by Joe Crews
Recently I talked to a man with a fantastic amount of faith.
Not one shade of doubt crept into his animated description of man’s origin
and destiny. He was an evolutionist I met on an airplane. With
incredible confidence he bridged the eons of prehistoric time to explain the
existence of modern plant and animal life. His detailed description of
human ascent from tiny, one-celled monad was so vivid and convincing that one
could almost believe he had seen the microscopic amoeba turn into a man.
What is this evolution doctrine that inspires so much faith in its
disciples? How has it turned great scientists into dogmatic opponents of
any other viewpoint? Many evolutionary scientists have united their
professional influence to forbid any classroom instruction contrary to their own
views. Does the theory of evolution merit this kind of fanatical support,
which would silence all opposing ideas? When religious people take such a
position, they are called bigots, but scientists seem to escape that charge.
In February of 1977, nearly 200 members of the nation’s academic community
sent letters to school boards across the United States, urging that no alternate
ideas on origins be permitted in classrooms.
This indicates that the evolutionists are feeling the threat of a
rising revolt against the stereotyped, contradictory versions of their theory.
Many students are looking for honest answers to their questions about the origin
and purpose of life. For the first time, the stale traditions of evolution
have to go on the defensive. But let’s take a look at what they have
to defend. Then you will understand why these evolutionary scientists are
people of such extraordinary faith, and why they are so fearful of facing
competition at the school level.
1. Spontaneous Generation
How does the evolutionist explain the existence of that first
one-celled animal from which all life forms supposedly evolved? For many
years the medieval idea of spontaneous generation was the accepted explanation.
According to Webster, spontaneous generation is “the generation of living
from non-living matter … [it is taken] from the belief, now abandoned, that
organisms found in putrid organic matter arose spontaneously from it.”
Simply stated, this means that under the proper conditions of
temperature, time, place, etc., decaying matter simply turns into organic life.
This simplistic idea dominated scientific thinking until 1846, when Louis Pasteur
completely shattered the theory by his experiments. He exposed the whole
concept as utter foolishness. Under controlled laboratory conditions, in a
semi-vacuum, no organic life ever emerged from decaying, nonliving matter.
Reluctantly it was abandoned as a valid scientific issue. Today no
reputable scientist tries to defend it on a demonstrable basis. That is why
Webster says it is “now abandoned.” It never has been and never can
be demonstrated in a test tube. No present process is observed that could
support the idea of spontaneous generation. Obviously, if spontaneous
generation actually did take place in the distant past to produce the first spark
of life, it must be assumed that the laws that govern life had to be completely
different from what they are now. But wait a minute! This won’t
work either, because the whole evolutionary theory rests upon the assumption that
conditions on earth have remained uniform throughout the ages.
Do you begin to see the dilemma of the evolutionists in explaining
that first amoeba, or monad, or whatever formed the first cell of life? If
it sprang up spontaneously from no previous life, it contradicts a basic law of
nature that forms the foundation of the entire theory. Yet, without
believing in spontaneous generation, the evolutionist would have to acknowledge
something other than natural forces at work — in other words, God.
How do they get around this dilemma?
Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner of Harvard University, states
it as cryptically and honestly as an evolutionist can:
“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to
concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.
Yet here we are — as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation”
(Scientific American, August 1954).
That statement by Dr. Wald demonstrates a much greater faith than
a religious creationist can muster. Notice that the great evolutionary
scientist says it could not have happened. It was impossible. Yet he
believes it did happen. What can we say to that kind of faith? At
least the creationist believes that God was able to speak life into
existence. His is not a blind faith in something that he concedes to be
So here we are, fact to fact with the first contradiction of
evolution with a basic law of science. In order to sustain his humanistic
explanation of the origin of life, he must accept the exploded, unscientific
theory of spontaneous generation. And the big question is this: Why is he
so violently opposed to the spontaneous generation spoken of in the Bible?
A miracle of creation is required in either case. Either God did it by
divine fiat, or blind, unintelligent nature produced Wald’s impossible
act. Let any reasonable mind contemplate the alternatives for a moment.
Doesn’t it take more faith to believe that chance could produce life than
it does to believe infinite intelligence could produce it?
