Science Versus Evolution


By Mark W Swarbrick

If you enjoy the following article, you would like my book, Theistic Evolution: Did God Create Through Evolution? 

Click the Book image or Click HERE to purchase.

This book Theistic Evolutionexamines the following topics:

    • The authority of Scripture
    • Conflicts between biblical statements and evolution
    • Methods of biblical interpretation
    • The doctrines of errancy versus inerrancy are carefully examined. 



The Scientific Evidence Against Evolution

There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such trifling investment of fact.”    — Mark Twain

The doctrine of evolution is pervasive in our society.  Its mind-numbing and brainwashing influence is everywhere, on every nature program, on public television, and in every public school. Daily we hear it subtly interjected wherever possible: The earth is millions of years old, this evolved, that adapted, and so forth, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

Evolution is so often espoused and paraded as a true and proven scientific fact, that most people are not aware that it was never more than a hypothesis[1], and is in fact now a disproved theory. For this reason I think it best that I give the reader at least some idea of the incredible amount of scientific data arrayed against evolution. True Biblical Christianity and true science are in complete agreement.

I am not a scientist. But we needn’t be scientists to exercise our common sense, nor to understand proper scientific method and procedure. My intention is to barely scratch the surface of the scientific evidence. My hope is that this will kindle a desire to investigate the scientific aspect further, and I refer the reader to the recommended reading section at the end of this book.

What Is Science?

Science According To The Dictionary —

Encarta World English Dictionary

Science:  The study of the physical world and its manifestations, especially by using systematic observation and experiment…the knowledge gained by the study of the physical world.

Cambridge International Dictionary of English

Science:  Knowledge obtained from the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, especially by observing, measuring and experimenting, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities.

The Parameters Of True Science

  1. Science Is Observation Based
  2. Science Does Not Contradict Established Scientific Laws
  3. Science Is Unbiased
  4. Science Is Falsifiable
  5. Science Consists Of Workable Models and Hypothesis That Fit With The Real World Of Known Facts

Evolution Violates The Parameters of True Science

Everywhere, on television and in the schools, we hear the montra: “Evolution is science, evolution is a proven fact,” when in fact nothing of the sort is true at all.[2] We shall now examine each of the five parameters of good science, explain each one, and then illustrate how evolution violates all of them.

Rule 1: Science Is Observation Based

Real science is based upon observation. Note the dictionary definitions above, “knowledge obtained by systematic study…especially by using systematic observation…especially by observing…”

For example, consider Sir Isaac Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation. Every young schoolboy has heard the story of how Newton observed an apple falling from a tree, and with contemplation thereupon developed the law of gravity. It began with simple observation, and developed into the scientific law:

“Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects.”

It became codified as a law of science because it was observed that this was always the case. Not once, anywhere in our observation is this law ever contradicted. That is why it is considered a scientific law. It is always observed that this is the case. Every experiment ever performed with gravity has shown the same observable results.

The same is true of any fact of science, no matter what the field. It has been said that science rests upon two foundations: reliable empirical evidence and sound logical reasoning.  One science textbook puts it this way:

“Scientific theories are primarily tested against observation and accepted, rejected, or modified mainly because of observational data. Observation is thus generally considered to be the touchstone of objectivity in science; it seems to be primarily observation that provides an independent standard for the evaluation of theories and hypotheses. If it were not for observation, there would be little reason for choosing between scientific theories and fictional accounts, between science and pseudoscience, between warranted assertions and fanciful hopes. “[3]

Evolution Is Not Observable. Evolution Is Not Seen To Be Happening Now

Now is the time to use our common sense. As we observe the world around us, do we see evolution happening now?  Are ape-like creatures becoming men? Are fish crawling out of the sea and growing legs?  Are any reptiles growing wings and turning into birds?

Of course we do not see this. Why not? Is there any good reason why we should not see evolution happening before our very eyes? If evolution is a scientific fact, why do we not observe it happening all the time?  Evolutionists claim they know evolution happened millions of years ago, so why don’t we still see it happening today? What do the evolutionists say about this inescapable fact?

The explanation they give is that evolution happens to slowly to see. This should raise our suspicions immediately. If it isn’t observable, where is the evidence? Furthermore, if it happens to slowly to see, then that should make it even more visible. We should see every stage of evolution practically frozen in time before our very eyes. We should see apelike creatures that are almost human, and every gradual variation in between. Not only between apes and man, but we should see a gradual variation between all creatures. Why don’t we see this?

Again the evolutionists have an excuse. It is because these intermediaries were not as well adapted so they became extinct. That’s why we don’t see them. How do we know they became extinct? Well, because none exist now. Of course this reasoning doesn’t quite get us there. Think about it: We know the intermediaries became extinct because they don’t exist now, and how do we know that they ever existed? Because they must have existed, for if they didn’t then evolution isn’t true, and since “science” says[4] that evolution is a fact, then they must have existed. So the proof of the proof of evolution is an a priori belief in evolution. This type of faulty logic is known as circular reasoning and is an invalid argument.  What is missing from this evolutionary explanation?  Two things: Reliable empirical evidence and sound logical reasoning, without which you do not have real science.

As you see, there is nothing to observe. This is nothing more than a hypothesis to explain the absence of evidence. Does that sound like science? Does that sound like “systematic observation and experiment”?  No, this is metaphysics, not science. Metaphysics is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as: “A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.”

And by the Wordsmyth English Dictionary as: “Abstract and speculative philosophy”

That is exactly what evolution is – speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment, and by definition that is not science, but metaphysical philosophy.

But don’t scientists have other evidence, such as fossils, to prove the existence of these intermediaries?  Here the evolutionists is in even more trouble, for not only do we not see evolution in living creatures, we do not find evidence in the fossil record of the great number of intermediary creatures that must have existed if evolution happened. Again there is an “explanation” for this. Evolutionists invented the concept of punctuated equilibrium to explain the lack of fossil evidence. They say that evolution actually happened too fast for it to leave any fossil evidence.

Now if the reader is confused, this is understandable. Is evolution occurring to slow to be seen, or to fast to be seen? Which is it? According to this “explanation”, for some unknown reason, there would be periods in time where suddenly evolution would occur and every creature would start evolving into something else. Then suddenly it would stop. Time would go on for a few hundred thousand years, or perhaps a million years, and then suddenly things would quickly evolve, and then mysteriously stop. Since during most of the time things were not evolving, and evolution only happened during these evolutionary moments in time, this explains why there are no fossils to show that evolution happened.

And what is the evidence that punctuated equilibrium is a fact?  The evolutionists tell us: Well, there are no fossils proving evolution happened, and since we know evolution happened (we’re here aren’t we?), then punctuated equilibrium must have happened, since it is the only explanation we can think of to explain the lack of fossil evidence. What caused punctuated equilibrium? What made things start evolving? What caused them to stop evolving, and then start again? Evolutionists don’t have a clue. There is no evidence, no experiments, and no science behind any of this. It is all conjecture.

