Evolutionists tell us that the evidence for evolution can be found in numerable scientific disciplines. Consider two examples: A National Academy of Sciences official statement declares, "Evidence for relation by common descent [evolution] has been provided by paleontology, comparative anatomy, biogeography, embryology, biochemistry, molecular genetics, and other biological disciplines."¹

The Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism, in another official statement further alleges, "Physico-chemical development paved the way for the origin of life about four billion years ago. Subsequent organic evolution is now documented by empirical evidence from geology, paleontology, biogeography, anthropology, and genetics as well as comparative studies in taxonomy, biochemistry, embryology, anatomy, and physiology."²

No one denies that the evolutionists see evidence for evolution everywhere. No one disagrees that a vast amount of data has been assembled offering alleged evidence for evolution. The problem is not the data, the facts themselves, but how one interprets the data and the critical spirit one brings to one’s scientific reading. As Isaac Manly, M.D. comments, when one looks critically at the evidence for evolution, its logic breaks down: "There is even a certain amount of ‘logic’ to the evidence cited unless one looks at the evidence critically and with basic understanding of biological processes."³

Famous actor Richard Dreyfuss made the following comment on "The Galapagos Islands" on the WENT/Nature program for February 26, 1997. With emotion, he described a spectacular display of sea lions surfing the waves on the very islands whose name is so frequently associated with Charles Darwin. As he watched in amazement he commented, "I’m trying to understand the science of evolution. But right now, all I can see is a miracle."

Although his initial hunch was more valid, as the program progressed, and Dreyfuss discussed more and more of the "evidence" for evolution, the case for evolution was made to seem plausible by the explanation of vast time periods and micromutations leading to vital changes so that new species could be produced. By the end of the TV program, Dreyfuss was informing viewers as to how eminently reasonable belief in evolution was.

When evolutionists like biologist Edward O. Dodson, co-author of Evolution: Process and Product, say there is "a vast array of evidence for evolution," one must be aware of the necessary interpretive lenses placed on the data to arrive at the conclusion.⁴ When a creationist such as Dr. Kurt Wise declares that, "Macroevolution is a powerful theory of explanation for a wide variety of physical data"⁵ one must understand this as a credible statement only if evolution is possible. Something that never happened can’t explain anything. Frankly, as we will show, we think the impossibility of evolution makes all such alleged evidences and explanatory powers irrelevant. As Dr. Heribert-Nilsson points out, it is rather pointless to discuss "the digestion or the brain functions of a ghost."

In his book, Darwin on Trial, U.C. Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson relates a remarkable lecture given by evolutionist Colin Patterson at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981. Patterson is the senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and the author of that museum’s general text on evolution. He asked his audience one simple but key question which reflected his own doubts about much of what has been thought to be secure knowledge about the process of evolution. Here is what he asked his audience of expert evolutionists:

Johnson believes that, viewed strictly from the point of view of logic and the accepted canons of scientific research, the Darwinian theory is severely lacking in confirmatory evidence. He shows how scientists have put the cart before the horse, prematurely accepting Darwin’s theory as fact and then scrambling to find evidence for it. In the process, Darwinism itself has become a pseudo-science held by its devotees in spite of, rather than because of, the evidence.⁷

This same lack of evidence has led philosophers such as Karl Popper to state: "I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme—a possible framework for testable scientific theories…. I do not think that Darwinism can explain the origin of life. I think it quite possible that life is so extremely improbable that nothing can ‘explain’ why it originated…."⁸

Increasingly, evolutionary scientists are dissatisfied today: they think evolution is true, but are more and more confronted by the necessity for faith.⁹

The common popular evidences cited in favor of evolution are logical, philosophical, and scientific. One of the alleged logical arguments is this: hundreds of thousands of scientists worldwide simply cannot all be so wrong as to have accepted a genuinely false theory—not in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, the world’s most productive era of modern science.

