Evolution--meaning dead matter turning into living matter without
intelligent design--is a belief system, born of ancient pagan
religions. It should not be taught as undisputed fact. Although the
majority of scientists toe the evolutionary line, dissenters number
in the thousands. A new book, In Six Days - Why 50
Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, by John F
Ashton, Ph.D.. takes a factual and scientific look at the evidence
for evolution. Physicists, biologists, and chemists conclude that
evolution may offer no more evidence than traditional religion, and
factually, it may lag behind.
"Evolution has been called
'a fairy tale for adults.' It's like someone kissing a frog and
several million years later it becomes a prince. That isn't
science...it's simply a matter of faith."
"Unregenerate men cling to their belief in evolution because of their hostility toward God. There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to support the theory of evolution. Yet millions accept it because they have been brainwashed into thinking it is true."--Dr. D. James Kennedy
Mainstream media and educational textbook publishers often feature articles that support the evolutionary model for the origins of the universe and life. There is, however, another--and better--theory about origins.
There are growing numbers of highly trained scientists who have become convinced that evolutionism may not be the best explanation for the origin of life. There are literally thousands of scientists worldwide who have recognized that evolutionism is poor science. They consider Creation to be a valid scientific alternative.
In fact, almost all of the great scientists of the past--Newton, Pasteur, Maxwell, Kelvin to name just a few--were creationists. Many of the founding fathers of science were actually contemporaries of Darwin.
When evolutionary scientists claim that Creation does not qualify as a scientific theory, creation scientists counter that the same argument can be applied to evolution. A scientific theory must be supported by observation and testing. Obviously, there were no scientists--or any person--who witnessed the origin of the universe, the origin of life, or the origin of human beings. These events were unique and thus unrepeatable. Evolution is really a belief system about the past--it is therefore a religion.
Creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence--it is the interpretation of the facts that is in question. By using the scientific method and our five senses in the present, however, Genesis Creation is more logically defensible. For example, Genesis declares that each animal was created "after its kind." That's what we witness today, not one animal changing into another.
What about creatures in the past? One of the best evidences for "Genesis kinds" is that there are systematic gaps between plant and animal kinds in the fossil record. None of the transitional fossils that would be expected to be present based on the evolution model has been found. Even the classic example usually paraded, Archaeopteryx (a proposed reptile-like bird) is being discarded by many evolutionists.
Regarding man's supposed ancestry to ape-like creatures, the famous evolutionist, the late Lord Solly Zuckerman, concluded that it could be successfully argued that if man has evolved from an ape-like creature, he did so "without leaving any fossil traces of the steps of the transformation."
All living things are so incredibly designed that they reveal the handiwork of a Master Designer. Even the most "basic" living cell in the body is far more complicated than our most sophisticated computers. Think of the intelligence required to build a living cell!
For the sake of good science and good education, the case for Genesis Creation needs to be heard, not censored by the media or our academic establishment.
Portions reprinted with permission from: Answers In Genesis
Here's the challenge: I dare you. Read a book on creation science.
Polls consistently show skepticism of evolution among the public (For one example, see http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx.) Yet evolutionism (blind belief in evolution) permeates the western education establishment and the media elite. You probably never heard the "other side" of the evolution question—evolution skepticism is seldom allowed in the classroom, and is vigorously censored from mainstream media.
So let's make it easy. Here's a great resource for a variety of free (yes, actually free) downloadable adult books on the subject, as well as a sprinkling of free public domain Christian resources for children such as a The Bible in Pictures. Just follow the link: http://www.creationism.org/books .
Just one of many examples is the complete text of the 2003 edition (about 500 pages total) of the book, In the Minds of Men, which "exposes point by point the fuzzy reasoning behind the standard scientific textbook explanations, revealing the motivation while at the same time providing a great deal of counter-evidence that has been concealed for far too long."
Perhaps you are already convinced that naturalistic, molecules to man evolution is not theory but a fact. If this is the case, then no amount of information will change your mind--so what are you afraid of, anyway? You've nothing to lose by reading a different viewpoint than your own, and you may find it entertaining. If the evidence for evolution is really as iron-clad as you think, you can only increase your "faith" in evolution by reading about creationism, right? On the other hand, if you really delve into some of the problems and controversies in evolution you might find that you've been sold a theory built upon not just a shaky foundation but no foundation at all. Are you ready to search for the truth?
To find the truth, one must be willing to accept it. According to ScienceDaily.com, "confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors."--(http://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/confirmation_bias.htm )
Confirmation bias is one reason why so many people willingly believe a hoax. One glaring example is the Piltdown man hoax. Piltdown man is an example of scientific fraud which was pawned off as truth for decades by evolution scientists. Java man is one of many other contentious issues in evolution. (See more at http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen.)