So evolution happens to slowly to observe, and too quickly to leave any fossil evidence, consequently evolution is for all practical purposes, unobservable. This unobservable phenomenon has no support, other than faulty circular arguments that lack cohesive reasoning and sound logic. Therefore evolution fails the qualifications necessary to fit into the category defined as science.

Prehistoric Evolution Is Unobservable

Evolutionists admit that evolution isn’t happening before our eyes today. But they insist it did happen in the past. How are we to know that evolution occurred in the unobservable past? How can evolutionists claim to know what happened or didn’t happen millions of years ago? What observations and repeatable experiments prove their contentions?

Think for a moment of the enormous audacious claims that evolutionists make. They say they know that billions of years ago the universe formed itself out of nothing. The intricate galaxies and solar systems, spinning in beautiful synchronization like a fine watch – from an explosion! Has anything every come from an explosion except chaos?

They say they know that millions of years ago that life just sprang out of nothing but a bunch of chemicals in a swamp. Think about that.  Water eroded chemicals out of rocks and then one day a cell formed, and out of that came us. So we evolved from a rock. Who can prove such a wild fairy tale? Who was there to observe it? Has such an event ever been repeated in the laboratory?[5] Life has never ever been observed to come from non-life

What does the evolutionist say to this? Over the years they have put forward many “finds” and claims that purported to prove their theories. Nebraska Man was heralded as evidence of man’s decent from the apes.[6] Yet this turned out to be based on nothing but a single tooth, which was later proven to be from an extinct pig, and still later it was discovered the pig wasn’t extinct!

The November ‘99 issue of National Geographic ran an article Feathers for T-Rex that proclaimed the discovery of a new fossil find of a creature which was quickly named Archaeoraptor liaoningensis.  National Geographic said, “It’s a missing link between terrestrial dinosaurs and birds that could actually fly.”

Turns out it was a hoax. The magazine now admits that “one part of the fossil may be a primitive toothed bird and another portion may be the tail of a dromaeosaurid dinosaur.”

Most people are aware of the great hoax of Piltdown Man, however at the time (1912) it was considered a great evolutionary discovery and it was not discovered until 41 years later that the skull had been chemically treated and the teeth filed down so as to fool the public.

Java Man was based upon three teeth and a femur. The femur was not found until a year after the teeth were found and the femur was found 50 feet away from where the teeth were found.

Neanderthal man:  Skeletal remains were found to be severely hunched which lead evolutionists to believe they were missing links.  Later, Two scientists from Johns Hopkins University went to Germany and x-rayed the hunched over skeletons.  They discovered they were hunched because they had Ricketts, or Arthritis or another serious vitamin D deficiency.  So Neanderthal man was reclassified as human. Oops.

Why is there so much eagerness on the part of evolutionists that they become gullible enough to accept hoaxes or misinterpret data?  It is because their pet theory suffers one great debilitating weakness: No observable evidence. Evolution utterly fails to past the test of rule number one for good science: It is not based upon observation. It is a philosophy of origins based, not upon facts, but upon conjectures about distant pre-historical events.

Rule 2: Science Does Not Contradict Established Scientific Laws

To explain this, let’s go back to Newton’s Law of Gravity. It is a law of science, so we know that it will hold true in every case. A law of science is defined as:

A basic, unchanging principle of nature; a scientifically observed phenomenon which has been subjected to very extensive measurements and experimentation and has repeatedly proved to be invariable throughout the known universe (e.g., the law of gravity, the laws of motion).

Now suppose that someday we were to find a planet that had a mass that was twice that of earth, but we found that its gravitational field was only a small percentage of that of the earth’s. This would be in contradiction to the law of gravity, which states that an object’s gravitational field is proportional to its mass.

If such a discovery were to be made, what would be its effect upon Newton’s law of gravity?  The law would become null and void. It would no longer be science. It would no longer be true. A new law would have to be written, perhaps one that started out, “most objects in the universe”, because the phrase “every object in the universe” would no longer be true. We would have discovered that the law of gravity as we know it is not a law at all.

Of course it is safe to say that such a discovery will never happen. Why? Because it would contradict an established law of science. We live in the world of reality, not the land of make-believe. Scientific laws are not broken.

So what we find is that these maxims are true:

Every scientific theory or hypothesis must comply, agree and harmonize with every other known law of science that is known to be true.

Any scientific theory or hypothesis that contradicts any known law of science is thereby a disproved theory.

So if I were to come to you and say, “The gravity on Jupiter has been found to be one-third that of our moon,” you could answer immediately that my statement was not sound science. You would know this because the mass of Jupiter exceeds that of the moon, therefore it’s gravity must also be greater. You would know what I said is not true because my statement violates the maxim given above. My statement or theory violates the law of gravity therefore it cannot be true. It is not science, for it contradicts science. Remember, any scientific theory or hypothesis that contradicts any known law of science is thereby a disproved theory.

Evolution Contradicts The Laws Of Science

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is one of the most well established laws of science. Simply stated, it says:

“Any system left to it’s self will tend to go from a state of high order and high energy to a state of low order and low energy.”

P.W. Atkins[7], a lecturer in physical chemistry at Oxford University, in his book The 2nd Law; Energy, Chaos, and Form (Scientific American Library, 1994) defines the second law this way:

“Natural processes are accompanied by an increase in the entropy[8] of the universe…The Second Law recognizes that there is a fundamental dissymmetry in Nature…All around us, though are aspects of the dissymmetry: hot objects cool, but cool objects do not spontaneously become hot; a bouncing ball comes to rest, but a stationary ball does not spontaneously begin to bounce.”

We don’t need to be scientists to recognize the general and universal principle that everything in the universe is wearing out, running down, rusting, disintegrating or dieing. Eventually every star will die a “heat death”.

Occasionally we see the illusion that this law is violated. For example, an embryo grows into an adult human being, or a tiny seed grows into a huge oak tree. But these events do not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and the reason they do not is because this type of phenomenon does not represent a “system left to itself.”  Here we have an outside energy source (the sun) inputting controlled (by atmospheric design) energy into the system (the earth) and that energy is being directed by preprogrammed DNA that had been intelligently encoded by the Creator. In other words, the highly ordered information was already present in the seed, and energy was provided from outside the system. There was not an increase in organization because the organization already existed within the seed. Even so, eventually both tree and person die, as the law of entropy[9] predicts. And if there had not been previous design and an input of controlled energy, the illusion of a temporary increase in order would never have happened in the first place.

The law of entropy, or the Second Law of Thermodynamics, is a foundational tenet for modern theoretical physics. It is a scientific law, as reliable as the law of gravity. Thus, if anyone has a theory that violates the Second Law then, without any discussion, that theory must certainly be wrong.