Why did Dr. Wald say that it was impossible for life to result from
spontaneous generation? That was not an easy concession for a confirmed
evolutionist to make. His exhaustive search for a scientific explanation
ended in failure, as it has for all other evolutionary scientists, and he had the
courage to admit it. But he also had an incredible faith to believe in it
even though it was a scientific impossibility. A Christian who confessed to
such a faith would be labeled as na´ve and gullible. What a difference the
cloak of higher education makes upon our easily impressed minds! How much
simpler and sweeter the faith that accepts the inspired account: “In the
beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).
2. Chance Life — A Ridiculous Improbability
What would be involved in the accidental development of a single
living cell? The fact is that the most elementary form of life is more
complicated than any man-made thing on earth. The entire complex of New
York City is less complicated than the makeup of the simplest microscopic cell.
It is more than ridiculous to talk about its chance production. Scientists
themselves assure us that the structure of a single cell is unbelievably intricate.
The chance for a proper combination of molecules into amino acids, and then into
proteins and the properties of life is entirely unrealistic. American
Scientist magazine made this admission in January of 1955:
“From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the
present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly
improbable in all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial
A Swiss mathematician, Charles Eugene Guye, actually computes the
odds against such an occurrence at only one chance in 10^160. That means 10
multiplied by itself 160 times, a number too large even to articulate.
Another scientist expressed it this way:
“The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a
single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than that in the
whole universe. For it to occur on earth alone would require many, almost
endless, billions of years” (The Evidence of God in an Expanding
How can we explain the naîve insistence of evolutionists to believe
something so extremely out of character for their scientific background?
And how can we harmonize the normally broad-minded tolerance of the educated,
with the narrow bigotry exhibited by many evolutionary scientists in trying to
suppress opposing points of view? The obvious explanation would seem to be
rooted in the desperation of such evolutionists to retain their reputation as the
sole dispensers of dogmatic truth. To acknowledge a superior wisdom has
been too long cultivated by the evolutionist community. They have repeated
their assumptions for so long in support of their theories that they have started
accepting them as facts. No one objects to their assuming whatever they
want to assume, but to assume happenings that go contrary to all scientific
evidence and still call it science is being dishonest.
3. Mutations — How Big the Changes?
Now let’s look at a second basic evolutionary teaching which
is contrary to scientific law. One of the most necessary parts of evolution,
which is supposed to provide the power for changing the amoeba into a man, is
mutation. This refers to abnormal changes in the organism that are
assumed to be caused by chemical changes in the genes themselves. The genes
are the hereditary factors within the chromosomes of each species. Every
species has its own particular number of chromosomes that contain the genes.
Within every human being are 46 chromosomes containing an estimated 100,000 genes,
each one of which is able to affect in some way the size, color, texture, or
quality of the individual. The assumption is that these genes, which provide
the inherited characteristics we get from our ancestors, occasionally become
affected by unusual pairing, chemical damage, or other influences, causing them
to produce an unusual change in one of the offspring. This is referred to
as a mutation. Through gradual changes wrought in the various species
through mutation, it is assumed by the evolutionists that the amoeba turned into
an invertebrate, which became an amphibian, then a reptile, a quadruped, an ape
form, and finally a man. In other words, the species are not fixed in the
eyes of the evolutionists. Families are forever drifting over into another
higher form as time progresses. This means that all the fossil records of
animal history should reveal an utter absence of precise family boundaries.
Everything should be in the process of changing into something else — with
literally hundreds of millions of half-developed fish trying to become amphibious,
and reptiles halfway transformed into birds, and mammals looking like half-apes
Now everybody knows that instead of finding those billions of
confused family fossils, the scientists have found exactly the opposite.
Not one single drifting, changing life form has been studied. Everything
stays within the well-defined limits of its own basic kind and absolutely refuses
to cooperate with the demands of modern evolutionists. Most people would
give up and change their theory when faced with such a crushing, deflating blow,
but not the evolutionist! He still searches for that elusive missing link
which could at least prove that he hasn’t been 100 percent wrong.
But let’s look at the vehicle that the evolutionists have
depended upon to provide the possibility of the drastic changes required
by their theory. Sir Julian Huxley, a principal spokesman for evolution,
“Mutation provides the raw material of evolution.”
Again he said:
“Mutation is the ultimate sources of all ... heritable
variation” (Evolution in Action, p.38).
Professor Ernst Mayr, another leader of the evolutionists, made
“Yet it must not be forgotten that mutation is the
ultimate source of all genetic variation found in natural populations and the
only raw material available for natural selection to work on” (Animal
Species and Evolution, p.170).