Perhaps even more interesting, and certainly more prolific, are the bones of contention regarding Neanderthals (sometimes spelled Neandertal—both spellings are considered correct). Who were the Neanderthals, really, and what happened to them? Were they a strange, extinct group of ancient people, a type of animal, or a link between? The science isn't as settled as your college text may lead you to believe, but actually quite contentious among conventional scientists. Milford H. Wolpoff writes in the Journal of Cosmology, 2011, Vol. 14, Evolution or Extinction of Neandertals:A Brief History:
"Observations that late Neandertals show evidence of mixture, the first Europeans following Neandertals have some Neandertal anatomy, and the recent discovery that many Neandertal nuclear genes persist in human populations have served to disprove the idea that Neandertals became extinct when other Homo sapiens populations encountered them in the Late Pleistocene. The Neandertals are gone, but they are one of humanity’s ancestors."
If this is true, then Neanderthals are fully human--really just an earlier you. Yet there are other lessor known ideas about Neanderthal man: “Jack Cuozzo, the author of Buried Alive, relates his experiences radiographing some of the Neanderthal skulls contained in French museums. Cuozzo, an orthodontist and forensic specialist, noticed that the jaws of the skulls had been incorrectly placed forward in order to give an ape-like appearance. The Pech de L'Aze (skull of a child) not only did not have prominent brow ridges expected of a Neanderthal, but the teeth were out of allignment and falsely said to be maloccluded. When Dr. Cuozzo placed the actual jaw into alignment, the teeth fit together perfectly, giving the child a normal human appearance rather than the Neanderthal face attributed to him.
Dr. Jack Cuozzo writes regarding Neanderthal man: "Recent explorations have been conducted in a cave in Bruniquel, Southern France. We didn’t see this cave firsthand, but over the past six years the depths of the cave have been investigated by archaeological teams led by a number of French archaeologists. They said the occupation levels of this deep cave could be 47,600 years old or much older. This is their way of saying it wasn’t recent. One of the archaeologists, a Francois Rouzaud, said that Bruniquel cave, "shows that pre-historic men frequented the deep underground world, in total darkness, long be-fore they began to paint on cave walls."(22) Men and women walked around in total darkness. Can you picture that? With all the stalactites hanging from the ceilings and stalagmites protruding from the floor, I can say that this is absolutely impossible without light or sonar. I know we are not related to dolphins, so there are only two choices left. Better vision in the dark or lights. That’s it. The Bernifal cave would have hospitalized us all without light. I don’t know which would have been worse, a stalactite in the head or a stalagmite in the knee." "Buried Alive" by Dr. Jack Cuozzo. - (http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/bernifal.html )
Recent information suggests that conventional ideas about Neanderthals greatly underestimated their abilities. Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, quoted by Answersingenesis.org on October 1, 2015, says that "Neanderthals, Like Other Humans, Heated Water, and Organized Their Homes." Smithsonian.com (certainly not considered a "creationist" publication) reports that "archaeologists uncovered what they think is a hole located near hearths that could have been used to heat water. Other remains show evidence of sleeping areas, trash disposal areas, and areas used for the creation of stone tools...Revelations that Neanderthals lived in caves complete with hot water and plenty of food adds to a growing picture of the behavior of these early humans. In 2013, writes National Geographic’s Ker Than, scientists confirmed that Neanderthals carefully buried their dead, too. It seems that cavemen had better manners (and nicer living conditions) than some initially thought." (https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/neanderthal/neanderthals-heated-water-organized-homes/)
What happened to the Neanderthals? Were they simply an extinct cousin of man, not a direct ancestor? Or were they instead an ancestor of modern humans, who rather than dying out interbred and passed on remnants of their DNA? Were they actually fully human and longer lived, with bones growing more pronounced due to advanced age? Read more and decide for yourself in Answers Research Journal, 2010, Volume 3:
"According to Cuozzo, we would expect that, with people’s decreasing lifespans as time went on, the Neanderthal characteristics would gradually lessen from generation to generation, and then disappear entirely. In fact, this is what we see in various archaeological discoveries, although these are usually interpreted as humans that are the result of intermarriage between the Neanderthal and modern peoples (except for the DNA proponents, who do not agree, and who propose other ideas)." (https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/neanderthal/those-enigmatic-neanderthals )
Were they a strange, extinct group of ancient people, a type of animal, or a link between? Milford H. Wolpoff writes in the mainstream Journal of Cosmology, 2011, Vol. 14, Evolution or Extinction of Neandertals:A Brief History:
"Observations that late Neandertals show evidence of mixture, the first Europeans following Neandertals have some Neandertal anatomy, and the recent discovery that many Neandertal nuclear genes persist in human populations have served to disprove the idea that Neandertals became extinct when other Homo sapiens populations encountered them in the Late Pleistocene. The Neandertals are gone, but they are one of humanity’s ancestors."