Evolution Violates The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

The 2nd Law tells us that the universe follows the general tendency for everything to run down, wear out and disintegrate into lower orders of energy and to go from a state of organization to one of randomness and disorder. We don’t need to be scientists, or to even know about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to realize the truth of this. We know from common sense, and from every day experience that things don’t just automatically organize themselves, or increase in energy. Everything we see runs in the other direction – downward.

Evolution on the other hand, is supposed to do exactly that. From a chaotic explosion, came steadily increasing order and organization. The explosion formed our finely tuned solar system with the earth at the perfect distance from the sun, tilted at the perfect angle for seasons, spinning at the perfect speed for life, and with the perfect atmosphere for that life. On this earth, a soup of chemicals is supposed to have organized itself into life. This life continued to further organize itself and increase in complexity until eventually man was formed.

No where in human experience has anything of this kind ever been seen to happen.[10] Not only has it not ever been observed, but the very idea of it runs totally counter to the 2nd law, which says everything runs down, dissipates, disintegrates and becomes less organized. Evolution says the opposite happened, that everything became more organized and more complex. Evolution postulates giant leaps forward in meaningful information, complexity and organization from the original beginning point – a chaotic explosion. This is a violation of the 2nd  Law.

Since evolution violates a known law of science, then it absolutely cannot be true. It cannot be science. According to the maxim: Any scientific theory or hypothesis that contradicts any known law of science is thereby a disproved theory. On this scientific basis we can confidently say that evolution is a disproved theory.

The Law of Biogenesis

Most people think of evolution as “modern” science. Besides not being science, it is not even modern. When Darwin began his “let-us-supposing” and wrote The Origin of Species it was the year 1859.  The Civil War was yet to be fought. People were traveling by wagon and horseback. Books were read by the light of candle or kerosene lamp. Americans were still fighting wild Indians on the western frontier. Steam engines were the modern conveyance. Medicine was an art that was truly “practiced” and woe to anyone in need of a dentist! Surgery was done without sterilized instruments for it wasn’t widely known that there were things called germs that made you sick. If you were ill, doctors would cut you and bleed out some of the “bad blood” to make you well again.

From this archaic and backwards world arose Darwin, boasting that he had figured out the mysteries of the universe and had unraveled the secret of life – God didn’t create Adam and Eve, We evolved from chemicals leached from the rocks by rainwater!

The science of microbiology had not even been dreamt of then. People had not peered inside the intricate workings of cells and they had no idea how extremely and utterly complex even the simplest living cell was.

At this time people imagined that life was rather simple. The idea that life could arise spontaneously didn’t seem strange to them. People were accustomed to observing that dead animals would “grow” maggots. They thought these maggots were life forms that just grew spontaneously from rotten meat. They didn’t realize the maggots were from flies laying eggs on the carrion.

It was also widely thought that simple organisms like worms, beetles, frogs, and salamanders came from dirt or mud. Mice were believed to grow from moldy grain, and a mixture of sewage and garbage was thought to produce rats.

In fact, here is an actual recipe for growing mice:

Place a dirty shirt or some rags in an open pot or barrel containing a few grains of wheat or some wheat bran, and in 21 days, mice will appear. There will be adult males and females present, and they will be capable of mating and reproducing more mice.

The microscopes used in those days were capable of seeing microorganisms, and it was noted that if water were left standing it would seem to spontaneously produce a multitude of interesting microscopic creatures. Since it wasn’t known that these organisms were being introduced from the surrounding air, it appeared as if these creatures were just appearing on their own.

Some scientists suspected that life could not arise spontaneously, while others insisted it could, resulting in a general controversy on the matter. It had already been determined that if air was kept from liquid, it would not produce any organisms. But those believing in spontaneous generation said that proved nothing, claiming that oxygen was necessary for life to grow. Consequently, the French Academy of Sciences sponsored a contest for the best experiment either proving or disproving spontaneous generation. The year: 1859, the same year that Darwin wrote The Origin of Species.

Louis Pasteur, the now famous French chemist won the contest and proved that microorganisms cannot spring from non-living substances. He boiled meat broth in a flask, with an S shaped neck that allowed air to enter the flask, but airborne microorganisms could not – they would settle by gravity in the neck. No organisms grew in the liquid, thus disproving the erroneous idea of Spontaneous Generation.

Thus was discovered another one of nature’s immutable laws: The Law of Biogenesis. This law states what is now obvious to the scientific community and as plain to the general public as the law of gravity: Life can only spring forth from life. The American Heritage Dictionary defines it this way:

Biogenesis: The principle that living organisms develop only from other living organisms and not from nonliving matter.

This is a known fact, a law of science. Today, in the age of computerized scanning electron microscopes, and the advances in microbiology, this law has been reaffirmed again and again. It has never been observed to be broken. The law of biogenesis is as certain as the law of gravity. Never, ever has life been seen to come from inanimate matter. Such an event not only has never been observed, it has never been made to happen in any laboratory experiment. Since the Law of Biogenesis is a law of science, we know that any theory that violates that law is not a valid scientific theory.

Evolution Violates The Law of Biogenesis

Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation the same year that Darwin wrote his famous book. New discoveries take time before the general populace is aware of them. The telegraph was the most modern communication available, having itself been invented only fifteen years prior, and was not yet widely implemented.

Consequently Darwin was not doing his “supposing” with the benefit of the most recent scientific discovery of the law of biogenesis. He still thought you could grow mice from soggy grain, and so did most people. Thus, when he surmised that life spontaneously grew from a soup of chemicals; he and his readers were largely unaware that such a proposition was a violation of one of the laws of science.

It is truly incredible and amazing that any thinking scientist would believe in evolution, when it so clearly flies in the face of a known scientific law. They are believing in something that has never been observed to happen, and are putting their faith in a theory that contradicts the Law of Biogenesis.

Scientists not adhering to science; the only explanation for such a strange dichotomy is that Satan, the god of this present darkness has blinded their minds, and their desire for academic acceptance, and the prevailing bias amongst the ungodly intelligencia of academia, has provided such a brain-washing effect, to such an extent, that many cannot think for themselves and thereby see the obvious: Life does not, can not, and never has, come forth from inanimate matter. Yet evolution depends entirely upon that happening. It can’t happen. It is unscientific. Therefore evolution is unscientific and could not have happened.

When creationists object that evolution is not sound science, and request that the scientific evidence both for and against the theory be taught in our schools, the creationist is ridiculed and branded a backward overzealous ignoramus.

Most evolutionists won’t even entertain a discussion on the topic, and instead resort to argumentum ad hominem; attacking the person, instead of dealing with the real science of the issue. This behavior is not reflective of true, open and unbiased scientific inquiry, but rather is indicative of a rabid defense of a religious dogma; that of naturalistic humanism.

No wonder that creationists are aghast at the scientific community for expecting us to swallow such a camel. There is no science behind this, no experiments, no observations, and no proof; no evidence that shows that life can spring forth from non-life.

