Evolution: A scientific religion

Introduction

It is commonly believed, by many people in the Western world, that Evolution is a scientific fact. It is an idea that is so entrenched in our society that few people will even stop to question it without being prompted, and fewer still will openly deny it. The truth, however, is that Evolution is not a scientific fact at all. It is actually a religion that is being promoted as science with extreme force from highly influential followers. Readers may be interested to know that various pagan religions actually believed in things that are virtually indistinguishable from modern Evolutionary stories. In the modern day, Evolution is promoted largely by deliberate deception and propaganda, and is based on numerous unneccesary, unproven and unprovable assumptions. Many times, Evolution even goes against scientific facts that have been observed and demonstrated in several different ways. In this article, we will look at the origins of Evolution, what Evolution used to be like, what it is like now, how it got to how it is now, and I will demonstrate the religious nature of the so-called "theory" of Evolution.

What is Evolution?
In any discussion about any topic, it is absolutely vital to define terms. Without a fixed and coherant definition of important terms, the discussion becomes completely meaningless, and no one knows what they are talking about. The title of this article is Evolution: A scientific religion. Therefore, we have three terms that are important to define: Evolution, science and religion. As we come to discuss the various terms, we will define terms. First, we will ask "what is Evolution?"

Since my conversion from Evolution, I have heard numerous definitions of Evolution. Some of them are completely arbitrary. Some of them are mutually exclusive. Some are contradictory. Some are not even definitions at all, but are examples. Others commit the fallacy of equivocation, changing the meaning of Evolution so much that even the strongest Biblical Creationist believes in some form of Evolution. In fact, the definition of Evolution is so heavily disputed, I have often found myself using the arguments of one Evolutionist against another. But that leaves us with a problem: What exactly is Evolution?

British zoologist, Gerald Kerkut (1927 - 2004) defined Evolution as "the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form." Creation Ministries International (CMI) calls this definition the General Theory of Evolution (GTE). In this article, we will not only look at the GTE, but we will also touch on other theories of Evolution, such as cosmic Evolution. For the purposes of this article, cosmic Evolution is defined as a theory on the origins of the universe and the formation of all celestial bodies and systems within it.

As shown in my article "Fallacies of Evolution", Evolutionists tend to equivocate what Evolution actually means. Some claim that Evolution is simply "change over time". But this is unsatisfactory, because even Creationists believe in a change over time. But Evolution is more than that. According to Bill Nye, Evolution is "the mechanism by which we add complexity. The earth is getting energy from the sun all the time, and that energy is used to make life forms somewhat more complex." For more information on the fallacy of equivocation in Evolution, please visit the linked article. For now, however, I will quickly explain exactly what it is that Biblical Creationists dispute about Evolution.

Once again, the definition of biological Evolution, given to us by Kerkut, is "the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form." As explained in Two Views, Biblical Creationists do not dispute common ancestry within created kinds. The two things in Kerkut's definition that we dispute are that, first, all life comes from a single source (commonly claimed to be a "simple" cell). Rather, we believe that God created "generic" kinds, and speciation occured from that point (see fig. 1). Second, while we believe the origin of life came from an inorganic source, we do not believe that source was a primordial soup that just happened to have all the chemicals necessary for life. Instead, we believe that God created the universe, and that he personally formed life from the dirt or water. For a detailed explaination, please see "What is Biblical Creation?"

Figure 1. The difference between the origins view of Evolution and the origins view of Creation.

The earliest forms of Evolution
Now that we have defined what Evolution is, and briefly explained which parts of it are disputed and which parts are not, we should look at the origins of belief in Evolution. It is often claimed that Evolution was discovered by a man named Charles Darwin, a British Naturalist who visited the Golapogos islands. During his visit, he observed several finches who were noticeably different from the finches in his own home country. From this observation, Darwin proposed that all life on Earth originated from a single common ancestor and that, through natural selection, life diversified. In 1859, Darwin published his book "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life".

This common belief, though vehemently promoted by Evolutionists, is false. Similar beliefs to Evolution and related beliefs did, in fact, exist long before Darwin. As an example, Greek philosopher Anaximander (610–546 B.C.) taught that human beings originally resembled fish. According to the Evolutionist religion, the first creatures to have a backbone were fish, and every mammal in the world today is descended from these fish, which would include us. This image is an example of a depiction of the alleged ancestral line of human beings.

After Anaximander, Democritus (460–370 B.C.) believed that human beings originally spoke unintelligably, however they "gradually they articulated words." This is exactly like modern theories of Evolution, which teach that language began as nothing more than barks and chirps, such as those observed in modern monkeys and apes, but these barks and chirps gradually developed into understandable languages, such as the one in which you are reading this article. In other words, theories on the origin of language existed exactly as they are now, over 300 years before Jesus was born.

Aside from biological Evolution, theories of cosmic Evolution similar to the Big Bang story existed at the same time. Greek philosopher, Epicurus (341 - 270 B.C.) taught that there was no need to invoke an intelligent designer of the universe, which he believed came about by a chance movement of atoms. This was over 2300 years before Georges Lemaitre (re)proposed the Big Bang as a valid theory on the origins of the universe.