Speaking of Neanderthals, did dinosaurs die out long before man walked the earth, as conventional science texts vigorously state? Or could there be credible evidence of dinosaurs living together with man? If there was such evidence, would anyone dare to investigate? If such evidence exists, would it threaten the establishment of scientists who have heavily invested in a certain dogmatic view of the dawn of man? What about apparently human footprints found together with evidence of dinosaur tracks?
Evidence regarding humans and dinosaurs walking together has arisen from various sources outside of mainstream science, but also from an unexpected source—communistic, atheistic scientists during the Soviet Union's dominance of Turkmenistan. (http://livingdinos.com/2011/07/human-and-dinosaur-footprints-in-turkmenistan )
Creationist or evolutionist both agree that science knowledge is in flux. As new information comes into the mix we must be prepared to reevaluate preconceived notions. Perhaps if a Neanderthal could see us now, he might consider his modern offspring as puny weaklings, handicapped with poor sight, weak bones, and lowered intelligence. Sadly, modern doctors don't encounter beneficial genetic mutations--they see harmful genetic syndromes, mutations, and chromosome deletions. Observation shows that the genetic code of man breaks down over time, proving the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Certainly, our technology has allowed us to partially overcome some of these handicaps, and our Neanderthal ancestors didn't have all of our medical advances. Then again, perhaps they didn't need them.
Ready to rethink evolution? Try reading a book from the other side!
Does Natural Selection Prove Evolution?
William Kirwan, President of Ohio State University, erred in his defense of evolutionism (Columbus Dispatch Forum, October 2, 2001). Kirwan said, "Every farmer who has had to change pesticides because insects become resistant to one type after years of exposure has witnessed evolution through natural selection."
This is a common, but false, example used to "prove" evolution. It does not prove evolution, in the the sense of one species changing into another (macroevolution). In Kirwan's example, a new insect species is not created; the insects that have the stronger features survive and pass on characteristics that already existed in the gene pool.
Some evolutionists claim that a new species is created if a new mutation can't procreate with the prior ones. This is not only silly, but also blatantly bigoted if applied to human beings with various genetic conditions, who cannot procreate at all. Evolutionism is often a road that leads to dehumanization of some human beings, such as those with genetic differences. Hitler and his minion's were devout evolutionists. (For information, see https://www.csustan.edu/history/was-hitler-influenced-darwinism.)
How difficult would it be to believe the convoluted reasoning involved in this definition of a "species?" One would have to be convinced that (for example) a human could be the recipient of a genetic mistake that could be beneficial (when have you heard about that happening?), and could only pass on the trait to offspring through the recipient of the same genetic mistake, who just happened to exist at the same time. And that would make a new, improved species, no longer human. We should have read something about this momentous occurrence somewhere in our lengthy recorded human history. The few flimsy examples among lower species have been easily disproved (see links, below, for more details.) If such a major change has happened often enough to explain all the species on earth, it should have happened frequently enough for us to have heard about it.
Unfortunately, the human genetic code is breaking down through harmful mistakes (in all of us, in varying degrees); it is not evolving into a new, improved species. However, we are still fully human—we are not becoming another more advanced species. As an example of the breakdown, one can look to recorded history. In the ancient past, a man could marry a close relative with far less fear of genetic mutations than would be possible today.
If millions of years of natural selection (as is still commonly believed) had created macroevolution, we would see many millions of transitional forms between species--millions of half and quarter humans, for instance. This is the evolutionary theory that most of us learned in school.
Some evolutionists, confronted with the obvious lack of evidence to prove their belief, have thought of an alternate explanation: punctuated equilibrium. They maintain that evolution happened very rapidly (not slowly over millions of years), with few if any transitional forms. Perhaps a fish instantly grew working lungs, and lived to pass on this change.
This is a pretty big whopper, if considered logically. How was the fish with lungs able to live long enough to get out of the water? How did he flop around on land and find food? Must we also believe he quickly--before he starved--grew legs, and learned how to eat off the land? This fairy tale would take an unreasonable "willing suspension of unbelief." In other words, a large dose of self-delusion is required. After all, Darwin's followers dreamed up the "millions of years" of transitions (justified through questionable dating methods) to convince the public that given enough time, non-living matter could become living matter, and through time and chance new information can be added to DNA, causing the development of a new species. Don't expect to hear much about the theory of punctuated equilibrium in the establishment press. Evolutionists know that most laymen won't buy it.
Even if we believe the theory of punctuated equilibrium, the fossil record is still woefully inadequate. Even in a quick transition, we should find many, many more preserved specimens to prove evolutionism. Macroevolution should still be observable today. We should also see some examples in recorded historical records. We do not. (Although historical records do provide scientific descriptions of live dinosaurs, said by questionable science to be extinct at the time!) Science has been unable to find dozens, much less millions of transitional forms. And of those few claimed "transitional forms," most--if not all--eventually turn out to be frauds, mistakes, or hotly debated even in the evolution establishment. The history of modern evolutionsim is littered with discarded and fraudulent claims. Evolutionism should be labeled: "Buyer beware!"