Yet creationists are ridiculed when they ask for the scientific proof. Proof is not presented, only arguments that say, “But scientists tell us it is so.”  Since when has it become unscientific to say, ‘Prove it.’?

Darwin’s theory of evolution took hold for only two reasons: One, many non-Christians wanted an excuse to evade the truth of a Creator that we are responsible to, and evolution provided a framework for ignoring the testimony of nature which declares a creator. Consequently many grabbed onto the secular theology of evolutionism with great enthusiasm. For them, evolution rendered God superfluous, if not nonexistent, and that is exactly what they desired.

The second reason Darwin’s ideas were accepted was because of the immature state of science at that time. The poor science of the day was reflected in Darwin’s teaching, and neither he nor his readers knew any better. To uninformed people who thought that mice could grow from rotten grain, and worms from mud, life springing from inanimate chemicals didn’t seem that implausible.

Evolutionary theory is the spawn of the old superstitious and uninformed science of a hundred and fifty years ago. That was then, this is now, and facts are facts. The Law of Biogenesis is now a known law of science. The theory of evolution is contrary to that law. Therefore evolution is a disproved theory.

The Law of Cause and Effect

Sir Isaac Newton’s third law of physics states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. We are all familiar with this principle of nature. It is what makes rockets go up and guns to recoil. The converse of this law is also true: For every reaction there must have been a precipitating action. If there is a rocket going up, there must be rocket exhaust gasses being discharged downward. Thus the principles of Newton’s third law is really a subset of a larger principle and is in fact a well established scientific law: The Law of Cause and Effect.

It is the functioning of this law that makes our world livable. Imagine, if you can, a world wherein things happened for no reason. It would be like living inside an insane cartoon. You would never know what was going to happen next.

Evolution Violates The Law of Cause and Effect

Evolutionary theory is replete with instances requiring suspension of the law of causality. The existence of vast amounts of organized information in the microscopic world is but one example.

It is a matter of common sense that information does not arise spontaneously. Computers don’t function unless programmed and books don’t write themselves. The existence of a functioning computer is indicative of a designer and a programmer. A book is proof of an author. This logic is self-evident, for we all realize without reflection that the law of cause and effect is universal.

In Darwin’s day, it was thought that the living cell was a simple organism with just a nucleus and some liquid around it, inside a membrane. The truth is that cells are incredibly complex, being composed of hundreds of parts with thousands of different functions and mechanisms.

Darwin imagined the first simple cell being formed from a soup of chemicals. Today we know that there is no such thing as a “simple” cell. Even the most rudimentary cell, is in fact, a vast miniaturized metropolis of factories, complete with its own, policing, defense and replication systems, which produce and direct a complex symphony of interactions amongst thousands of enzymes within the cell. There are power plants that generate energy; factories that produce proteins; and complex transportation systems that guide specific chemicals from one point to another. Each enzyme, having its own unique function, is called into being at the order of a strand of DNA.The instructions within this DNA, are so voluminous, that if they were to be written out, they would fill six hundred thousand pages.

This is information and a lot of it; very complex, intricate and specific information. And information does not arise spontaneously. Nowhere in the world, not in any branch of science, has it ever been observed that information arose spontaneously. It just doesn’t happen. For every effect there must be an equivalent corresponding cause. The existence of information within DNA requires an intelligent cause. An intelligent being had to have originally encoded this information. The law of cause and effect makes this an inescapable certitude.

To claim that this amount of directing information arouse spontaneously by accident has been likened to a tornado ripping through a junkyard and building a car. Random chaotic events do not create intelligent information. Could you expect to throw a firecracker into a bowl of alphabet soup and have the explosion produce an encyclopedia?  Of course not: We cannot expect that information will exist without an intelligent cause.

The theistic evolutionist may think to dismiss this argument from cause and effect by saying, “Well, as a Christian I know that God is the cause of the information, so there is no cause and effect violation in evolution.” But that position is invalid, for two reasons.

The first problem with that logic is that it depends upon religious faith to shore up what is lacking in the scientific evidence. Even though the faith may be correct, in that God is the ultimate creator, good science doesn’t ignore a lack of evidence because of religious faith.

Secondly, we must ask the question: How was the information encoded in DNA? Evolution says that the information evolved by accident, and that is the problem. That is not an equivalent corresponding cause. Information cannot arise by accident. It is a fallacious concept. If we say that God created Adam, complete with the information encoded in his DNA, and such information was genetically copied and passed on, then we have an equivalent cause, an intelligent author of information, but to say that such complex information arose spontaneously by accident, that is what is counter to the laws of science.

There is no problem with saying that God could cause an accident or explosion, but one would be incorrect in asserting that such an accident would cause massive amounts of organized information to appear, unless one is willing to concede that God miraculously intervened and caused the information to appear, but that would be equivalent to saying that life really came into being by supernatural creation, and the doctrine of evolution denies this, for the doctrine of evolution insists that life is the result of unsupervised and impersonal processes. You can’t have it both ways, either God created or he didn’t. If God created, it had to be a miraculous creation that superseded the laws of nature, for the laws of nature are clear: Just as life does not arise from non-life, so also, information does not arise spontaneously.

Evolutionary theory presupposes the existence of complex written information without an intelligent author – an effect without a suitable cause. Therefore evolution conflicts with the law of cause and effect. Since this is a known law of science, evolution cannot possible by true.

Rule 3: Science Is Unbiased

Good science is objective and unbiased. Real science concerns itself with getting at the truth by examining the evidence, letting the facts speak for themselves, and letting the chips fall where they may.

The problem is that every scientist is a fallen and fallible human being. People have their own personal beliefs and there own worldview. It would be naïve to think that scientists are immune to their own human emotions and desires and predisposed opinions.

In fact, science officially recognizes these problem vis-à-vis clinical trial studies. These are normally done so that only the doctor knows whether a patient is taking the standard treatment or the new treatment being tested. This helps prevent bias in treatment studies. This is called a Single Blind study. Many of these trials are Double-Blinded studies. In these, neither the medical staff nor the patient knows which, of several possible therapies, the person is receiving. Why? Because science recognizes the fact that even scientific researchers can be biased, and may, either intentionally or unintentionally prejudice the test.

The History Of The Development Of Evolutionary Psuedo-Science Is Filled With Examples Of Bias

The concept of Evolution – something coming from nothing, and life magically springing from non-life – did not arise from any scientific study, test, or any observation that such a thing can happen. So where did the idea originate?

Actually various pagan societies down through the ages have maintained the superstition of evolution, though not by that name. Thales of Miletus (624 BC), the father of ancient Greek philosophy asserted that all life on earth originated from water.[11] This is very close to the modern evolutionary idea that man, indeed all life, descended from the chemicals leached from rocks into water.