Please keep this clearly in mind: Evolutionists say that mutation
is absolutely essential to provide the inexorable upgrading of species that
changed the simpler forms into more complex forms. BUT — the
scientific fact is that mutation could NEVER accomplish what evolution demands
of it, for several reasons. As all scientists agree, mutations are very
rare. Huxley guessed that only about one in a hundred thousand is a
mutant. Secondly, when they do occur, they are almost certain to be harmful
or deadly to the organism. In other words, the vast majority of such
mutations lead toward extinction instead of evolution; they make the organism
worse instead of better. Huxley admits: “The great majority of mutant
genes are harmful in their effect on the organism” (Ibid., p.39).
Other scientists, including Darwin himself, conceded that most
mutants are recessive and degenerative; therefore, they would actually be
eliminated by natural selection rather than effect any significant improvement
in the organism. Professor G. G. Simpson, one of the elite spokesmen for
evolution, writes about multiple, simultaneous mutations and reports that the
mathematical likelihood of getting good evolutionary results would occur only
once in 274 billion years! And that would be assuming 100 million
individuals reproducing a new generation every day! He concludes by
“Obviously ... such a process has played no part whatever
in evolution” (The Major Features of Evolution, p.96).
Does this sound sort of confusing to you? They say mutation
is necessary to make the changes required by their theory, yet they have to
confess that it is scientifically impossible for multiple mutations to make the
changes. This is too typical of the puzzling twists and turns made by our
evolutionist friends in their efforts to uphold an exploded theory. So
the second point of contradiction with true science has been established.
Mutations, of course, do effect minor changes within the basic
kinds, but those changes are limited, never producing a new family. They
can explain many of the varieties of both plant and animals but can never
explain the creation of basic kinds as required by evolution.
4. Fossils Support Creationism
Since we have discovered that the fossil record gives no support
to the idea of species gradually changing into other species, let us see if
fossil evidence is in harmony with the Bible. Ten times in the book of
Genesis we read God’s decree concerning the reproduction of his creatures
— “after its kind.” The word “kind”
refers to species, or families. Each created family was to produce only
its own kind. This forever precludes the drifting changing process
required by organic evolution where one species turns into another.
Take note that God did not say there could be no changes within
the family. He did not create all the varieties of dogs, cats, horses,
etc., in the very beginning. There was only a male and female of each
species, and many changes have since occurred to produce a wide assortment of
varieties within the family. But please keep it straight in your mind that
cats have always remained cats, dogs are still dogs, and men are still men.
Mutation has only been responsible for producing a new variety of the same
species, but never originating another new kind. Selective breeding has
also brought tremendous improvements such as hornless cattle, white turkeys, and
seedless oranges, but all the organisms continue to reproduce exactly as God
decreed at Creation — after it’s kind.
The “common ancestor” that evolution demands has never
existed. There is not a “missing link.” Man and monkeys are
supposed to stem from the same animal ancestry! Even chimpanzees and many
monkey groups vary tremendously. Some are smart, others dumb. Some
have short tails and some long. Some have no tails at all. Their
teeth vary in number. A few have thumbs and others do not. Their
genes are different. Their blood is different. Their chromosomes
don’t jibe. Interestingly enough, apes only breed with apes,
chimpanzees with chimpanzees, and monkeys with monkeys.
But when we start comparing humans with monkeys, we get even more
impossible differences than those among the simian types. In fact, these
differences constitute another unanswerable support for the Bible rule of
“after its kind.” The fact that some monkeys can be trained to
smoke a pipe, ride a scooter, or even hoist a test tube in a laboratory does not
prove that scientists are evolved animals, or that monkeys are retarded,
It has already been stated that evolutionists expected the fossil
record to support their theory of species changes. Their doctrine demanded
vast numbers of scaly reptiles transforming their scales into feathers and their
front feet into wings. Other reptiles supposedly should be changing into
fur-bearing quadrupeds. Did they find those thousands of multi-changing
creatures? Not one! No matter what particular strata they sifted
through, all the fossils were easily recognized and classified within their own
families, just as God decreed. If the evolutionary doctrine were true, the
strata would be teeming with hundreds of millions of transition forms with
combination features of two or more species. Not only so, but there would
have to be millions upon millions of observable living links right now
in the process of turning into a higher form. Darwin confessed:
“There are two or three million species on earth. A
sufficient field one might think for observation; but it must be said today
that in spite of all the evidence of trained observers, not one change of the
species to another is on record” (Life and Letters, vol. 3, p.25).