But technological advancement and evolutionary theory are not the same thing. Further, the argument from the majority is itself a logical fallacy. The number of proponents accepting a given theory doesn’t prove anything. The proof is in the weight of the evidence. The majority can be wrong.

Another common argument for evolution is that it’s the only possible explanation for our existence. Since we exist, and evolution is the only way we could have gotten here, evolution must be true. But this is another logical fallacy, known as faulty dilemma—limiting options when other legitimate explanations exist.

Most people are persuaded by the alleged scientific evidence—origin of life experiments that allegedly indicate that precursors to life could randomly form and evolve; mutations and natural selection as the apparent mechanism of evolution (mutations do occur; natural selection is alleged to demonstrate evolution); the fossil record with its history of past life in such a fashion that it supposedly shows evolutionary ascent; comparative anatomy/biochemistry/genetics physiology which purport to reveal evolutionary similarity and common descent; biogeography, the geographical distribution of plants and animals which allegedly demonstrate evolutionary relationships; the study of hominid fossils (the remains of man-like primates from which humans supposedly evolved), and so on.

If these key evidences are valid, then evolution may be considered demonstrated. If they are found wanting, then any additional evidence for evolution, major or minor, should also be considered suspect.

Evolutionists say that the proof of evolution can be found in the fossil record, natural selection, comparative anatomy, fossil man, and biogeography. But we are convinced that not only is there no proof in any of these areas—there is not even good evidence. This is why we are unable to trust evolutionary scientists when they say there is proof of evolution in other areas as well. The truth is that, when examined critically, all these alleged evidences break down. In fact, we can go further and declare that virtually all such evidence supports special creation, either directly or indirectly.¹⁰

The point must be made that if evolution is biologically and mathematically impossible, then no evidence exists for it anywhere because it never happened. If it never happened, then the logical, experimental, and evidential dilemmas faced by evolutionists today are only to be expected. Further, theists of any persuasion cannot be accused of being dogmatic or narrow-minded when they simply allow the facts of science to speak for themselves.

Thus, not only is there no credible and/or demonstrable evidence for evolution in the areas evolutionists cite in favor of evolution, it could never happen to begin with. So, our conclusion is that evolution is accepted for reasons other than legitimate scientific data.

Again, because of how they interpret nature, evolutionists do believe the scientific evidence is compelling. If this really isn’t the case, why then do evolutionists believe as they do? We think this is explained by several factors: 1) they may not have looked at the data objectively (i.e., they assume the evidence is good without critical analysis); 2) they may have a personal bias in favor of naturalism (they choose to accept evolution on faith, look at the data selectively, and convince themselves the evidence is good); 3) they may have never been exposed to the weight of the evidence against evolution (like that found in the volumes by Bird, Denton, Behe, Milton, MacBeth, Moorhead and Kaplan, Gentry, Grasse, Shute and others¹¹) and/or given it a fair hearing; or 4) they just aren’t thinking clearly. In fact we have talked with many people committed to evolution whose basic problem is simply that they fail to think clearly.

When one reads evolutionary literature, one discovers evolutionary faith is replete with an acceptance of logical fallacies. The examples below are illustrative.

The logical fallacy known as "invincible ignorance" happens when a person adopts a particular viewpoint, rigidly maintaining it despite all evidence to the contrary. Regardless of mounting, even definitive, evidence, the person’s faith in his particular point of view remains.

The fallacy of provincialism is when one sees things solely from the perspective of one’s own particular group (in this case the evolutionary establishment). Other viewpoints, especially those with religious implications, are simply not accepted or tolerated. Thus, dogmatism is a strong component of modern evolutionary belief. Proponents also engage in special pleading—they selectively accept data supporting their position while rejecting data that does not support it. In fact, they support their position with a confidence entirely out of proportion to the evidence.

In his book on logical fallacies, Don’t You Believe It, A. J. Hoover summarizes 30 common logical fallacies.¹² Significantly, almost all of them are applicable to how evolutionists deal with the data or how they respond to creationism. Consider a few illustrations.

Thus, Professor Marvin Lubenow is quite correct when he writes, "As one studies evolutionist literature, one cannot help but notice in its practitioners both a lack of logic and an inability to weigh evidence properly. Legal experts have also noted this."¹³ Indeed, when considering the alleged evidences for evolution, weighing the conclusions of legal experts—those trained to weigh evidence—is highly relevant.

We earlier quoted Errol White as stating that he had often thought about how little he would like to have to attempt to prove organic evolution in a court of law. It’s no wonder.

No evolutionary scientist anywhere could prove evolution in a legal forum, given competent cross-examination. It is significant that in recent years a number of well-argued texts have been written by expert lawyers critiquing evolution based on the application of the laws of evidence. One is by Harvard trained Norman MacBeth. In Darwin Retried, he argued that not only was the evidence for evolution of insufficient quality to stand up in a modern court of law but that evolution itself had become a religious faith.¹⁴

Noted University of California law professor Phillip E. Johnson wrote Darwin on Trial, which is one of many significant critiques of evolution in recent years. He argues forcefully what is evident to everyone who has studied this issue objectively: 1) that evolution is ultimately a religious faith; 2) that if evolution were a true scientific hypothesis, an objective rigorous examination of the evidence would have caused it to be discarded a long time ago; 3) that it is not grounded on scientific facts but on the philosophy of naturalism; and 4) that it is an illusion that a great body of empirical evidence can be marshaled in support of the truth of evolution.¹⁵

A final example is by W. R. Bird, a Yale Law School graduate who argued the major case on the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court. W. R. Bird is a member of the most prestigious legal organization, The American Law Institute, and is listed in the most selective directory, Who’s Who in the World. His definitive critique of evolution, The Origin of Species Revisited, is a masterful analysis of evidential reasoning showing that evolution is without significant evidence and that the theory of abrupt appearance (roughly parallel to creationism) is a better scientific theory.¹⁶

One wonders, if evolution is a fact of science, how do legal experts trained in evaluating evidence declare it is without evidence? Or, how do scientists like Dave Nutting deliver lectures at national conferences with titles like "Fifty scientific reasons why evolution is wrong"?

This kind of critical information almost never gets into the classroom, where it is most needed, and, in fact should be expected. This explains why, according to Klein, a Regent Emerita of the New York State Board of Regents, "The theory of evolution continues to be presented in textbooks, encyclopedias, and research papers as if it were a proven and verifiable scientific fact."¹⁷

And, according to one court opinion, "Presently, the concepts of evolutionary theory… permeate the public school textbooks," at least in biology and for some texts in other fields. "Evolution receives an average of 14,055 words in each of eight major biology textbooks published between 1980 and 1982, and seven devote at least 11,000 words to evolution. By contrast, neither the theory of abrupt appearance nor the theory of creation receives more than a paragraph in any but one of the roughly 30 textbooks for public school biology, neither is mentioned in most, and neither is mentioned in the rest except in criticism."¹⁸

Unfortunately, educators generally have no idea that they are legally permitted to criticize evolution—regardless of what course they teach. Sooner or later, evolution turns up in most courses anyway. Innovative teachers who wish to educate students through the Socratic method, for example, would discover that a few auxiliary lectures on "weighing the evidence for evolution" will become a fascinating exercise in which to help students think independently and critically.

In fact, legal experts such as W. R. Bird in Vol. 2 of The Origin of Species Revisited have shown that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment does not prevent teachers from offering scientific alternatives to evolution and that creation itself can be a legitimate scientific alternative. Teachers who would like to offer an alternative, especially as pedagogical method, and yet do not, have only been intimidated. They are fully within their rights to do so.

If Darwinism is false and evolution is dead, then Bird’s concluding paragraph in Vol. 2 must be true:

An article of evolutionist Ronald Bailey in Reason attempts to explain why so many non-creationist political conservatives are now abandoning belief in evolution. Supposedly, it’s not because of the scientific evidence. Bailey’s argument assumes that evolution is true—and that recent new discoveries discredit or disprove the creationist’s probability and design arguments (they don’t). Incredibly, he argues that the only reason conservatives reject evolution is to preserve the moral order resulting from religious values. He cites Irving Kristol who correctly wrote, "If there is one indisputable fact about the human condition it is that no community can survive if it is persuaded—or even if it suspects—that its members are leading meaningless lives in a meaningless universe."²⁰ Bailey actually suggests that conservatives secretly know that evolution is true, but they lie and deceive the public and criticize evolution publicly in order to help reserve the moral order!

This entirely ignores the fact that evolution is being rejected today largely on scientific grounds, not social or moral grounds, and that the attack on evolution comes more from establishment science than from religious creationism.

Again, it should be emphasized that the attack on evolution comes more from within the halls of naturalistic science than from creationists. Certainly this speaks volumes as to the weakness of its evidence. B. Leith, who catalogued some of the dissent in The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982) observes, "The theory of life that undermined nineteenth century religion has virtually become a religion itself and in turn is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationist and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reasons. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself."²¹ A few recent examples are science journalist and engineer Richard Milton’s Shattering the Myth of Darwinism (1997) and biophysicist Lee M. Spetner’s Not by Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution (1997).

Evolutionists may declare that "denying Darwin is intellectually impossible," as Herbert Gintis did in Commentary magazine (September 1996) or that "the scientific community has no doubts" about evolution as an article in Scientific American (October 1997) claimed. But consider a few examples of the dissent culled from our own research.

Professor Wolfgang Smith received his Ph.D. in Mathematics from Columbia University. He has held faculty positions at the Massachusetts Institutes of Technology and UCLA. He writes,

Dr. R. Merle d’Aubigne, head of the Orthopedic Department at the University of Paris remarks,

Sir John Eccles, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physiology/Medicine says of evolution in "A Divine Design," "One of its weak points is that it does not have any recognizable way in which conscious life could have emerged…."²⁴

Professor Harry Rubin, Professor of Molecular Biology and Research Virologist to the Virus Laboratory, University of California Berkeley and recipient of numerous prestigious awards, accepts non-Darwinian evolution but still remarks, "Life, even in bacteria, is too complex to have occurred by chance."²⁵

Nobelist and evolutionist Dr. Robert A. Millikan comments, "The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove."²⁶

Dr. Albert Fleishmann, zoologist at Erlangen University, writes, "The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."²⁷

Famous Canadian geologist William Dawson says, "the record of the rocks is decidedly against evolutionists."²⁸

The highly regarded noncreationist anti-Darwinian French scientist Pierre-P. Grasse says, "The explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major problems involved."²⁹

Ken Hsu, the evolutionist professor at the Geological Institute in Zurich, E.T.H., and former president of the International Association of Sedimentologists, writes, "We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It’s about time we cry: ‘The Emperor has no clothes.’"³⁰

Lemoine, a former president of the Geological Society of France and director of the Natural History Museum in Paris, as well as the editor of the Encyclopedie Francaise, declares that, "The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach: but each, in his speciality, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate…. [I]t results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."³¹

Julio Garrido, Sc.D., a member of the Spanish Royal Academy of Science and a former president of the French Society of Crystallography and Mineralogy quotes French scholar and mathematician Georges Salet concerning the last 150 years of attempts to find evidence for evolution or even explanations of it: "During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line, there has been no discovery of anything [confirming evolution]."³²

Garrido also quotes French evolutionist Jen Rostand who writes, "The theory of evolution gives no answer to the important problem of the origin of life and presents only fallacious solutions to the problem of the nature of evolutive transformations…[Because of this situation] We are condemned to believe in evolution…. Perhaps we are now in a worse position than in 1850 because we have searched for one century and we have the impression that the different hypotheses are now exhausted."³³

Dr. Garrido himself writes that evolution "is a simplistic idea, almost an infantile idea" and even that it is a philosophical disease: "The evolutionary theory is one of the ‘diseases,’ because it is the corruption of philosophical prejudices regarding a pure scientific question."³⁴

An article by Howard Byington Holroyd, Ph.D., retired head of the Department of Physics, Augustana College, Rock Island, Illinois, points out that evolution is nonsense. His research and calculations show "far beyond any reasonable doubt, that this theory is nothing more than physical and mathematical nonsense."³⁵

R. Clyde McCone, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, California State University, Long Beach, states, "as an anthropologist, I object to evolution on the anthropological grounds that I have presented. There are no data for evolution."³⁶

Roger Haines, Jr., J.D., research attorney for the California Third District Court of Appeals, Sacramento, writes that, "The arguments for macroevolution fail at every significant level when confronted by the facts."³⁷

Finally, evolutionist and zoologist with the Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, University of Southampton (England), G. A. Kerkut writes the following conclusions in his Implications of Evolution. He refers to the seven basic assumptions of evolution and assesses their validity:

Kerkut goes on to state that, in essence, evolution has to be taken on pure faith: the evidence is circumstantial and much of it can be argued either way. He says of these initial assumptions for evolution, "The evidence is still lacking for most of them."³⁹

Scientists may claim evolution is a demonstrated fact, and this may routinely be stated in student textbooks, but this is wrong. Creationists have pointed this out for decades. And not without good cause.

Creationist Dr. Duane Gish has actually debated leading evolutionists some 300 times and almost always won.⁴⁰ Creationist Dr. Henry Morris has spoken to some 30,000 audiences and never heard an evolutionist respondent offer convincing evidence for evolution.⁴¹ The hundreds of scientists with the Creation Research Society, the Institute for Creation Research, and other creationist organizations (there are well over 100) have read literally thousands of evolutionary books and articles. They conclude there is little or no genuine evidence for the validity of evolution. In essence, the reason most people continue to believe in evolution is because of personal bias or because they are misinformed about the evidence against it.⁴²

Scientists may choose not to listen to creationists. However, we don’t see how any scientist can logically deny the conclusions given by W. R. Bird in his critique of evolution and presentation of the scientific evidence for abrupt appearance, or creation. He shows that of six scientific approaches to macro-evolution (besides the theory of abrupt appearance), classical Darwinism must be considered wrong on key issues; that neo-Darwinism and punctuated equilibrium cancel each other out by denying the relevance of the other’s mechanism; and that the other three approaches are anti-Darwinian, with one opposing it and a second being agnostic toward macroevolution.⁴³

In essence, all theories of evolution, whether Darwinian, neo-Darwinian, punctuated equilibrium, or non-Darwinian, should now be considered dead despite their continuing popularity in the scientific world. The obituary has already been written due to the latest scientific discoveries and the failure of 150 years of scientific advancement to confirm evolution. Obviously then, something like theistic evolution would also be dead.

We emphasize again that the evidence of neither paleontology, phylogeny, taxonomy or classification, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, comparative biochemistry, population genetics, artificial selection, biogeographical distribution, cytology, nor any other area offers real evidence for evolution.⁴⁴

Sometimes, it is claimed there are many different legitimate origin theories. But this is not ultimately true. Native American, Hindu, Muslim, Aztec, etc., have creation accounts that are either myths or have no scientific validity. Scientifically the only real alternatives are creation or evolution. Thus, we think that to effectively disprove evolution is to effectively prove creation. And we are not alone in limiting our choices this way.

In a 1983 anti-creationist book, the evolutionist Futuyma writes, "Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things."⁴⁵ George Wald, a Nobel Prize winner says that between spontaneous generation and a single primary act of supernatural creation, "There is no third position...."⁴⁶

Bird cites other evolutionists as admitting the same:

Thus, it is not surprising that some evolutionists will accept the fact, that, as Miller and Fowler state, "a case against creation is a case for evolution and vice versa."⁴⁸ And evolutionist Naylor agrees that "Evidence in favor of one is necessarily against the other."⁴⁹

From the perspective of chosen worldview options, only evolution or creation have the capacity to logically attract men’s minds. Pantheism and related theories lie outside the realm of science and are self-refuting or disproven by modern science; directed panspermia theories are evolution in disguise and only push the problem back further; theistic evolution is scientifically and biblically impossible; and other theories have serious or fatal problems as well. So, if evolution is disproved, creation is our only option. The remaining chapters in our book will disprove evolution, leaving creation the best choice. Perhaps then it should surprise no one that even a number of evolutionists have publicly declared that creation is the better theory.

Evolutionary scientists generally claim that "No competent scientist believes in creation." But even some evolutionary scientists agree that the theory of special creation better fits the actual scientific data. Many more examples could be cited; the ones given are only for purposes of illustration. Our point is to show that evolutionists cannot be correct when they claim no serious scientist accepts creation or that creation is a useless religious theory without a shred of scientific evidence for it. If this were true other evolutionists could never claim that creation is the better scientific theory.

Of course, virtually all of the thousands of scientists who are creationists believe that whatever scientific field one is referring to, the actual scientific facts fit creation far better than evolution⁵⁰:

Below we cite representative statements of evolutionary scientists who are frank enough to admit that special creation is the better theory in whole or part. Unfortunately, as noted earlier, most scientists wrongly assume evolution has been proven in other fields and that their field of specialty is the only one with difficulties. For example, the botanist E. J. H. Comer of Cambridge University believes that evidence for evolution exists in certain other fields, although he admits to difficulty in finding evidence for evolution in his own field:

In fact, every field is fraught with difficulties. Those who recognize this are more open to considering creation.

Writing in the Physics Bulletin (Volume 31, No. 4, May 1980, 138), H. S. Lipson at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology and a Fellow of the Royal Society states:

He further states,

And he proceeds to show how one cannot account for breathing on evolutionary assumptions. After further discussion, he asks, "How has living matter originated?" and concludes:

It is refreshing indeed to read such words. Without a few such statements like this one might think that truly open-minded evolutionists were themselves an extinct species.

In his Biology, Zoology, and Genetics: Evolution Model Versus Creation Model 2, A. Thompson observes, "Rather than supporting evolution, the breaks in the known fossil record support the creation of major groups with the possibility of some limited variation within each group."⁵⁴

Dr. Austin Clark, the curator of paleontology at the Smithsonian Institution observed in "Animal Evolution:" "Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument."⁵⁵ In the area of comparative biochemistry, Bird observes, "This comparative unrelatedness argument is an affirmative evidence for the theory of abrupt appearance, as not just Denton and Sermonti but Zihlman and Lowenstein acknowledge in reference to the comparative biochemistry evidence, saying that ‘this constitutes a kind of "special creation" hypothesis.’"⁵⁶

These citations and others reveal that some evolutionary scientists are frank enough to admit the theory of creation is in whole or part superior to the theory of evolution. In fact, the scientific evidence is so conclusive against evolution and for creation one is finally amazed that the idea of evolution so thoroughly dominates modern science. As noted, the reasons are not scientific. Were they scientific, virtually all scientists would be creationists—as the vast majority were in preceding centuries. Even such eminent scientists as Sir Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, his research partner, in discussing the "theory that life was assembled by an [higher] intelligence" state, "Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific."⁵⁷

In our Darwin’s Leap of Faith we showed why the evidence for evolution is lacking—and why it will never be forthcoming. We showed the scientific basis for the increasing dissatisfaction with evolution even among many evolutionary scientists. This is why creationists make statements like the following by leading Canadian medical specialist Evan Shute, M.D., author of Flaws in the Theory of Evolution: "Evolution will be a lost cause as soon as people hear all the evidence and not just the noise made by its proponents."⁵⁸

And "the fall of Darwinism will be the big story of the early 21st century..." states noted U.C. at Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial, Reason in the Balance, and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds.⁵⁹