Anaximander, another Greek philosopher (610-546 BC), said that life originated from the moisture that covered the earth and that men descended from fish.

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dickerson has a definition of evolutionary science that is a far cry from the orthodox definition of science. Dickerson says rule number one is:

“Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural”[12]

It used to be that scientists had an understanding that their field was the study of God’s created world and the laws and principles he had established in the physical universe. But evolutionary science has a new agenda: To see how far they can go in proving that God never created and never intervened in the world. It is atheism with a mask. To wit, these quotes from well known evolutionists:

Richard Lewontin

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” [13]

Michael Ruse, professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada:

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it  — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today…Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.”[14]

Loren Eiseley, Ph.D (anthropology):

“With the failure of these many efforts science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of it’s own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”[15]

Harrison Matthews, FRS:

“The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory—is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation—both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.”[16]

Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University:

“Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is
not naturalistic”[17]

This is sufficient to establish that many evolutionists are not operating as unbiased scientists, but are desperately attempting to support an unscientific theory because of their religious commitment to atheism. This is further evidence to the fact that evolution is not science, for evolution doesn’t bear the marks of unbiased research and observation, as real science does, but rather is a biased philosophy that is predisposed to explaining creation without any reference to a creator, regardless of the evidence. God never intended for his creation to be explained away, or contemplated apart from Him. It is fallen sinful man that has “invented” a so-called “science” that would attempt to do so. The study of the creation without reference to God is one thing, but inventing a new science that attempts to explain the origin of creation without God, that is entirely something else, and that is the biased and zealous endeavor of evolutionism, and it is earthly, devilish and demonic.

Christians embrace theistic evolution because they mistakenly assume that the faith of a majority of scientists is proof of a theory, and theistic evolution is the only way to hold on to some semblance of Christianity while still melding with the world system of thought.

It is good to bear in mind that popular opinion does not good science make. The New Testament warns believers to beware of the world system and to come out and be separate and be ready to accept derision for following the truth.

As Christians we know that Satan is ever at work attempting to deceive the minds of mankind, and we must acknowledge his craftiness and realize that the inroads of evolutionism are the result of the devil’s influence upon the world.

There is no difference between the pagan Greek philosophies of evolution and the modern pseudo-science of evolution. They are both unscientific. They are both religious philosophy, and they are both wrong.

Bait And Switch, Macro And Micro Evolution

Another example of evolutionary bias is the bait and switch tactics evolutionists use. “Bait and switch” is a term used to describe the unscrupulous tactics retail stores sometimes use to lure customers in. It works like this: The store runs an add showing an incredibly low price for some product, but when you arrive, guess what – they’re sold out, but for more money you can purchase the same product in a different model! Bait…and switch!

Evolutionists do the same thing. They try to sell us on their particles-to-people philosophy by insisting that they have evidence that proves one animal evolved into another kind of animal. But when we take the bait and look at their “evidence”, they don’t really show us what they promised. We don’t get to see proof that one animal turns into another.

Instead they show us evidence of variations within a species: The variations in beak thickness of finches in the Galapagos Islands, or peppered moths of different colors in England. But these do not represent actual examples of gene mutation and natural selection; rather these are examples of mere normal genetic variation within a species.

We are all familiar with the many variations within breeds of dogs or cats, or the fact that every body on earth has a unique face. These variations come from different genetic combinations possible for the gene combinations of the parents. Inherited characteristics have nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with breeding.

If we were to take the smallest puppy of a litter and breed it with the smallest puppy of another litter, and then take the smallest puppy from their litter, and breed it with the smallest puppy from another litter, and so on and so on, we would we end up with – you guessed it — a very small dog.

Now suppose we take that dog and say, “Look! A new animal has evolved!” Would we not be considered loony? For we have not evolved a new animal, we have merely bred a small dog! We started with a dog, and we ended with a dog. It will never be a mouse, or even a big rat. It will be a dog that will only interbreed with dogs.

Yet this is exactly what evolutionists do! They point out some normal genetic breeding variation within a species that perhaps has become more predominant do to some environmental condition and they say, “Look! Evolution!”

This is typical bait and switch: They say they can show us evolution, but all they really show us is breeding. And they give this observation of normal variation within a species a deceptive name: It is called microevolution. But there is nothing evolutionary about it. We are only observing the variation of the species that was preprogrammed into the genetic DNA to begin with.

Creationists as well as evolutionists recognize that there is great variation within nature. For example, creationists and evolutionists agree that all of today’s four-hundred plus breeds of dogs descended from just a few ancestors, which contained a large enough gene pool for all of the current variations.

But evolutionists are making an unwarranted, unsubstantiated extrapolation (from normal genetic breeding variation within a species) when they claim that over millions of years these little microevolutionary changes add up to macroevolution: A change of one animal into another.

But the experience of breeders and the evidence of genetics is, and always has been, that there is a limit to genetic variation. Breeders talk about the genetic limits, or the genetic plateau, referring to the universally recognized fact that there is a limit to the amount of variation possible.

Here is an example: S. K.Martin, writing in the Soybean Genetics Newsletter, (produced by the Department. of Horticulture and Crop Science, Ohio State University), speaking about soybean breeding say this:

“A population undergoing genetic change encounters a selection limit when the genetic variation is exhausted and no further change is possible…For a breeding program aimed at improving productivity, this may take the form of a “yield plateau” that renders further efforts futile.”[18]

This is a real-world example of practical science dealing with the scientific fact of the limits of variation. This was not written by a creationist, but by a scientist concerned with how to grow more soybeans. The creation/evolution controversy was probably the last thing on his mind. The point being that when it comes down to the real world of hard, cold, scientific reality, the evolutionary model is shown to be irrelevant, and the assertions of the creationists are the real facts that practical scientists, breeders and geneticists deal with day and day out.

This scholastically dishonest bait and switch technique is illustrative of how evolutionists deliberately confuse the unsuspecting by throwing out terms, such as microevolution and macroevolution. Many of their proselytes are taken in, never realizing that the fancy new term microevolution is just another way of saying “breeding”. We must ask ourselves, if evolution is unbiased science, why are its adherents prone to using disingenuous deceptions?

Rule 4: Science is Falsifiable

In 1981 an Arkansas court ruled in an Evolution Vs Creation Science case[19], and in that ruling it outlined some of the basic tenants of true science. One of those basic tenants was falsifiability. Simply stated, any scientific theory must be testable and able to be falsified if it is untrue.

A simple illustration will explain why falsifiability is essential. Suppose I were to come to you with a theory that there was an invisible dimension wherein lived little green men.  I could come up with all sorts of alleged proofs of their existence and effects upon our world. But if it came right down to establishing once and for all if these little green men exist, what would it take?  We would have to travel to this other dimension and observe them. “Oh, but that’s impossible” I would say.” No one can get to this invisible dimension.” What would this do to my theory? No one would be able to prove that my theory was wrong. It cannot be falsified. Thus, my theory of little green men would have to be classed as unscientific because it is not falsifiable.