How interesting! Then why insist that it had to be that
way? This is one of the marvels of those who cling to a traditional theory.
Even the most ancient fossil forms in the lowest fossil beds have
stubbornly retained the same features of their modern counterparts, and it is
amusing to listen to the exclamations of surprise by the evolutionists. The
creationist is not surprised at all. His Bible told him it would be that
way, and he hasn’t been forced to puzzle over contradictory evidence.
5. The Mystery of the Empty Strata
Another frustration for the poor evolutionist is the strange case
of the empty strata. As one digs deep into the earth, one layer of stratum
after another is revealed. Often we can see these layers clearly exposed
in the side of a mountain or roadbed cut. Geologists have given names to
the succession of strata that pile one on tope of another. Descending into
Grand Canyon, for example, one moves downward past Mississippi, Devonian,
Cambrian, etc., as the scientists have tagged them.
Now here is the perplexity for the evolutionists: The Cambrian is
the last stratum of the descending levels that has any fossils in it. All
the lower strata below the Cambrian have absolutely no fossil record of life
other than some single-celled types such as bacteria and algae. Why not?
The Cambrian layer is full of all the major kinds of animals found today except
the vertebrates. In other words, there is nothing primitive about the
structure of these most ancient fossils known to man. Essentially, they
compare with the complexity of current living creatures. But the big
question is: Where are their ancestors? Where are all the evolving
creatures that should have led up to these highly developed fossils?
According to the theory of evolution, the Precambrian strata should be filled
with more primitive forms of these Cambrian fossils in the process of evolving
Darwin confessed in his book, Origin of the Species:
“To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous
deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian
system I can give no satisfactory answer ... the case at present must remain
inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views
here entertained” (p.309).
How amazing! Darwin admitted having no way to defend his
theory, but he still would not adjust his theory to meet the unanswerable
arguments against it.
Many other evolutionary scientists have expressed similar
disappointment and frustration. Dr. Daniel Axeliod of the University of
California calls it:
“One of the major unsolved problems of geology and
evolution” (Science, July 4, 1958).
Dr. Austin Clark of the U.S. National Museum wrote concerning the
“Strange as it may seem ... mollusks were mollusks just
as unmistakably as they are now” (The New Evolution Zoogenesis,
Drs. Marshall Kay and Edwin Colbert of Columbia University
marveled over the problem in these words:
“Why should such complex organic forms be in rocks about
600 million years old and be absent or unrecognized in the records of the
preceding two billions years? ... If there has been evolution of life, the
absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks older than Cambrian is
puzzling” (Stratigraphy and Life History, p.102).
George Gaylor Simpson, the “Crown Prince of
Evolution,” summarized it:
“The sudden appearance of life is not only the most
puzzling feature of the whole fossil record but also its greatest apparent
inadequacy” (The Evolution of Life, p.144).
In the face of these forced admissions of failure to find
supporting scientific evidence, how can these men of science continue to press
so dogmatically for their shaky views? No wonder they fight to keep
students from hearing the opposing arguments. Their positions would crumble
under the impartial investigation of honest research.
The absence of Precambrian fossils points to one great fact,
unacceptable to evolutionists — a sudden creative act of God that brought
all the major creatures into existence at the same time. Their claims that
creationism is unscientific are made only to camouflage their own lack of true
evidence. The preponderance of physical scientific data is on the side of
creation, not evolution.
6. Uniformity or the Flood?
The subject of strata beds leads into the interesting question of
how these layers were formed, and why the evolutionists have guesstimated their
age in the billions of years. The dating of those layers has been done on
the basis of the theory of uniformity. This theory assumes that all the
natural processes at work in the past have operated exactly as they do today.
In other words, the creation of those strata can only be explained on the basis
of what we see happening in the world now. Scientists must calculate how
long it takes for sedimentation to build a foot-deep stratum. Then that
age is assigned to any 12-inch layer, no matter how deeply located within the
Is that a valid assumption to make? Have all the natural
forces of the past been just what we can demonstrate and understand today?
How na´ve and conceited to compel ages past to conform to our limited observation
and experience! We can assume what we please, but it proves absolutely
nothing except our own gullibility. The Bible explains very graphically
about a Flood that ravaged the face of this earth covering the highest mountains
and completely destroying all plant and animal life outside the ark. The
destructive action of the Deluge is expressed by these words in the Bible:
“The same day were all the fountains of the great deep
broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon
the earth forty days and forty nights” (Genesis 7:11, 12).
The existence of those strata can be scientifically accounted for
in perfect harmony with the Bible record. The universal Flood of Genesis
provides a much more reasonable explanation of the strata than evolutionist’s
speculations. As the waters receded from the earth, powerful tides and
currents carved out the great canyons in a short time. Layers of debris,
according to the specific weight, were laid down, compressing plant and animal
life into a compact seam or stratum. Only thus can we explain the vast oil
reserves and coal beds around the world. These are the result of vegetation
and animal bodies being buried under extreme heat and pressure. No such
process of fossilization is taking place today. No oil or coal is forming
by present natural forces at work. Uniformity fails here.
The fact is, there had to be a gigantic cataclysmic overturn of
nature, killing and burying millions of tons of plant and animal life.
The position of some fossils standing upright through one or more strata
indicates that the process was not slow or age long. The material had to
be deposited quickly around the body of the animal, or it could not have
remained in its erect position. The flood buried millions of fish, many
of them contorted as though suddenly overtaken by a phenomenal force.
Marine fossils have been recovered from the highest mountain ranges and a
checklist on other scientific evidence points to a universal deluge over the
7. Survival of the Fittest
“Natural selection” is a coined phrase of the
evolutionist to describe the survival of the fittest. Simply stated, it is
the natural process that enables the strongest of each generation to survive and
the weaker, more poorly adjusted ones to die out. The assumption of
evolution is that since only the strongest survive to father the next generation,
the species will gradually improve, even advancing into other more highly
developed states on the evolutionary scale.
Darwin believed that natural selection was the most important
factor in the developing of his theory. Many of the top teachers of
evolution today are hopelessly at odds on the question of how vital it is.
Sir Julian Huxley believes in it, as this statement indicates:
“So far as we know ... natural selection ... is the only
effective agency of evolution” (Evolution in Action, p.26).
He is disputed on this by another one of the heavyweights in the
field, Dr. Ernst Mayr:
“Natural selection is no longer regarded as an all-or-none
process but rather as a purely statistical concept” (Animal Species,
G. G. Simpson, who is regarded as the leading interpreter of the
theory today, rejects these opposite views. He said.
“Search for the cause of evolution has been abandoned.
It is now clear that evolution has no single cause” (The Geography of
By the way, when you read about the great unity and agreement that
exists among the scientists regarding evolution, don’t believe a word of
it. Each one is busily experimenting with new speculative possibilities as
to how the changes took place and then abandoning them as they appear more and
more ridiculous. The one basic tenet they do agree on is that there was no
divine fiat creation as described in the Bible.
But come back a moment to the matter of selection. What is
the evidence that it can actually reproduce all the changes involved in the
transition from amoeba to man? Is there scientific proof that it can even
make one small change? When it comes right down to answering those
questions, the spokesmen for evolution do some of the fanciest footwork in
semantics you ever saw and make some of the most amazing admissions. Even
though Simpson supports the natural selection as a factor, he recognizes the
scarcity of evidence in these words:
“It might be argued that the theory is quite
unsubstantiated and has status only as a speculation” (Major
Features, pp.118, 119).
But listen to Huxley’s circular reasoning on it.
“On the basis of our present knowledge natural selection
is bound to produce genetic adaptations: and genetic adaptations are thus
presumptive evidence for the efficiency of natural selection: (Evolution in
Did you follow that gem of logic? His proof for natural
selection is adaptation or change in the organism, but the change is produced by
natural selection! In other words, A=B; therefore B=A. His
“proof” proves nothing. Were the changes produced by natural
selection, or did he invent natural selection to explain the changes? It
is just as likely that the changes produced the natural selection theory.
The ludicrous thing is that even the changes from species to species have never
been verified. As we have shown already there is not one shred of fossil
evidence or living evidence that any species has changed into another. So
Huxley’s proof for natural selection are changes which never happened, and
the changes which never happened are offered as proof for natural selection.
Surely this is the most vacuous logic to be found in a science textbook.
But let us continue with Sir Julian’s explanation about the
reliability of this natural selection process:
“To sum up, natural selection converts randomness into
direction and blind chance into apparent purpose. It operates with the
aid of time to produce improvements in the machinery of living, and in the
process generates results of a more than astronomical improbability which could
have been achieved in no other way” (Evolution in Action, pp.54,
Don’t miss the force of that last sentence. The
evolutionary changes wrought by natural selection are “astronomically
improbable,” but because our friend Huxley sees no other way for it to be
done, he believes in the astronomically improbable. Poor man! He is
wrong when he said the complex order of life today could have been achieved in no
other way. God created the wonders of cell and gene and all the millions of
processes that leave the Nobel Prize winners baffled.