Around about the time Paul was preaching the very same (Creation founded) Gospel he was given by Jesus, Pliny the Elder had a similar idea. He taught that "we are so subject to chance that Chance herself takes the place of God; she proves that God is uncertain." Minus the part after the semi-colon, this quote is almost exactly what modern Evolutionists teach.

These few examples are far from the only ones, however even they were not the first to promote the ideas of Evolution and the Big Bang. Instead, they actually borrowed these ideas from Babylonian, Egyptian and Hindu beliefs. For example, Hindus used to believe that Brahman (the Universe) spontaneously evolved by itself like a seed, which expanded and formed all that exists about 4.3 billion years ago. They also believed that the Universe was eternal and had cycles of rebirth, destruction and dormancy, known as ‘kalpas’. As if that wasn't enough, in the Hindu Bhagavad Gita, the god Krishna says, "I am the source from which all creatures evolve."

Alongside the Hindus, some of the Babylonians claimed that they had astronomical inscriptions on clay tablets for 730,000 years, while others, like Berosus, claimed the inscriptions recorded 490,000 years. The Egyptians claimed that they had understood astronomy for more than 100,000 years.

Even the early church was not isolated from old earth ideas. For example, Bishop of Antioch, Theophilus (115–181 A.D.), wrote an apologetic work to the pagan magistrate Autolycus about the problem of the pagan long ages, which mentioned Plato’s 200 million year period between the Flood and his time, and Apollonius the Egyptian’s claim of at least 155,625 years since creation. As you can see, Evolutionary ideas have been around for a very long time, and they are little different from their early forms. This is not surprising, as Satan often tries the same tricks more than once. He very much enjoys bringing up old heresies, and several religions in the modern day include beliefs which have long been refuted. However, while there are many similarities between ancient Evolution and Evolution in the modern day, there are some noteable differences, with different people adding new things to it as time went on. In the next segment, we will look at how modern Evolutionists have modified the religion of Evolution, giving rise to a few of the many sects of Evolution today.

The origins of modern Evolution
As you have seen from the previous segment, Evolutionary beliefs have existed for a very long time, and they existed in the past in an entirely religious and philosophical context. However modern Evolutionary beliefs have only existed in their modern form for a short period. In this segment, we will discuss the origins of Evolution in some of its modern forms. As there are so many sects of Evolution, we will only look at the origins of the most prominant forms.

Before the mid 1800s, almost all scientists believed in some kind of master designer, the vast majority of them believing that master designer was the Biblical God, who created the universe in 6 literal days, resting on the seventh. In fact, modern science itself is based on the premise that an orderly God would create an orderly universe. Based on the belief in a reasonable God, scientists assumed that any experiments they do could be repeated, with similar results every time. By contrast, if our brains are nothing more than a chance arrangement of various chemicals, how can we possibly trust them any more than we can trust the wind in the trees? What garantees that man has evolved the ability to accurately determine truth?

However, in the years leading up to Darwin, several philosophers began proposing old Earth ideas similar to the ones described earlier in this article. Let us have a look at some of the people who created the modern ideas of Evolution (both cosmic and biological).

The first person we will look at is Emmanuel Swedenborg, a Swedish philosopher, theologian and scientist. In 1734, Swedenborg's book "Principia" described his theory that a rapidly rotating nebula formed itself into our solar system of sun and planets. This theory, according to Swedenborg, was obtained from spirits during a seance. It is interesting that the first nebular hypothesis, which is still believed today, was obtained from such a source.

In 2 Corinthians 11:14-15, we read "And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds." And in Galatians 1:8, we read "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed." It is quite clear, from these verses, that Satan and his angels can, occasionally, communicate with human beings with the intention of starting and guiding false religions. If we assume, for one moment, that Swedenborg was not a lunatic or a liar, it is entirely possible that the nebular hypothesis was given to man by demons themselves. Either way, the nebular hypothesis proposed by Swedenborg comes from an unreliable, and likely Satanic source, and the evidence against it still stacks higher than the heavens.

One theory of Evolution that has been (mostly) abandoned today is Lamarckism, which gets its name from Jean-Baptist Lamarck. In his 1809 work "Philosophie Zoologique", he proposed his theory of inheritance of acquired traits. That is, traits acquired by a parent can be passed on to any future offspring. Lamarck's theory has been completely demolished by modern science. Experiments involving breeding rats that have had their tails chopped off revealed that inherited traits are entirely genetic. The baby rats always had tails. Not to mention, of course, the Jewish tradition of circumcision. After 3,000 years of circumcision, one would have thought biology would have bred Jews without foreskin if Lamarckism was true. It hasn't, thus leaving Lamarckism pretty much demolished. However, Lamarckism still exists in a re-vamped form in some Evolutionary explanations. The most noteable example of Lamarckism in modern Evolution is the story of how the giraffe supposedly got its neck. As the story goes, giraffes have long necks because their ancestors stretched their necks to reach the higher leaves on the trees, meaning their offspring got taller and taller until hey-presto, the modern giraffe was born.