Evolution Is Not Falsifiable

How do we prove the big bang never happened? How can we travel back billions of years to when this was supposed to have happened? How can prove once and for all that ape-creatures didn’t turn into men millions of years ago? How can we test this? Who was there to observe this supposed once-in-an-eon occurrence? How do we falsify such a theory?

Evolutionists insist that life came from non-life and that chance mutations created all the life forms on earth today. Yet the law of biogenesis has disproved this, and there has never been an experiment yet that has caused mutations to increase genetic information and create a new kind of animal. One would think all this would falsify the theory but evolutionists insist that it doesn’t.. Well, if that doesn’t prove it wrong, then nothing ever could! Consequently evolution is not falsifiable, and by the definition of science, it is not a scientific theory at all.

Rule 5: Science Presents Real-World Workable Models and Hypothesis That Fit With Other Known Facts

Ptolemy, an astronomer who lived in Alexandria in Egypt during the second century, put forth the theory that the sun revolved around the earth. This explained the phenomenon of the sun rising and setting as it revolved around the earth, and this model was used until the fifteenth century. The problem with Ptolemy’s geocentric theory was that it did not fit well with other known facts. All of the planets, were seen to have the same annual movement and the sun was observed to give light and heat to all the other planets in a manner that didn’t fit well with the geocentric model.

Nicolaus Copernicus first developed the theory of a heliocentric solar system with the sun as the center in 1514. Galileo[20], in 1597 accepted the Copernicus’ model. Eventually the geocentric model was abandoned and the heliocentric model adopted. Why? Because the heliocentric system simply didn’t fit well with the known facts.

This instance is a perfect example of the above rule: Science Presents Real-World Workable Models and Hypothesis That Fit With Other Known Facts. When a hypothesis is shown to not fit with well with the world of reality, it is then time to give it up and seek a model that is in line with the facts.

Evolutionary Theory Is An Unworkable Model That Does Not Fit With Other Known Facts

This is an area so vast one hardly knows where to begin. Renowned scientists have written numerous volumes on this subject, and there are continually more being written. I will have to limit myself to just a few points, for there is no reason to rehash what esteemed scientists have already explained.

Random Mutations Rare and Harmful

Mutation Defined:[21]

“An error in replication or other alteration of the nucleotide base sequence creating a change in the sequence of base pairs on a DNA molecule. If the change occurs in the DNA of a somatic cell, the mutation may cause a change in the organism’s phenotype (leading, for example, to cancer) but will not affect the organism’s offspring; only mutations in the germ cells can cause heritable changes in the offspring.”

 “A change (in the number, arrangement, or molecular sequence ) in the sequence of DNA coding in a gene that occurs by chance, or due to some external influence. A permanent, heritable change in a gene or chromosome structure.”

“A change in a gene that can occur randomly (naturally) or that can be deliberately caused in the laboratory by scientists.”

Evolution depends upon random genetic mutations to bring about new species. There are two problems with this, one being that such mutations are extremely rare, and secondly genetic mutations are generally observed to be harmful, not beneficial.

When we think of genetic mutations we should think of things such as cancer, disease, birth defects, two headed cows, and other freakish crippling abnormalities. When fruit flies are bombarded with radiation to induce genetic mutations, these flies, may for instance, grow legs where their antenna should be, or develop a duplicate set of wings, rendering them unable to fly. It is notable that when evolutionists manage to create some such Frankenstein, that they are so desperate in their attempt to “prove” evolution they proclaim: “Look we have induced evolution to happen!”

But all they have really done is to scramble the genetic information originally created by God. The damaging of genes to create a freak doesn’t create a new species. It doesn’t produce new genetic information, but only serves to scramble, or rearrange incorrectly, the information that is already there. The bottom line is, you start with flies and you still end up with only flies, and crippled flies at that!

A random accidental process (mutation) cannot possibly improve complex and well-designed information, such as that which is contained in DNA. An analogy has been used and is helpful here: Could you jam a screwdriver into the electronic components of your television, and expect it to improve it, or turn it into another type of electronic device? Another analogy: Type a letter on your computer, save it to a floppy disk. What you have is encoded information, albeit not as much, and not as complex as DNA, but information nonetheless. Now take the disk and pass a magnet over it. What you are doing is the equivalent of inducing mutations. Now put the disk back into your computer and try to read your letter and see if it is a new or different message. If you could read the file you would find it totally scrambled and nonsensical. As a matter of fact, your computer will no longer even be able to read the disk. Why? Because the slightest modification in the formatting information of the disk will render it completely inoperative. You have just induced a “random mutation” into the basic information on your disk.

Likewise random mutations in the even more complex DNA molecules of life have an even more disastrous effect. Random accidental mutations cannot create new species. Yet this is the mechanism of evolution. As we have seen, evolution’s mechanism is not a workable model and it does not fit well with the real world of observable facts. This further disqualifies evolution as a viable scientific theory.

Irreducible Complexity:  The Great Chasm That Mutation and Natural Selection Cannot Cross.

The Microbiology Of Living Cells

Micchael Behe defined Irreducible Complexity as:

“A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.”

The Evolutionary mechanism of mutation depends upon natural selection to retain any accidental beneficial mutations. This is where the problem of irreducible complexity comes in.

The simplest living cells require thousands of specialized proteins in order to function. Nearly all the internal working components of a living cell are interdependent. In other words, they require the pre-existence of their complementary parts before they have any valid function.

Therein lies the problem. If, as evolution says, each of these parts is called into being as a result of a random genetic mutation, it would not be retained by natural selection because it would not function if it’s counterparts were not also randomly created at the very same moment.  A brief tour of the interior of a cell will be helpful on this point:

“Inside the cell we find staggering complexity. The Endoplasmic Reticulum (ER) is a transportation network with protein producing factories called ribozones which produce many types of specific proteins, while the ER channels them to precise locations. The golgi bodies transport proteins to the exterior membrane, while lysosomes act as digestive organs that break down and recycle larger molecules into particles the cell can use. The mitochondrion are the power plants of the cell, producing the fuel that the cell consumes. The nucleus contains the data center that governs cell activity. Inside the nucleus we find the chromosomes, which contain the DNA molecule, which functions as a library and contains all the coded information needed for life. Billions of instructions are coded on this error-detecting and error-correcting, self-replicating molecule. Only if all of these structures were created simultaneously, could a cell function. For example, to produce DNA, a cell requires more than seventy-five different types of proteins, yet these proteins are only produced at the direction of DNA. The only solution to this dilemma is creation.” [22]

So not only are mutations harmful, but even if you happen to have a beneficial mutation at the cellular level, it isn’t going to be retained, unless you have multitudes of accidental mutations that are exactly the right ones to create the exact counterparts needed for the first part, and all these mutations must happen at exactly the same time! The whole cell ,with all its myriad components and functions, must appear at once, fully functional; otherwise the cell is worthless. Does the word impossible come to mind?