Malcolm Muggeridge (world famous journalist and philosopher) stated: "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."
Evolutinism was not original with Darwin, but with ancient pagan philosophy. I would welcome the teaching of the true history of evolutionism in the schools. Truly informed, unbiased students will not be fooled by this monopolistic, paganistic theory. Thousands of qualified scientists favor the alternate theory of origins--intelligent design--however, the evolutionist establishment censors opposing views.
In addition to the true history of science, children should also learn about the many famous scientists who favored the intelligent design model, such as Newton, Pasteur, and Dr. Werner von Braun (National Aeronautics and Space Administration).
"Our most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being."--Isaac Newton, Principia, Second Edition.
When people don't wish to believe in intelligent design they invent humanism, evolutionism, paganism. "Perceiving/professing themselves to be wise, they became fools instead, worshiping the creature rather than the Creator."
It is ignorant and bigoted to censor the theory of intelligent design because some of the proponents believe in God. Some evolutionists claim to believe in God. Should that also disqualify evolutionism as a valid theory?
Even if you can accept that with sufficient time and chance life can begin without the intervention of intelligence, that still leaves the problem: where did the first molecule come from? Evolutionists, flailing desperately, often say now that it came from “another galaxy.” Well, where did that first molecule come from in another galaxy? What really bugs evolutionists? Despite the establishment's attempts to bolster evolutionism, most people still stubbornly cling to logic, the evidence of their senses, and the innate, natural conviction of creation through intelligent design.
"As the famous Dutch botanist Hugo deVries put it: Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest (1905, pp. 825-826). Colin Patterson placed the matter in its proper focus when he commented that most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question: how a species originates. And it is there that natural selection seems to be fading out, and chance mechanisms of one sort or another are being invoked (1982)." (15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American’s Nonsense,http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=20 )
(From an ancient hymn written by King David, Holy Bible, Psalm 19)
NASA Scientist and Creation
"Manned space flight is an amazing achievement, but it has opened for mankind thus far only a tiny door for viewing the awesome reaches of space. An outlook through this peephole at the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator.
I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science. And there is certainly no scientific reason why God cannot retain the same relevance in our modern world that He held before we began probing His creation with telescope, cyclotron, and space vehicles.
Our survival here and hereafter depends on adherence to ethical and spiritual values. Through science man tries to harness the forces of nature around him; through religion he tries to control the forces of nature within him and find the moral strength and spiritual guidance for the task that God has given him."
--Dr. Werner von Braun, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington D.C., Creation: Nature's Designs and Designer, Pacific Press Publishing Association: Mountain View, CA, 1971, Preface, page 6
Do real scientists believe in Creation?, http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html#4
Evolution Problems, Hoaxes and Questions, http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen; addresses questions in evolutionary theory such as how life began—even if you can accept life beginning through time and chance, where did the first molecules come from...
Christians Sacrifice Children In Pagan Temples – Eaglesnesthome.com exposes the link between evolution, paganism, and government-run schools
Jesus and the Intellectual, http://www.ccci.org/intellectual/
Probe Ministries, http://www.probe.org/
Intelligent Design, http://intelligentdesignnetwork.org
Are the RATE Radiocarbon (14C) Results Caused by Contamination?,https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/are-the-rate-results-caused-by-contamination/
Was Hitler Influenced by Darwinism?, https://www.csustan.edu/history/was-hitler-influenced-darwinism
Do creation scientists really believe in a “flat earth?” For an objective and very readable account of the flat earth myth, see Jeffrey Burton Russell (Professor of History, University of California at Santa Barbara), Inventing the Flat Earth (New York: Praeger, 1991).
Debating both sides of Evolution: “15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American’s Nonsense,” http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1104
The Monkey Trial--does the movie Inherit the Wind portray science and history accurately, http://www.themonkeytrial.com/ ; comparison between a transcript of famous historical Scopes "Monkey Trial" and the Hollywood movie highlights media bias and distortion about evolution.
Where do you want to go—eternally? View our guidelines
Christian Book Distributors offers a huge selection of bargain-priced homeschool and educational resources and books. Search Christian Book Distributors for bargain-priced books on creation, science, and intelligent design, such as In Six Days - Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, by John F Ashton, Ph.D. Bargain Christian Books, videos, homeschool books, and bargain-priced Christian music CDs! Portions of your purchases help support this web site. Thank you!
Cartoon artwork Copyright Melissa L. Morgan, 1998 - 2009 Do not use wit hout permission.
eaglesnesthome.com Copyright Melissa L. Morgan 2015