In 1844 Robert Chambers, another spiritist, published the first popular book about Evolution in Britain. It was called Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, and without it, Darwin admitted he might never have written The Origin of Species. Chambers believed that the variety of races among humans is a result of many Evolutionary advances and regressions, and that the world can be best explained by natural law.

Chambers was not alone in this view. Charles Lyell, a British lawyer, also believed that natural law is the best way to explain the world, and he was even willing to lie to defend that view. In 1830, Lyell published his own book, Principles of Geology, and until recently Lyell's theories were believed religiously.

Lyell introduced the principle of uniformitarianism. That is, the key to the past is in the present. As things are happening today, that's how they happened in the past. Using his uniformitarian principles, Lyell attempted to tell the age of Niagara falls by studying the rate at which a 7 mile channel, eroded by the falls, was eroding. The rate of erosion was about 1M (3ft) per year, which means if (big, unprovable, assumed if) the rate of erosion was constant, the falls would be about 7-9,000 years old (close to the Biblical time frame, taking into account the global flood that would have sped up the rate of erosion for a short period of time). However, Lyell's intention, in his own written words, was to "free science from Moses", so he wasn't content with this age. Instead, he claimed the rate of erosion was much slower than it actually is. He claimed it was only 0.3M (1ft) per year, which would give us an age of around 35,000 years. Isn't it wonderful to know that the principle of uniformitarianism, used for over a century after Lyell to prove long ages and create the mythical geologic column, is based on deliberate deception. No wonder Warren Allmon, Director of the Paleontological Research Institution in Ithaca, New York, said that Lyell sold geology some snake oil.

Lyell's principle of uniformitarianism has now been replaced with neo-catastrophism, which is the belief that uniformitarianism is true except in light of catastrophic events (such as floods). This is so close to the Biblical worldview, it's amazing.

It is interesting to note that one of the people who influence Darwin the most was Chemist and Zoologist, Edward Blyth. In The Magazine of Natural History, Blyth published no less than three articles on Natural Selection long before Darwin ever began to write The Origin of Species. There is no way that Darwin didn't know about these articles, and Darwin did occasionally quote Blyth on other issues, such as the behavioural habits of cross bred geese. However, Darwin never quotes Blyth's papers that speak directly on natural selection. This is likely the case because Blyth recognised natural selection for what it is: a culling process designed by God to prevent extinction of many different animals. Edward Blyth was a Christian Creationist. It is rather amusing that a process so commonly believed to be the very definition of Evolution was originally discovered by a man who did not believe in Evolution at all.

Perhaps the most under credited founder of modern Evolution is British naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace. Having read Lyell's book, Principles of Geology, and Chambers' book, Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, Wallace was inspired to seek a possible cause for Evolution. In 1858, Wallace was struck with an illness, during which he formulated the idea that the fittest would survive. He became convinced that he had found the answer to the origin of species, and he wrote a paper entitled "On the Tendency for Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type". Unfortunately for Wallace, he made the mistake of sending his ideas to Darwin. Without Wallace's knowledge, Lyell (yes, that Lyell) and Sir Joseph Hooker arranged to present Wallace's paper, along with one of Darwin's essays that he never intended to publish, at a meeting of the Linnaean Society on 1 July 1858. Unlike Darwin, Wallace was a spiritist, and he was not willing to believe that man could have come from natural selection alone. Wallace recognised the spiritual capacity of man, and believed that human concepts such as art, morality, humour and other things were due to a higher power. Darwin, of course, vehemently disagreed.

Then, of course, we come to Evolution's poster boy, Charles Darwin. In the modern day, Darwin is credited as the discoverer of natural selection and Evolution alike. In 1859, Darwin published his world famous book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", commonly known simply as "On the origin of species". In this book, Darwin proposed that as natural selection weeded out the weaker of the species, the stronger would survive and continue to evolve. His views were in stark contrast to Wallace. Unlike Wallace, Darwin believed man to be nothing more than an animal. In the modern day, Evolutionists usually recognise the problem with Evolution via natural selection alone, and so we have a view known as neo-Darwinism, which still believes natural selection plays a big part in Evolution, but that Evolution itself happens via mutations.

What is a religion?
Anyone who has spent even a few weeks studying religion should be aware of the fact that the very word "religion" is incredibly ambiguous. The definition has been debated for hundreds of years, and to this day there is no single definition that adequately sums up what a religion is. It is very rare for two dictionaries to use the same definition, and most people have an idea about what the word "religion" means, until they are asked to define it.

Some people define religion as a belief in God, however this would exclude religions such as Buddhism, astrology and spiritism. Others will define religion as a belief based on faith, but this definition would mean even our trust in our own senses would be a religion. Yet another definition is a ritualistic observance of a moral code, but once again this would include many things that most people do not class as a religion, including democratic laws.

In this author's opinion, the best and most coherant definition of religion is "a belief about the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, particularly in relation to man". This definition covers everything that most people would consider to be a religion, and is not so ambiguous as to cause confusion. For this reason, TGK uses this definition of religion. Now that we have a strong definition of religion, we can critically examine Evolution and determine whether or not it is of a religious nature.

Is Evolution a religion?
With our accepted definition of religion, we can now establish whether or not Evolution fits the bill, so to speak. The five main elements of religion we have established are:

It is a belief
It concerns the cause of the universe
It concerns the nature of the universe
It concerns the purpose of the universe
It affects man

Does Evolution have these elements?

First, is Evolution a belief? A belief is defined as an acceptance that something exists or is true. Faith or trust in a certain statement. Contrary to popular belief (oops), a belief does not necessarily have to be held without proof or evidence. For example, you can believe the world is round. Well, whether you believe it or not, the world is round, and we have photographic proof of that fact. This element is, clearly, satisfied. Evolution is, most certainly, a belief, and a belief without solid evidence for that matter.

Does this belief concern the cause of the universe? Biological Evolution, obviously, does not concern the cause of the universe, only of living things within the universe. However, theories of cosmic and stellar Evolution do. The Big Bang theory was designed specifically to explain the origins of the universe without having to refer to an intelligent designer (as Epicurus, whom we looked at earlier, taught).

Does the belief concern the nature of the universe? Obviously, Evolution does. Logic would dictate that, if the existence of God affects the nature of the universe, any claim that God does not exist would also affect it. The fact that God created the universe, the world and everything in them (including the different kinds of animals) does, indeed, affect the nature of the universe. If the universe was created by God, it has a purpose, it can be known and studied, it is a lot younger, and there is a spiritual aspect. By contrast, GTE says that this is not the case. It denies purpose to the universe, it casts doubt over our ability to study the universe, and it rejects the existence of the moral and spiritual realm. This element is, therefore, satisfied.

Does the belief concern the purpose of the universe? Once again, as an opposite of Biblical Creation, Evolution makes the opposite statement. The Bible states that the universe was created by God, for God. The purpose of the universe is for his glory. Evolution, however, states that the universe is completely devoid of purpose. It formed completely by accident after a random explosion, and somehow built itself up with no intelligent input. An accident, of course, has no purpose by definition. Therefore, Evolution makes a comment on the purpose of the universe, satisfying this element of a religion.

And finally, yes, Evolution specifically makes a statement about man's place in the universe, once again being the opposite of Biblical Creation. According to Biblical Creation, man was made in God's image, and was intended to have a personal relationship with him, obeying him and living and working in his (originally) perfect world. Following the fall of that perfect world, the Bible says that man is naturally sinful from birth, but that he can be redeemed by the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ, so that when he dies, he can live for all eternity in the kingdom of God. Evolution, however, claims that man is simply an over-developed ape, with no objective morality, and no purpose. There is no God, and sin is simply an imaginary concept that has evolved because it helped our ancestors survive. Evolution, therefore, satisfies this element of religion.

As you can see, Evolution can be adequately classified as a religion. But what about science? Is Evolution really as scientific as Evolutionists claim?

What is science, and where did it come from?
The word science comes from the Latin word "scientia", and it literally translates to "knowledge". Evolutionists usually have their own self-serving definitions of science designed specifically to exclude Biblical Creation and put Evolution on a pedastal. It is interesting to note that modern science actually owes its origin to the Judeo-Christian worldview. Modern science is grounded on the assumption that the universe was created by a rational, reasonable and consistent God of order. As an orderly God, it makes sense that he would make an orderly universe, and therefore the universe will be the same tomorrow as it was yesterday. In Proverbs 25:2, we also read that it is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but the glory of kings to search things out. These assumptions, along with a restored straight-forward interpretation of the Bible, lead to a straight-forward interpretation of the natural world.

According to Loren Eilsley, an Evolutionary anthropologist, "The philosophy of experimental science began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."

Because science is ultimately a Christian concept, it makes very little sense to use science to somehow disprove Christianity. It's like trying to prove there is no such thing as water by producing a fish. The purpose of this article, however, is not to explain the origins of modern science, or to put forward a case for Christianity. This article is intended to demonstrate that Evolution is more religious than it is scientific. So what is science?

The dictionary definition of the scientific method is "A method of procedure consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing and modification of hypotheses."

Tying into this definition, the National Academy of Sciences published a report in 1996 called "national science education standards, in which they made the following statement: "Science distinguishes itself from other ways of knowing and from other bodies of knowledge through the use of empirical standards, logical arguments and scepticism. Scientific explainations must meet certain criteria. First and foremost, they must be consistent with experimental and observational evidence about nature, and must make accurate predictions, when appropriate, about systems being studied. They should also be logical, respect the rules of evidence, be open to criticism, report methods and procedures, and make knowledge public. Explanations on how the natural world changes based on myths, personal beliefs, religious values, mystical inspiration, superstition, or authority may be personally useful and socially relevant, but are not scientific."