The Bombardier Beetle

Evolutionists insist that there is no evidence of design in nature. Supposedly every thing evolved via millions of years of genetic accidents. Contrast this statement with the fact that “scientists at the University of Leeds in Great Britain have been granted research funds to study the jet-based defense mechanism of a tiny creature known as the bombardier beetle, in the hope that it will help them learn how to re-ignite a gas-turbine aircraft engine in mid-flight.”[23] How strange that scientists would study the accidental evolutionary mechanisms of a bug, in order to better learn how to refine the engineering of jet engines! Is it not much more logical to simply recognize that this amazing bug is evidence of intelligent design?

Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D. describe the inner workings of this engineering marvel called the Bombardier Beetle:[24]

“The bombardier beetle has a pulse defense mechanism that works in the following manner. Two chemicals, hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide, are produced in glands, and then stored in a large reservoir housed within the beetle’s abdomen. When the animal feels threatened, muscles surrounding the reservoir contract, pushing the chemicals through a muscle-controlled valve into a heart-shaped reaction chamber lined with cells that secrete peroxidases and catalases—oxidative enzymes. The enzymes quickly break down the hydrogen peroxide, and catalyze the oxidation of the hydroquinones into p-benzoquinones—compounds that are well known for their irritant properties. This chemical reaction results in a release of free oxygen, and causes a substantial liberation of heat. The beetle then is able to eject this spray out a revolvable turret—at 100° C!—in a pulse-like fashion at a rate of 500 pulses per second.”

We have already seen the impossible hurtles to be crossed, the multitudes of cellular functions that have to come into existence simultaneously, in order for even one living cell to function. Now imagine all the many new cells that are needed in order for the Bombardier Beetle to develop its defense mechanism. And even if you somehow can imagine a way for the cells to develop, how in the world are you going to imagine a way for such an intricate defense mechanism as this to develop?

Which component of this bug’s defense mechanism would have evolved first? The system to create the combustible mixture, or the catalyst mixing system, the storage chamber, the explosion chamber, the muscular control system, the turret firing nozzles, the nervous system to trigger firing when threatened, or the external body armor of the bug, which is able to withstand the 212 degree boiling irritant?

Each of these systems is an engineering marvel that would have required an untold number of DNA modifications. Suppose, for instance, that the expulsion orifice developed first? Of what value would it be without a mixture to fire? None, therefore it would not be retained by natural selection. Suppose the firing chamber developed first. What good would that do, without the chemical system and the storage tank?

Let’s imagine that the impossible happened: The chemical production, catalyst mixing, storage system and explosion chamber all were coded at the same time by countless perfect genetic mutations all accidentally happening at the same time. What would we have then? We would have something we might call the Muslim Suicide-Bomber Beetle–the poor little bug would blow himself up, for there would be no orifice to fire the mixture out of!

It goes without saying that such a bug would not be retained by natural selection! No, there is absolutely no reasonable or logical way to explain the existence of such irreducible complexity in nature without recognizing that such creatures were designed and the genetic information encoded for all systems simultaneously — in other words, created.

It has been said that the atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman. I think it can also be said that the evolutionist cannot see design in nature for the same reason: He doesn’t want to see it.

The Bombardier Beetle is just one more example from nature of irreducible complexity: A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

Evolving Mousetraps And Other Oxymorons

An evolving Bombardier Beetle, or an evolving cell is an oxymoron, for it could never happen. As soon as a beetle had a lucky mutation and got one part of a system developed by chance, that component would be eradicated by natural selection, for it would be non functional, for it would be lacking the other necessary parts. It would be as a car without wheels, a mousetrap without a spring. It just wouldn’t work, and as evolutionists tell us, such unfit mutations are eliminated.

Evolutionists him- haw around with weak answers such as, “Well maybe this or that had some function we don’t know about — maybe this benefited that” and on and on with feeble excuses that don’t hold water. Guessing, supposing, and imagining is great for folklore and fables. Science is observation, studies, and the recording of empirical evidence, not “maybe this or maybe that.” The philosophical hopeful musings of evolutionists do not begin to assail the great mountain of complexity presented by a single cell, or one little bug, not to mention the miraculous wonders of the human body!

The irreducible complexity of life renders the mechanism of evolution (mutation and natural selection) impotent. It could not have ever happened. Therefore evolution’s most basic tenet is seen to violate another basic principle of science: The mutation and natural selection scenario is an unworkable model that does not fit with other known facts of the real world. Consequently, evolution is not science.

Evolution Is Not Science

We have seen that evolution violates five basic rules of science. It is not observation based. There is no empirical evidence that evolution is happening now, nor can we observe that it happened in the past. The Big Bang, as well as every other supposition of evolution is in the distant unobservable past. No one has ever observed one animal evolve into another. No chemist has ever managed to create life by mixing chemicals. Even the supposed proofs of fossil evidence, evaporate under scrutiny, for they are based upon fragmentary evidence propped up with hopeful fancy.

Secondly, we have seen that evolution is in conflict with many scientific laws. It violates the second law of thermodynamics. Whereas, everything in the universe is ultimately running down and wearing out and going from a high state of order to a lower state, evolution claims just the opposite; that everything is increasing in complexity.

Evolution also is counter to the law of biogenesis that tells us that life only comes from life. In contradiction to this, evolution says that life came from non-life, that living cells came from dead inanimate matter. In Darwin’s time most people still thought that you could grow mice from a mixture of dirty underwear and grain. Such is the level of Darwinian science. The law of biogenesis proves that the goo-to-you, particles-to-people, theory of evolution is as much a fairy tale as a frog turning into a prince.

Evolution is counter to the law of cause and effect. The science of microbiology was unknown to Darwin. We now know that life is incredibly complex, and that the massive amount of data encoded inside DNA is clear evidence of intelligent design. The law of cause and effect requires an equivalent cause for this data – an author.

If evolution violates even one established scientific law, that in itself is enough to disqualify it from being considered as a viable hypothesis. We have seen that evolution violates, not just one law, but at least three known laws: The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Biogenesis, and the Law of Cause and Effect. On this point alone, we see that evolution is disproved three times over.

Third, we have seen that evolutionism is fraught with bias. We see it in their direct statements that they are predisposed to either disbelieve in God entirely, or at the very least, they have an a priori commitment to proving that God could not have miraculously created anything.

We also see evidence of bias in the disingenuous arguments where terms such as microevolution are used to try to present normal inherited variations appear to be evidence of evolution. The many hoaxes and wild extrapolation of entire animals from a single tooth, or a couple bone fragments, is another example of strong and unmitigated bias. Finally, the derisive and hostile attacks evolutionists make upon anyone who questions evolution is counter to a true scientific mind that wishes to analyze all sides of a matter.