But since Sir Julian doesn’t believe in a divine creation, he
has to invent a miracle-working process to explain the existence of these complex
creatures — obviously got here somehow. To illustrate the omnipotence
of his “natural selection” god, Huxley computed the odds against such
The computations were done on the likelihood of every favorable
evolutionary factor being able to produce a horse. Now keep in mind that
this is all a chance development through the operation of nature, time, mutation,
and natural selection. In his book, Evolution in Action, Huxley gave
the odds this way:
“The figure 1 with three million naughts after it: and that
would take three large volumes of about 500 pages each, just to print! ... No
one would bet on anything so improbable happening and yet it has happened”
We commented before about the faith of evolutionist to believe in
the impossible. Since this figure of compounding probability is effectively
zero, how can a scientific mind, in the absence of any demonstrable evidence, be
so dogmatic in defending his theory? Why did Huxley employ a mathematical
formula to illustrate the impossibility of his theory working? Perhaps he
used the figures to accent his personal testimony. Just as born-again
Christians seek occasions to bear their personal testimony of faith in Christ,
Huxley demolishes the scientific possibilities of his theory in order to magnify
the personal faith aspect of his personal testimony for the god evolution.
Marshall and Sandra Hall in their book The Truth — God or
Evolution? share their reaction to Huxley’s absurd faith in the chance
production of a horse. It will provide a fitting climax of proof that
evolution indeed flunked the science test.
“And, let us remind you who find such odds ridiculous (even
if you are reassured by Mr. Huxley), that this figure was calculated for the
evolution of a horse! How many more volumes of zeros would be required by
Mr. Huxley to produce a human being? And then you would have just one
horse and one human being and, unless the mathematician wishes to add in the
probability for the evolution of all the plants and animals that are necessary
to support a horse and man, you would have a sterile world where neither could
have survived any stage of its supposed evolution! What have we now —
the figure 1 followed by a thousand volumes of zeros? Then add another
thousand volumes for the improbability of the earth having all the necessary
properties for life built into it. And add another thousand volumes for
the improbability of the sun, and the moon, and the stars. Add other
thousands for the evolution of all the thoughts that man can have, all the
objective and subjective reality that ebbs and flows in us like part of the
pulse beat of an inscrutable cosmos!
“Add them all in and you long ago stopped talking about
rational thought, much less scientific evidence. Yet, Simpson, Huxley,
Dobzhansky, Mayr, and dozens of others continue to tell us that is the way it
had to be! They have retreated from all the points which ever lent any
semblance of credibility to the evolutionary theory. Now they busy
themselves with esoteric mathematical formulations based on population
genetics, random drift, isolation, and other ploys which have a probability of
accounting for life on earth of minus zero! They clutter our libraries,
and press on the minds of people everywhere an animated waxen image of a theory
that has been dead for over a decade.
“Evolution has no claim whatsoever to being a science.
“It is time all this nonsense ceased. It is time to
bury the corpse. It is time to shift the books to the humorous fiction
section of the libraries” (pp.39, 40).
These examples of evolutionary folly are only the tip of an iceberg,
but they reassure us that we have no cause to be embarrassed for our creationist
faith. Millions of Christians have been intimidated by the high-sounding
technical language of educated evolutionists, many of whom are vitriolic in their
attacks on special creation. What we do need is more information on exposing
the loopholes in the evolutionary theory; its base is so riddled with unscientific
inconsistencies, often concealed under the gobbledygook of scientific jargon.
To follow our ancestry back through the sons of Adam, who “was
the son of God,” (Luke 3:38) is so much more satisfying than to search
through dismal swamps for bleeping monad forebears. The human race has
dropped, even in our lifetime, several degrees deeper into moral perversion and
violent disorder. Humanists cite our animal ancestry as an excuse for much
of this bizarre behavior. Why blame people for action dictated by their
bestial genes and chromosomes? This rationalization, like a temporary
insanity plea, provides license for further irresponsible conduct. The true
cause for evil and the true remedy for it are found only in the Word of God.
Sin has defaced the image of God in man, and only a personal encounter with the
perfect Saviour will bring a reversal of the problem of evil.
— How Evolution Flunked the Science Test, © 2006, by Joe Crews