Let us reduce this statement to the basic criteria Evolution must meet in order to be considered science:

No presuppositions
Observational data
Accurate information
Open to criticism
Accurate predictions
Logical

It should be noted that Biblical Creationists have always made a distinction between two categories of science. The first is observational science. That is the kind of science that has to do with making direct observations in the present, and observing the results in real time. The second type of science is historical science, which is about reconstructing what may have happened in the past. Historical science, unlike observational science, often requires various assumptions to explain what is observed in the present.

To put this into perspective, let's give an example that even an Evolutionist would be forced to agree with. Let us ask two questions. First, if I drop a bouncy ball at the same time as I drop a tennis ball from the same height and at the same time, will the tennis ball hit the floor first? All I would need to find the answer to this question is to grab a tennis ball and a bouncy ball and drop them from the same height at the same time. Now for a new question: When did the earth form? The answer to that question has been changed so many times, I don't even know when it is supposed to have formed anymore. Obviously there is a difference between the two. I can observe the answer to the first question, but no one can observe the answer to the second. Thus, a distinction can be reasonably made.

Is Evolution scientific?
Evolution falls under the second category of science. That is, it is a historical science, not an observational science. That means it is a belief about the past that cannot be observed or scientifically verified. But does Evolution even meet the criteria required to make it a scientific theory, as noted above?

First, does Evolution have presuppositions? The answer to that is absolutely yes. There is no way to avoid the fact that Evolution has numerous assumptions, the biggest of which would be naturalism. Naturalism is the belief that the natural world is all there is. Evolutionist S.C. Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University, once admitted "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." Evolution presupposes a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life, and therefore fails this criteria.

Second, is Evolution supported by observational data? Evolutionists complain, at this point, that it would be unreasonable to ask for evidence of Evolution because it would take too long. However, all this does is admit that Evolution cannot be observed. And indeed you can't observe Evolution. You can't observe millions of years, you can't observe the beginning of the world, you can't observe one kind of animal evolving into another, and you can't observe life coming from non-life. None of this has been observed, so Evolution has failed this criteria.

Third, Evolution should produce accurate information about relevant fields. In the next section of this article, we will briefly examine some of the many gigantic failures of Evolution to produce such information. To just list a few for now, we could mention Haeckle's fraudulent theory of embryonic recapitulation, ambolocetus, junk DNA and vestigial organs. All of these things are inaccurate fruits of the story of Evolution, thereby failing this criteria.

Fourth, is Evolution open to criticism? The blatant censorship of contrary data to Evolution is no secret in the scientific world. I have personally witnessed various laymen who actively support the termination and supression of all scientists who would support Creation, or even intelligent design. Even Evolutionists have often found themselves on the wrong end of Darwin's spear. For the sole reason of suggesting it may be valid to include alternative views to Evolution in the classrooms (even for purposes of proving them wrong), Evolutionists have lost their jobs. In 1985, Dr. Russel Humphreys wrote to the journal "Science", complaining about apparant censorship of Creationist material in their journal. He asked if Science had ‘a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.’ Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, "It is true that we are not likely to publish letters supporting creationism." Evolution is absolutely not open for criticism, and it will take an incredible revolution within the scientific community before this seemingly undefeatable bias is shifted. Evolution, therefore, fails this criteria.

Fifth, does Evolution make accurate predictions? One argument the majority of Evolutionists will swarm to is the claim that Evolution has made many accurate predictions, whereas Creation has not. But is this claim true? Lord willing, we'll adress the accuracy of Creation predictions in a future article, but for now, is it true that Evolution makes accurate predictions? In this scenario, one need only ask this one question: Can you name any one discovery in science that could only have been made with the use of Evolution? If you are not an Evolutionist and you ask this question, you're going to recieve some very interesting answers. You'll be told about bacterial resistance to anti biotics or about tiktaalik etc. but none of these explanations hold up. In fact, tiktaalik is no longer accepted as a transitional fossil between fish and tetrapods, because some tetrapod footprints have been found that are supposedly older than tiktaalik. And anti-biotic resistance isn't a prediction of Evolution that couldn't have been made in any other way either, because we know how it happens. It actually happens when something within a member of a population breaks, preventing the antibiotic from getting in, which means the healthy bacteria die while the deformed bacteria, while deformed, are alive. Neither tiktaalik or anti-biotic resistance are successful predictions of Evolution.

But it gets worse for Evolutionary predictions, because two major predictions of Evolution did not come true. First, Darwin predicted that if his theory was true, we would find "countless transitional forms" in the fossil record. In his day, Darwin blamed the lack of completeness off the fossil record for this glaringly obvious absence of transitional forms. Today, however, the prediction still hasn't been fulfilled. There are still only a handful of questionable examples of transitional forms, many of which are based on the imagination of the Evolutionist (see the next section for a few examples). Evolutionists can't blame an incomplete fossil record either. We now have fossil representatives of more than 90% of modern animals. There is no reason to assume the fossil record is incomplete. In fact, it would be circular reasoning to do so, as the only reason to claim it is incomplete is the absence of transitional fossils.