Fourth, we have covered the matter of falisifiability. There is no way to observe the Big Bang, or to go back in time and see whether or not chemicals turned into life, or that animals turned into people. Evolution is not verifiable or falsifiable. It is outside the realm of experimentation and testing, and therefore outside the realm of science.

And finally, we have seen that evolution simply does not fit the real world of facts. The two components of the evolutionary mechanism are mutation and natural selection. A mutation is nothing more than the harmful damaging of DNA, so it is no surprise that mutations are harmful to an organism. Consequently mutation cannot possible add information to DNA, which is what is necessary for higher life forms. The other component, natural selection, doesn’t help evolution either, for the irreducible complexity of life makes it certain that most of the innovations seen in microbiology will not be retained, for they depend upon other innovations that must come into being at exactly the same time. So what we see is that the two mechanisms, mutation and natural selection, which are the cornerstone of evolution, work to insure that evolution could never happen!

Real science is observation based, is in coordinated harmony with other scientific laws, is objective, fair and open minded. It is based upon theories that can be tested and proven, and it consists of workable models that fit the real world of facts.

Evolution is unseen, contradicts numerous scientific laws, is biased, antagonistic and fraudulent, cannot be tested, or proven, and its theories and assertions do not fit the real world of practical reality. Make no mistake: Evolution is not science.


This has been a chapter from my book, Theistic Evolution: Did God Create Through Evolution? 

Click image below to purchase Theistic Evolution.

This book Theistic Evolutionexamines the following topics:

  • The authority of Scripture
  • Conflicts between biblical statements and evolution
  • Methods of biblical interpretation
  • The doctrines of errancy versus inerrancy are carefully examined. 

Other books by Pastor Mark Swarbrick, click the image below…


Pre Tribulation vs Post Tribulation, Pre Trib vs Post Trib, Pre Tribulation RapturePre Tribulation vs Post Tribulation, Pre Trib vs Post Trib, Pre Tribulation RapturePre Tribulation vs Post Tribulation, Pre Trib vs Post Trib, Pre Tribulation RapturePre Tribulation vs Post Tribulation, Pre Trib vs Post Trib, Pre Tribulation Rapture



[1] Darwin’s Origin of Species is not science but conjecture, as evidenced by his fondness for his recurrent phrases, such as: “Now let us suppose”, “If we suppose”, “Let it be supposed”, “We may suppose”, “Supposed on my theory”, “I suppose”, “But let us suppose”, “We may further suppose”, And then suppose”.  See the electronic version at:

and do a search on “suppose” and you will see this for yourself.

[2] At one time most scientists were of the opinion that the earth was flat, but that did not make their majority opinion true. Likewise today’s popular opinion amongst scientists does not constitute “science”, nor does it prove that evolution is “fact”. Science does not rest upon popularity, but upon evidence. Furthermore, although most scientists have been indoctrinated to believe evolution and therefore do, most people have rejected the claims of evolution and do not believe it. 75 percent of the population believes that the scientific evidence against evolution should be taught in the schools. 55% of scientists believe in naturalistic evolution, while only 10% of the general public does. This great disparity speaks volumes. Common sense still prevails.

[3] Martin, M. (1972). “Concepts of science education: A philosophic analysis”. Glenview, IL: Scott, Forseman.

[4] When evolutionists say  “science says”, what they really mean is “the opinion of most scientists”, which is not really the same thing as science. Again:  Science does not rest upon popularity, but upon evidence.

[5] The Miller-Urey experiment in the 1950’s did not create life from chemicals. It only created amino acids that were the wrong kind for the building blocks of life. Furthermore, these were produced artificially in an atmospheric mixture that has been proven never to have existed on earth. Most significant – amino acids are light-years away from the irreducible complexity of a single living cell.

[6] Much ado is often made over the saying “man descended from apes”. Evolutionists say, “You don’t even understand evolution. We didn’t descend from apes, but man and ape descended from a common ancestor.” This is a moot point, for if this “common ancestor” (of which there is no evidence) were ever to have been seen, it would certainly resemble an ape-like creature, being even more primitive than a modern ape. If such a creature were seen today, it would be classified as a species of ape. So whether it be an ape, a monkey, or a monkey’s uncle, is of no consequence. To say that evolution claims that we descended from the apes, is still accurate, since the supposed progenitor of ape and man, would have still been essentially, an even more primitive ape. Perhaps evolutionists object to the assertion that we descended from the apes because it makes their pet theory sound silly. Actually it is worse than that: Evolution actually says that man descended from a rock, for it is rainwater leaching chemicals from rocks that created the primordial ooze that is necessary for evolution’s “Goo-To-You” hypothesis.

[7] Atkin’s authoritative explanation and definition of the 2nd Law establishes that it extends beyond the physics of mechanical heat actions in a closed system, but is in fact a universal law of entropy in the universe.

[8] Entropy: a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder

[9] The Law of Increasing Entropy (that everything runs down and goes from orderliness to randomness) is of universal application to the Universe. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is simply the same principle stated and applied to local systems.

[10] Variation within species, such as different breeds of dogs or birds, etc, if often touted as evolution. It is not. Evolution is a supposed change from one type of creature to another type, caused by accumulated accidental and random mutation of genes. Variation within species is merely the outworking of the information already encoded in the DNA of the animal. The potential for the variation was already in the genes, and this variation never goes beyond a certain limit, keeping dogs as dogs and birds as birds, as every breeder is aware.

[11] Philosophy Department University of Tennessee at Martin

[12] R.E. Dickerson, J. Molecular Evolution 34:277, 1992; Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith 44:137–138, 1992.

[13] Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p.31.


[15] Loren Eiseley, Ph.D (anthropology), ‘The secret of life’ in The immense Journey, Random House, New York, 1957, p.199

[16] L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin’s The Origin of Species, J.M Dent and Sons LTD, London 1971, p. xi.

[17] Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 410(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.



[20] Evolutionists often attempt to discredit creationists by equating creationist’s objections to evolution as being on a par with the church’s persecution of Galileo for his correct scientific understanding of the solar system. But this does not prove evolution. It is merely an invalid ad hominem attack upon creationists. Secondly, it was not Christians who did this, but rather the then apostate Roman Catholic Church that persecuted Galileo. The evil inquisition of the error filled, Bible-burning, Christian-murdering Roman Catholic Church of the fifteenth century is as far distant from today’s orthodox, Bible believing, born again Christian as you can get.  The parallel just doesn’t fit, and use of this comparison is a desperate grasping for straws. The case of Galileo and the Roman Catholic Inquisition is the case of an apostate religion attacking true science. Creation Science Vs Evolution is a matter of true believers following true science by pointing out the scientific and theological fallacies of the bankrupt theory of evolution.


[22] A Question of Origins, 1998 Eternal Productions, Bridgestone Multimedia


[24] Apologetics Press.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge