimens did produce just that!

3 - All specimens came from the same place. Keep in mind that all six of those specimens were found in the Solnhofen Plattenkalk of Franconia, Germany, near the city of Eichstatt. Nowhere else—anywhere in the world—have any Archaeopteryx specimens ever been discovered!

Living in Germany, at the same time that these six specimens were found, was Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919). He would have been in the prime of life at the time both specimens were brought forth. Haeckel was the most rabid Darwinist advocate on the continent; and it is well-known that he was very active at the time the finds were made. He was continually seeking for new "proofs" of evolution, so he could use them in his lecture circuit meetings. He loved verbal and visual illustrations; and it is now known that he spent time, on the side, enthusiastically inventing them!

It is also known that Haeckel had unusual artistic ability that he put to work, producing pro-evolution frauds. He would fraudulently touching up and redrawing charts of ape skeletons and embryos so that they would appear to prove evolutionary theory. He had both the ability and the mind set for the task. He could also make the money he would make. You will find more information on his fraudulent artistry in chapter 16, Vestiges and Recapitulation. There is no doubt that Haeckel had the daring, the skill, the time, and the energy to forge those Archaeopteryx specimens. In those years, he always seemed to have the money to set aside time for anything he wanted to do in the way of lecturing or drawing charts. He even supported a mistress for a number of years. Perhaps some of that money came from engraving bird feathers onto reptile fossils and, then, splitting the profits of Archaeopteryx sales with the quarry owners.

The most delicate tracery can easily be etched onto limestone blocks. About 35 years ago, the present writer had opportunity to work for several weeks with two of the best 19th-century art materials: copper engraving and stone lithography. Both were used, in the 19th-century, in printing and able to reproduce the most delicate of marks. This is because both copper and high-quality limestone have such a close-grained, smooth surface. Bavarian and Franconian limestone quarries produced the best lithographic blocks. ("Lithos" and "graphos" means "stone writing.") Our present lithographic process, which uses thin metal plates, is a descendant of the limestone block method (which utilized printing from a flat surface because oily ink in the markings would not mix with the water on the smooth surface between the markings). The other primary method, that of copper engraving, used the intaglio method of fine tracery marks cut into a smooth surface. There is no doubt but that any good engraver could easily superimpose the marks of outward radiating flight feathers over an actual small dinosaur fossil. The delicate tracery which could be drawn onto limestone blocks, made it possible to print banknotes and bond certificates with them.. About 35 years ago, the present writer had opportunity to work for several weeks with two of the best 19th-century art materials: copper engraving and stone lithography. Both were used, in the 19th-century, in printing and able to reproduce the most delicate of marks. This is because both copper and high-quality limestone have such a close-grained, smooth surface. Bavarian and Franconian limestone quarries produced the best lithographic blocks. ("Lithos" and "graphos" means "stone writing.") Our present lithographic process, which uses thin metal plates, is a descendant of the limestone block method (which utilized printing from a flat surface because oily ink in the markings would not mix with the water on the smooth surface between the markings). The other primary method, that of copper engraving, used the intaglio method of fine tracery marks cut into a smooth surface. There is no doubt but that any good engraver could easily superimpose the marks of outward radiating flight feathers over an actual small dinosaur fossil. The delicate tracery which could be drawn onto limestone blocks, made it possible to print banknotes and bond certificates with them.

"The feathers of Archaeopteryx suggest that the creature was a skillful flyer or glider, at the same time that its skeleton suggests otherwise. Archaeopteryx is a mosaic of characteristics almost impossible to interpret, let alone to base evolutionary theories on!"—W. Frair and P. Davis, Case for Creation (1983), p. 81.

THE HOYLE/WATSON EXPOSÉ—It was not until the 1980s that the most formidable opposition to these Solnhofen limestone specimens developed, Here is the story of what took place:

1 - Background of the investigations. In 1983, M. Trop wrote an article questioning the authenticity of the specimen ("Is Archaeopteryx a Fake?" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 20, pp. 121-122). Two years later, a series of four articles appeared in the British Journal of Photography (March-June 1985 issues), declaring Archaeopteryx to be a carefully contrived hoax.

Those articles were authored by some of the leading scientists in England: Fred Hoyle, R.S. Watkins, N.C. Wickramasinghe, J. Watkins, R. Rabilizirov, and L.M. Spetner. This brought the controversy to the attention of the scientific world. They declared in print that Archaeopteryx was a definite hoax, just as much as Piltdown man had been a hoax.

Keep in mind as we discuss these specimens that, of all six, only the London and Berlin specimens are usable; the rest are hardly recognizable as anything. So all the evidence, pro and con, must come from one or the other of those two specimens.

In 1983, these six leading British scientists went to the London Museum and carefully studied and photographed the specimen. The specimen is contained in a slab and a counterslab—thus giving a front and back view of it. Here is what these well-known scientists discovered:

2 - Slab mismatch. The two slabs do not appear to match. If the specimen was genuine, the front and back slabs should be mirror images of one another, but they are not. This one fact, alone, is not to prove the specimen a fake.

A comparison of the present specimen with an 1863 drawing indicates an alteration had been later made to the left wing of the specimen. The 1863 left wing was totally mismatched on the two slabs; the later alteration brought the match closer together.

3 - Artificial feathers. Hoyle, Watkins, and the others decided that the body skeleton and arms were genuine, but the feather markings (those shallow lines radiating outward from the forelimbs) had been carefully imprinted on the fossil by an unknown hand.

4 - Cement blobs. They also found additional evidence of the forgery: Cement blobs had been used during the etching process.

"They suggested the following procedure for creating the feather impressions: 1) the forgers removed rock from around the tail and ‘wing’ (forelimb) regions, 2) they then applied a thin layer of cement, probably made from limestone of the Solnhofen quarries, to the excavated areas, and 3) they impressed feathers on the cement and held them in place by adhesive material (referred to as ‘chewing gum’ blobs). Attempts to remove the blobs from the rock were obvious—the slabs were scraped, brushed, and chipped. However, an oversight remained in the cleaning process: one ‘chewing gum’ blob and fragments of others were left behind."—Venus E. Clausen, "Recent Debate over Archaeopteryx.

5 - Museum withdraws specimen. After their initial examination of the London specimen, they requested permission for a neutral testing center to further examine the blob areas, utilizing electron microscope, carbon 14 dating, and spectrophotometry. Three months later, museum officials sent word that the specimen was being withdrawn from further examination.

6 - History of forgeries. Hoyle, Watkins, and the others then checked into historical sources, and declared that they had discovered that, dating back to the early 18th century, the Solnhofen limestone area was notorious for its fossil forgeries. Genuine fossils, taken from the limestone quarries, had been altered and then sold to museums. These non-Archaeopteryx fossils brought good money because they appeared to be strange new species.

7 - Discoveries follow prediction. Thomas H. Huxley, Darwin’s British champion, whom he called his "bulldog," had predicted that fossils of strange new species would be found. Hoyle, et. al, believe that, thus encouraged, the forgers went to work to produce them.

8 - The Meyer connection. Of the six Archaeopteryx fossils, only three specimens show the obvious feather impressions. These three specimens were sent to Hermann von Meyer, in Germany, who, within a 20-year period, analyzed and described them. Hoyle and company suggest that they came in to Meyer as reptiles and left with wings! It just so happens that Meyer worked closely with the Haberlein family, and they acquired his two best feathered reptile fossils—and then sold them to the museums. It was the Haberlein family that made the profit—not the quarry owners. It would be relatively easy for them to split some of it with Meyer.

You can find all of the above material in four issues of the British Journal of Photography (March-June 1985). Also see W.J. Broad, "Authenticity of Bird Fossil Is Challenged" in New York Times, May 7, 1985, pp. C1, C14; T. Nield, "Feathers Fly Over Fossil ‘Fraud,’ " in New Scientist 1467:49-50; and G. Vines, "Strange Case of Archaeopteryx ‘Fraud’ " in New Scientist 1447:3.

9 - Aftermath. As might be expected, a torrent of wrath arose from the evolutionary community as a result of these four articles. Defenders of evolutionary theory went into an absolute rage, but the six scientists held to their position.As might be expected, a torrent of wrath arose from the evolutionary community as a result of these four articles. Defenders of evolutionary theory went into an absolute rage, but the six scientists held to their position.

This brought still further uproar. It had been the same British Museum that had been duped into the Piltdown Man hoax, which had been exposed only 32 years earlier ("found" from 1908 to 1912 only a few miles from Darwin’s old home, publicly announced that same year and shown to be a hoax in 1953).

For a time, the British Museum refused to relent, but the pressure was too great, so the museum arranged for a special committee, composed of a select variety of scientists, to review the matter. They examined the slabs; and in 1986 reported that, in their opinion, Archaeopteryx had no blobs. With this, the British Museum announced that the case was closed and the slabs would be unavailable for further examination. But the slab mismatch was not denied, and it was far greater evidence than the blobs.

Is Archaeopteryx a flying reptile, just another bird, or a fraud—a reptile with wings added?

Take your pick; either way it is definitely not a transitional species, and has no transitions leading to or from it.

3 - OTHER PROOFS

This article contains the "showcases of evolution"—the best evidences it has to offer that evolution has actually occurred and the theory is true.

In addition to the horse series and Archaeopteryx, there are several other special "evidences" in favor of evolution, which are discussed in some detail in the book The Evolution Cruncher. These include:

1 - The peppered moth ("industrial melanism’) is discussed in chapter 9, "Natural Selection" (#1/7 Peppered Moth).

2 - Darwin’s Finches are discussed in chapter 9, "Natural Selection."

3 - Trilobites are discussed in chapter 12, "Fossils and Strata." - Trilobites are discussed in chapter 12, "Fossils and Strata."

4 - Mutated bacteria and sickle-cell anemia are discussed in chapter 10, "Mutations."

5 - Radiodating and radiocarbon dating are discussed in chapter 6, "Inaccurate Dating Methods."

6 - The dates attributed to the rock strata are discussed in chapter 12, "Fossils and Strata."

7 - The existence of dinosaurs in the past is discussed in chapter 12, "Fossils and Strata."

8 - The existence of cavemen and the discovery of "hominid bones" is discussed in chapter 13, "Ancient Man."

9 - Subspecies changes ("microevolution") is discussed in chapter 9, "Natural Selection."

10 - Changes in genes by mutations is discussed in chapter 12, "Fossils and Strata." is discussed in chapter 12, "Fossils and Strata."

11 - Similarities of body parts and chemistry are discussed in chapter 15, "Similarities and Divergence."

12 - "Useless organs" is discussed in chapter 16, "Vestiges and Recapitulation."

13 - Embryonic similarities are discussed in chapter 16, "Vestiges and Recapitulation."

14 - The concept that evolutionary theory is not under natural laws that would invalidate it is discussed in chapter 18, "Laws of Nature."

15 - The "overwhelming support" given by scientists to evolutionary theory is discussed throughout this book, but especially in chapters 1, "History of Evolutionary Theory" and 23, "Scientists Speak" [For an online account, go to History of Evolutionary Theory. Many, many quotations by scientists refuting evolution can be found here.]

16 - The idea that evolution is any kind of help to humanity or society is discussed in chapter 19, "Evolution, Morality and Violence." is discussed in chapter 19, "Evolution, Morality and Violence."

In addition, other "evidences" and "proofs" of evolution are discussed elsewhere in this book. The evolutionary evidences we have not discussed are of secondary, or even minuscule, importance. Some of them are so complex that they are difficult for most people to grasp.

There are definite scientific facts that totally refute the evolution of matter, stars, planetoids, plants, or animals. These powerful refutations stand as a strong rock in the midst of angry waves beating upon them. Learn the most powerful of these proofs and share them with others! Remember the story of the attorney who appeared in court before the judge and said: "There are ten reasons why my client cannot be here today. The first is that he is dead." The judge replied, "That one is good enough; I do not need to hear the rest." So emphasize a few of the strong basic evidences against evolution, and you are more likely to win your hearers. Remember the story of the attorney who appeared in court before the judge and said: "There are ten reasons why my client cannot be here today. The first is that he is dead." The judge replied, "That one is good enough; I do not need to hear the rest." So emphasize a few of the strong basic evidences against evolution, and you are more likely to win your hearers.

THREE SPECIAL EVIDENCES AGAINST STELLAR ORIGINS—Four of the powerful evidences against the chance origin of matter, stars, planets, or moons would be these: (1) The impossibility of nothing making itself into something (chapter 2). (2) The impossibility of gaseous matter (hydrogen gas clouds) sticking together and forming itself by gravity or otherwise into stars or planetoids (chapter 2). (3) The impossibility of random actions of any kind in producing the intricate, interrelated, and complicated orbits of moons, planets, stars, galaxies, and galactic clusters (chapter 2). (4) The impossibility of linear, outward-flowing gas from a supposed Big Bang changing to orbital or rotational movements (chapter 2).

TWO SPECIAL EVIDENCES AGAINST THE CHANCE ORIGIN OF LIFE—Two of the powerful evidences against the chance origin of life would be these: (1) The impossibility of random formation of the DNA molecule, amino acids, proteins, or the cell (chapter 8). (2) The impossibility of non-living matter producing living organisms (chapter 7).

SEVEN SPECIAL EVIDENCES AGAINST THE EVOLUTION OF LIFE—Seven of the powerful evidences against the chance origin or evolution of life would be these: (1) The total lack of past evidence of trans-species changes, as shown in the fossil evidence (chapter 12). (2) The total lack of present evidence of change from one species to another (chapters 9-10). (3) The impossibility of random, accidental gene reshuffling ("natural selection") to produce new species (chapter 9). (4) The impossibility of mutations, either singly or in clusters, to produce new species (chapter 10). (5) The fact that there is no other mechanism, other than natural selection or mutations, which could possibly produce trans-species changes (chapters 9-10). (6) The fact that changes within species, are not evolution (chapter 11). (7) The beauty shown in the things of nature. An example of this would be the beauty of the flowers. Random changes would not produce such attractive forms and colors. (8) The marvelous purposive designs of the things of nature. (We have a special section on our website on the wonders of design in nature.)

TWO SPECIAL EVIDENCES AGAINST ALL TYPES OF EVOLUTION—Two of the most powerful evidences negating both inorganic and organic evolution, either in origin or development, would be the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics (chapter 25).

We have elsewhere discussed in detail all of the above proofs of Creationism.

4 - TEXTBOOK PROOFS

The textbooks generally have a trite one-two-three set of evolutionary "evidences," which generally consist of the fact that there once were dinosaurs and cavemen along with theories about "apeman" bones, fossils and strata dates, mutations, similarities, vestiges, and recapitulation.

ALL THE PROOFS OF EVOLUTION

The book, Evolution, by F.H.T. Rhodes (1974), lists all the evidences and "proofs" of evolution. It is a fascinating book. Looking through these "evidences," we find that three-fourths of them consist of neutral biological, geological, or chemical facts—which provide no actual evidence in favor of evolution. The others consist of a variety of suggestive possibilities. As a rule, the strongest "evidences" for the theory center around variations within species.

Here is a brief overview of the well-presented material in Rhodes exhaustive book, covering the evidences of evolution. You will notice that none of them constitute any real evidence in favor of evolution. Seventy-nine proofs are listed here. It is astonishing to read the following list!. You will notice that none of them constitute any real evidence in favor of evolution. Seventy-nine proofs are listed here. It is astonishing to read the following list!

Many different species exist. Aristotle taught evolution. Spontaneous generation could not be a cause of the origin of life. Ray and Linnaeus developed plant and animal classification systems. Lamarck’s theory of inheritable changes was an error. History of evolutionary thought for past 200 years. Darwin’s finding of various creatures on the Galapagos islands. Wallace and Malthus’ search for a mechanism whereby evolution could occur. Darwin’s idea of "natural selection." Darwin’s influential book.

Darwin’s theory revised by later discovery of mutations. Mendel’s law of genetics. DeVries discovers mutations. Morgan and Sutton study fruit flies. Surely, mutations must be the cause of all evolutionary change. General information on chromosomes. Variations in fruit flies.

Species always appear to reproduce their own kind. Aging changes in the lifetime of an individual is a strong proof of evolution. All living things have cells, protoplasm, metabolism, reproduction, and growth; therefore they must all have come from a common source. All living things are interdependent, so this shows evolution.

Different birds have similarities, therefore they must have a common ancestor. Embryos are alike, so they must have evolved from a common source. Organic degeneration and "useless organs" (vestiges) are strong evidences of evolution. Biochemical similarities indicate common ancestry. Woodpeckers punch holes in trees, so they must have evolved this ability. Men can selectively breed new types of dogs, therefore random mutations can develop new species.

Evolution must be implied in the fact that although some birds breed in northern climates others breed in warmer areas (population evolution). Drugs given to bacteria must have caused mutations that damaged them. Peppered moths come in two types, dark and light; and birds like to eat them. There are different species of extinct fossils. There may be a "fossil series" among Ceratopsian dinosaurs. The horse series. Archaeopteryx. The platypus. The "earliest" organisms in the sedimentary rock strata were smaller and slower, and the later ones were faster and larger. A larger number of species are found in the later strata than in the earlier strata.

Facts about genes, chromosomes, cell division, Mendelian inheritance patterns, and laws of inheritance. Probabilities of accomplishing changes within species (via Mendelian genetics). Coin tossing. XX and XY mechanisms in reproduction. Genes control reproduction. DNA is the key to inheritance. Protein manufacture. Population genetics: variations exist among people (eye color, height, etc.). Gene reshuffling through recombination and crossing-over to produce changes within species.

Mutations produce new characteristics. Genetic drift and geographic isolation also produces changes within a species. Migration of populations into new areas may cause evolution. Evolution can occur through natural selection (mating preferences, predatory killing, etc.). Owls eat the white mice first. Ocean currents brought creatures from South America rather than Central and North America to Galapagos Islands. Birds eating peppered moths is natural selection in action. Growth differences in fossil bears must be due to the fact that they hibernated in different caves. Teeth become smaller with age. Different sub-species of the same bird have different length bills. Flowers, insects, etc., copycat one another’s shape, color, etc. (mimicry). Sexual preferences of animals might make changes within species. Sickle-cell anemia proves that natural selection occurs within mankind.

A Devonian fish probably climbed out of the water and become an amphibian; but, unfortunately, we do not have the missing link when this happened. Transitional fossil forms prove evolution, and we have one: the reptile-bird, Archaeopteryx.

Given enough time, evolution can occur. Rock strata time charts prove long ages. Evolution is occurring now in the Solomon Islands, as the Golden Whistler [bird] makes new subspecies [picture of them indicates they all look just about alike]. Minks change color in winter, and this surely must have been caused by mutations at some time in the past.

Hydrogen must have clumped together to form stars. Perhaps it only happened in the past, but perhaps it is happening now. A cloud came together and formed the earth. All the planets have six of the elements, so this is an important proof of something.

Miller and Urey took complicated lab equipment and produced some dead amino acids.

There are many fossil outlines, impressions, casts, tracks, etc. Stone artifacts [arrowheads, etc.] are the most common remains of prehistoric man. The oldest fossils are about 2.7 billion years old. Most fossil animals suddenly appeared about 600 million years ago. Fossilized marine invertebrates. The oldest vertebrates [bony fish], insects, land animals, and plants. The reptiles and dinosaurs. The mammals.

Apes and monkeys. Reconstructed "ape-men." Suggested evolution of man from monkey. Stone tools. Cave paintings. "Evolution" of human societies. Evolutionary theory, although intrinsically separate from morality, is still not bad for society. The "future evolution" of man in regard to pollution control, dwindling resources, overpopulation.

—That summarizes the evidence for evolution in an entire, excellent book dedicated to the subject. Throughout it all, did you find even one clear-cut evidence for evolution?

LISTING THE PROOFS OF EVOLUTION

In concluding this chapter, let us briefly overview the strongest evidences of evolution, as presented in a number of evolution textbooks:

1 - Aristotle taught evolution.

2 - Linnaeus classified plants and animals.

3 - Darwin wrote an influential book.

4 - Morgan studied fruit flies.

5 - Every living thing has chromosomes.

6 - People age as they become older.

7 - All living things have cells.

8 - All birds have feathers.

9 - Woodpeckers punch holes in trees.

10 - Birds breed in different climates.

11 - There are both light and dark moths.

12 - Some species have become extinct.

13 - Mendel discovered inheritance patterns.

14 - Coin tossing exemplifies evolution.

15 - DNA is the key to inheritance.

16 - Variants exist among people.

17 - Changes have taken place within species.

18 - Mutations produce new characteristics.

19 - Migration may cause evolution.

20 - Mating preferences can cause evolution.

21 - Predatory killing can cause evolution.

22 - Owls eat white mice first.

23 - Birds eat peppered moths.

24 - Different bears are different sizes.

25 - Teeth become smaller with age.

26 - Mutations produced sickle-cell anemia.

27 - A fish must have climbed out of water.

28 - Time can produce evolution.

29 - Evolutionary charts prove long ages.

30 - Minks change color in winter.

31 - Stone tools have been found.

32 - Dinosaurs became extinct.

33 - Some earlier peoples lived in caves.

34 - Cave paintings have been found.


Evolutionists might as well claim the wetness of water as proof for evolution.




















|