The second prediction Darwin made is that the "civilised" races would exterminate the "savage" races of man in a time not so distant as to be measured in centuries. Well, over a century has gone by, and not only has "civilized" man not eliminated what Darwin would call the "savage" races, but genetic testing has actually shown that there is less of a difference between the different "races" than there is between people within a specific racial group. So not only did Darwin's prediction fail, but the science actually confirms the Biblical model of Creation, which would predict that only one race exists: The human race. Because Evolution has failed to produce accurate predictions, Evolution fails this criteria.

Finally, in order to classify Evolution as science, it has to be logical. I actually wrote this section of the article next to last. It's such a long article, the scroll bar to the right of the screen is a tiny square. I could probably double the length of this article babbling on about why Evolution is not logical. I will, however, try to keep it short. Now, I don't know about you, but to me, the idea that nothing became something is illogical. It doesn't happen. If I have a whole lot of nothing, I'm never going to get anything. The idea that things which are irreducibly complex could form gradually without destroying themselves is illogical. The idea that the language that codes for these irreducibly complex structures inside irreducibly complex organisms could not only form themselves but also safely modify themselves does not seem logical. Evolutionists must apply logic to Evolution that they would not apply anywhere else in the universe demonstrates that their logic is flawed. Evolution is not a logical position, and so fails this criteria.

As you can see, Evolution fails every criteria of a scientific theory set out by the National Academy of Sciences. Evolution is not science under any definition of the word that I've ever seen, except the self-serving definition that essentially defines science as the blind acceptance of Evolution. No solid definition of science will ever allow Evolution to be defined as a true science.

Fakes, mistakes and a videotape
It has long been known, and even admitted by Evolutionists, that the vast majority of "proof" of Evolution has either been based on a misunderstanding, or is completely fraudulent. This article is not intended to give a full, detailed explanation of all of them, but here is a brief summary of some of the evidences for Evolution that were fakes or mistakes, a few of which are still being taught today.

Embryonic recapitulation:
The most famous Evolutionary fraud is Ernst Haeckle's theory of embryonic recapitulation. That is the argument that the human embryo re-traces its evolutionary history, first having gills like a fish, then having a tail like a monkey. In the 1860s, Ernst Haeckle edited drawings of various animal embryos, drawn by embryologists, to make them appear similar to each other. In 1874, however, Haeckle's peers cornered him, and he confessed to his crime. Of course, he blamed someone else. But here we are, 140 years later, and this atrocity is STILL being taught as proof of Evolution in the public school system no less! The only difference is that modern Evolutionists have the power of the colour printer!

Peppered moth experiment:
This experiment is viewed as a classic demonsration of "Evolution in action". Pollution from the industrial revolution darkened the tree trunks where the moths lived. The moth comes in two forms: light and dark. The dark moths were better camoflagued against the trees when they rested, but the light ones were not, leaving them vulnerable to birds, who could easily spot the free meal. However, not only does this demonstrate natural selection rather than Evolution, the whole experiment was fake! It is not known where the moths rest during the day, but they generally cannot be found on tree trunks. Instead, the moths were actually glued to the tree trunks. They were already dead...

Piltdown Man:
Piltdown man surfaced in 1912, and for the next 40 years or so, evolutionists claimed it was the fossilised skull of a half human, half ape missing link: The strongest evidence of human Evolution since Darwin. Eventually, however, it was revealed that the skull and the jawbone did not belong to the same being. The top half of the skull belonged to a human being, but the bottom half was actually an orangutan jawbone. Chemicals had been used to give the skull the appearance of age, and the teeth had quite obviously been filed down. The fact that it took 40 years for the London Natural History Museum to give permission for a detailed analysis should have raised a few alarm bells, but Piltdown man was accepted, without question, for a disappointingly long time.

Nebraska Man:
Perhaps one of the most amusing mistakes in evolutionary history, Nebraska man was supposedly an intermediate between apes and humans, discovered in 1922. What was found? A single tooth, which in 1927 was proven, beyond all reasonable doubt, to be the tooth of an extinct species of pig. The media, of course, portrayed the discovery with enough imagination to fill a children's library, and a few tv shows too. The public swallowed it up hook line and sinker. Modern evolutionists, thankfully, no longer cite Nebraska man as evidence of Evolution.

Neanderthal Man:
The idea of neanderthals being primative cavemen is so incredibly prominant in the media, even Christians will often compare an ill-mannered person as being "like neanderthals". However, there is no evidence what so ever that neanderthals were hugely different to modern human beings. With the exception of larger size, neanderthals likely would not look out of place in a regular social event from any era in history. It's just as silly to call a neanderthal a missing link as it is to say I am more evolved than my parents because I look slightly different.

Ramapithecus:
Two jaw bone fragments were discovered in India in the 1930s. Declared to be 14million years old, the entire creature, its family and its supposed natural habitat were re-constructed. It wasn't until 1981 that a full anatomical comparison was performed with a baboon skeleton. It's not surprising to find out that Evolutionists slid silently back underneath their rocks when it turned out Ramapithecus was a baboon jaw!

Snake legs:
Some snakes have pelvic spurs, near their cloaca. One example would be the Burmese python (Depicted here, held by Jay Zeke Malakai). Evolutionists like to claim these pelvic spurs are actually legs, because "Evolution tells us snakes once had legs" (Morely Exotic Animal Rescue speaker, Calderdale College, 5/11/2014). This claim is often repeated. However, there is absolutely nothing to suggest these pelvic spurs ever had anything to do with walking. In fact, they serve a function in mating. Evolutionists will argue that the existence of a function today does not mean they didn't serve a different purpose in the past, however the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate this, not on us to prove it wrong.

Pakicetus:
Pakicetus was claimed to be a transitional form between land mammals and whales. It was claimed that pakicetus was an aquatic mammal with feet almost perfectly adapted to aquatic life. Now, obviously Christians have no problem with the existence of aquatic, or even semi-aquatic mammals. Take, for example, the otter, the dugong and the hippo. The problem with this "transitional" form is that it was reconstructed based entirely on a few fragments of skull! There are numerous examples of "transitional" fossils based on a minimal amount of remains, like the Pakicetus, and the afore mentioned Nebraska man. Sometimes when challenged with this, Evolutionists will insist that it is possible to get a reasonable idea of the anatomy of the creature from minimal remains. Pakicetus is one example of how this is false, because more remains were discovered that threw the artist's rendition of pakicetus into the bin without mercy.

Rodhocetus:
A more important "link" in the whale Evolution tree is the Rodhocetus, claimed to be a transition between whales and land mammals. It supposedly had a tail fluke and flippers, just like a whale. What was actually discovered? Well, not the tail, or the limbs of the creature. Like pakicetus, rodhocetus is based on scattered remains. While it's more complete than pakicetus, it is not complete enough to be classed as even slightly related to modern whales. It would not surprise me if, in just a few years, more remains from rodhocetus were found, and it turned out it was another land creature.

42 fakes:
Shinichi Fujimura, former deputy director of the Tohoku Paleolithic Institute in Tagajo, was once famous for his revolutionary discoveries concerning Japan's pre-history. A self-taught archaeologist, Fujimura discovered the "oldest" stone tools ever discovered, dating back an alleged 40,000 years. Because of his strange ability to find older and older evidence of early man, Fujimura attracted rumours that he had "divine hands". His finds were used to teach Japanese children about stoneage Japan, and many textbooks contained pictures of artifacts he had discovered. However, one of his collegues secretely photographed him burying artifact at a dig site near the town of Tsukidate, about 186 miles North East of Tokyo. Fujimura later "discovered" these artifacts, and was confronted. He then admitted to having faked 42 dig sites! It seems "divine hands" would be more accurately described as "de' lying hands".

Australopithicus Aferensis:
Supposedly the ancestor of man, Australopithicus is flooded with the same amount of imagination as other "transitional" forms mentioned here. It is claimed that they are bipedal, and perfectly suited to life on the ground, not the trees. However, this assumption is based on footprints that look suspiciously like humans. Considering we don't have an australopithicus feet, is it not reasonable to assume humans did make those footprints? The pelvis of australopithicus makes it quite clear that Australopithicus could not walk on two legs. It was no less an ape than a gorilla or an orangutan, and wouldn't look out of place in a modern zoo. Australopithicus is not a transitional form.

Giving the game away
All the above fakes and mistakes are hardly surprising given that Evolution ultimately removes the existence of moral absolutes. The Bible, of course, commands us not to lie, for in doing so we serve the devil. Evolution, by contrast, has no such mandates. What reason does its followers have not to lie? Personal preference is the only answer. Some of them openly advocate lying, while others at least admit that there is something fishy about Evolution. Let's have a quick look at some of these quotes.

First, Eugenie Scott openly admits that if students in the school system were given alternative views to Evolution, they might end up rejecting it:
"In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science."

So, according to Eugenie Scott, Evolution must be the only possible view, and opposing views should not even be taught in critical thinking classes, otherwise students might not accept it. So, we have to force students to believe Evolution? We're not allowed to teach them to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions, even though if Evolution was true they would pretty much inevitably come to the conclusion of Evolution themselves? Clearly, while Eugenie Scott gives lip service to her religion, she does not have enough faith in Evolution to let it be questioned by a few high school students.

Second, perhaps more shockingly, Bora Zivkovic, Online Community Manager at PLoS-ONE, stated that it is perfectly fine to lie to students if you can "reach them" with Evolution:
"it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students."

Zivkovic continues to demonstrate his incredible bias against religious views when he says: "You cannot bludgeon kids with truth (or insult their religion, i.e., their parents and friends) and hope they will smile and believe you. Yes, NOMA is wrong, but is a good first tool for gaining trust. You have to bring them over to your side, gain their trust, and then hold their hands and help them step by step. And on that slow journey, which will be painful for many of them, it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students." (NOMA is the claim that science and religion make no interlinking claims, and thus cannot be used to talk about each other).

Zivkovic openly advocates lying to students if it makes them accept Evolution. Now, if Evolution was true, one should have no problem teaching the truth about it. It should have nothing to hide. But as has been demonstrated in this article, Evolution has all kinds of things to hide. It is a con game, and the only way to sell a lie is with more lies, mixed with a certain amount of truth.

Next, Michael Ruse. In a trial in 1981, Michael Ruse denied that Evolution was a religion, swaying the judge to rule against the balanced treatment of Evolution and Creation in schools bill. But he tells a very different story when not in trial: "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."

So, Evolution is a religion, at least according to Michael Ruse. A startling admission. But why did he deny this in court? Why are Evolutionists less inclined to tell the truth when they think someone might believe it?

The final quote we will look at is quite a famous one by geneticist Professor Richard Lewontin. Lewontin once wrote "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. 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 absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

In this article, we have shown that Lewontin is not, in fact, advocating science, but a religion. But despite his equivocation of the word "science", Lewontin does a pretty good job of showing the extreme bias of certain scientists with regard to Evolution.

The tu qoque fallacy
Of course, having shown examples of frauds by Evolutionists, and having exposed those who advocate deception in the name of Evolution, the obvious response we will get from Evolutionists is "what about deception from your side?" First of all, this is called the tu qoque fallacy, or as I like to call it, the "you did it too" fallacy. In using this response, the Evolutionist doesn't deny that Evolution is a fraud. Instead, it is an example of "if I'm going down, I'm bringing you with me!" But the problem with that is that a Christian who lies in the name of Jesus is being incredibly inconsistent. As mentioned earlier, the Bible says that the devil is the father of lies (John 8:44). Why would a Christian support Satan? A "liar for Jesus", as the atheist slogan goes, is a hypocrite. It is an oxymoron. By contrast, lying for Evolution is perfectly consistent with Evolution, which has no mandate against lying. Some Christian ministries even have lists of arguments they believe Christians should not use, and those who don't do so will still, on occasion, dedicate sections or articles to exposing fraudulent or mistaken arguments.

Argumentum ad populum and the no true scottsman fallacy
Finally, we come to the most common argument for Evolution. It is the argument that virtually all scientists accept Evolution, and therefore it must be true. There are three problems with this claim. First, it wouldn't matter if this was the case. Just because the majority of people believe something doesn't make it true, even if they are an authority. No honest Evolutionist will deny that the majority of scientists have been wrong about many issues in the past. Examples include the geocentric model, the dogmatic rejection of germ theory and the failure to correct the number of chromosomes in the human genome. In fact, as we have already spoken about above, the majority of scientists in the past have been Bible believers. In other words, majority opinion in the past was the exact opposite of majority opinion in the modern day. Arguing from majority opinion is, and always has been, a logical fallacy.

But it gets worse than that. As mentioned in the previous section, there is a heavy bias against Creation in science. The truth is that a significant amount of scientists are Creationists, or at the very least reject Evolution. However, I have seen first hand that many Evolutionists reject them as scientists on the sole basis that they are Creationists or that they reject Evolution. In other words, all scientists seem to accept Evolution because the refusal to do so excludes them from being classified as scientists in Evolutionist's eyes. But this is complete rubbish! It is a no true scottsman fallacy on the part of the Evolutionists. Some of these scientists, such as Dr. Raymond Damadian and Dr. John Sanford, have made revolutionary contributions to science! Some Evolutionists often quip that Creationists shouldn't use computers or take various kinds of drugs because they were invented by atheists. If this logic was reversed, it would actually be that atheists cannot use half of science because of the contributions of Creationists to science.

But finally, as it turns out, there is a lot more dissent behind the curtain than there is out on stage. Many scientists fear to dissent from Darwin publically. To quote Dr. Stuart Burgess: "I find that many of my collegues in academia are sympathetic to the Creationist viewpoint, including biologists. However, they are often afraid to speak out because of the criticisms they would get from the media and atheist lobby." From what you have read in this article, assuming you've read all the way through, can you really blame them? It would take a very strong revolt from more than just a few dissenters to shift the bias against Creation out of science once and for all. So the truth is, not as many scientists accept Evolution as is commonly claimed. It is merely made to appear this way because scientists fear to speak there mind in this area.

Conclusion
Given evidence presented in this article, which is by no means extensive, one really must question the validity of Evolution. Is it really scientific? If it is, why must its supporters use the tactics they do to silence opposition? Why not simply present the actual evidence, rather than compiling and defending numerous fakes and mistakes? When fully examined in ways Evolutionists would prefer you didn't, it becomes apparant that evolution is, in fact, a pseudo-scientific religion that has no place in an educated world.

TGK.png

Evolution: A scientific religion