Ch. 1- 4

The 1960 movie ‘Inherit the Wind’ made fun of creation science advocates, mocking people who didn’t want evolution taught because of its atheistic themes. But what wasn’t pointed out is that the person advocating evolution also advocated several bogus Neanderthal finds like ‘Nebraska Man’ who was like the tooth of a pig, which was said to be the tooth of a hominid monkey-man. The evolutionist argued using many falsehoods.

Just because we don’t have the whole answer to replace evolution doesn’t mean we can’t point out how wrong evolution is.

Survival of the fittest is just a tautology saying that those who leave the most offspring leave the most offspring. It doesn’t tell us anything.

Different types of eyes in the animal kingdom are not just examples of increasing complexity. There are over 40 different types of eyes. And 5% of an eye is not the same as 5% vision; only the complete eye gives any vision at all, and only with the proper receptor.

A program designed to scramble a book would not turn the book into a different language and it would not turn the book into a book on a different topic.

Opponents of Darwin were leading geologists and paleontologists, it wasn’t just religious objection.

Opponents of Darwin such as George Cuvier were fossil experts who saw no gradual change but rather saw signs of various Extinctions and creations of new species.

 

Note – I do not see a necessity for the theory of multiple mass extinctions and multiple creations, it can all be easily accounted for in the catastrophic flood. Either way, the data doesn’t support evolution.

Darwin said nature must have hidden the transitional forms!

Lots more study of the fossil record has been done since Darwin. Darwin relied on the claim that we haven’t looked enough for the transitional fossils. Today we know that new kinds of animals don’t appear gradually, but suddenly.

Note – and by new it could just mean different as in placed down at a different level instead of a second creation. Fossils represent death. Again, either way, the key is that we don’t see gradual forms, as evolution requires.

No intermediates are found in the fossil record. Evolutionists try to explain away the sudden changes in the fossil record without transitional fossils by saying that the new fossil must have evolved over a fast geological period of time, as in hundreds of thousands of years. They say, ‘because Earth is so old we have all this time to work with.’

The Cambrian explosion is a major problem for evolutionists – nearly all the animals appear there without predecessors.

Note – some say the flood is a different extinction such as the Permian/Triassic with the Cambrian being the fall of Adam, but most the evidence I’ve seen points to the Cambrian as the flood. I have low confidence in claims of multiple mass extinctions, though there certainly have been multiple catastrophic events in human history.

Based on modern fossilization theory we should not have any soft tissues which fossilized yet we do have them;

Note – the flood created the perfect setting for fossilization, making the fossil record one big testament of divine power and intervention.

Evolution calls for species to die out slowly and gradually. but this is not what we see, we see mass extinction. The record is not is not gradual development scientists are aware of this.

Stasis, a lack of change, is the norm in the fossil record. Evolutionists came up with punctuated equilibrium theory to try and explain the lack of transitional fossils by claiming there were semi-fast changes (within hundreds of thousands) which have not left behind fossil evidence. So here we have invisible evidence of evolution, awesome!

Scientists know that fossils don’t work well for evolution, they are embarrassed of this and they’re under tremendous pressure when publishing about fossils to somehow make it fit with evolution theory.

Note – I remember in one debate an evolutionist kept trying to get away from fossils. He said ‘we don’t even need fossils anymore!’ as he attempted to change the conversation to genetics, which of course has its own plethora of obvious problems for evolution. I’m also reminded of the famous evolutionary plant biologist who, when asked what the best evidence for evolution was, said, ‘the whale pelvis!’ Apparently nothing in his own field of study was compelling, and he had to turn to vague optimistic claims from another field. Of course, the whale pelvis is needed for reproduction and isn’t vestigial at all.

 

Ch. 5 The ‘Fact’ of Evolution

 

Evolutionists use descent with modification to explain difficulties in classification.

Evolutionists insist that no matter how much evidence you give against evolution, nothing makes sense except for evolution.

Fossils do not show links between different species in the phylogenic tree.

Labs are unable to show the process of change from one species into another.

Recasting the theory as fact serves no purpose other than to protect it from falsification.

Darwinists point to microevolution and claim that such is evidence for major change between species though we have no mechanism for macroevolution (species change). It’s never been shown and no fossil evidence for it exists.

Note – you can’t say ‘well we haven’t waited millions of years so you don’t know that macroevolution doesn’t happen.’ For one this is shifting the burden of proof, and for two a vague claim that something might happen in millions of years is inherently untestable and therefore inherently unscientific. Evolution should be classed with philosophy or religion, not science. Evolution wouldn’t last long anywhere without tax funding and monopolistic control on other disciplines.

Google says there are three reasons why evolution is a fact. 1. Microevolution. (Note – Here they apply one process to something it has nothing to do with, like saying because I can jump on a pogo stick, that I should also be able to jump to the moon.)
2. Nature is imperfect so it must not have been done by intelligence. (Note – here they assume the motives of the Creator. How do they know He isn’t building in weakness into the system for a reason? Further, pointing out imperfections doesn’t account for all the mind boggling order in nature, allowing for life.)
3. Hominids and mammals which are like reptiles. (Note – these claims are based on conjecture and minor differences in skeletons which are easily accounted for in variation of known species, etc.)

 

Ch. 6 Invertebrate Sequence

Evolution says we’ve got to have animalistic ancestors, so we’ll pick these ones because they’re the best candidates. They are looking for ways to support their theory rather than questioning the theory (and comparing the theory to all the evidence nature provides).

Evolution theory said ancestors have to be there, so they insist that something they find is in fact those ancestors.

There are claims about transitional fossils between amphibians and fish, but these are wild speculations. No explanation exists about how an amphibian could have developed reptilian reproduction based on Darwinian descent. The difference between a fossil mammal and a fossil reptile is very slim based on just a few jawbones and often it can go either way.

(Note – only basing classification on bones is a fallacy often adopted by evolutionists. They would tell you that my arm and my dog’s arm are neigh indistinguishable!)

If all mammals descended from a common animal the fossil record would show the transition, but it does not. So evolutionists have put forth a theory of mammals having descended from multiple different preliminary creatures instead of one like Darwin said.

(Note – arguments like this get shut down quickly, Darwinism falls apart when you start allowing multiple ancestors. In truth, God created many types of animals for this world.)

The Archeopteryx fossil is a bird with teeth and claws which they claim as a transitional fossil between reptiles and birds. This is not necessarily evidence of a reptile becoming a bird, it may be like the modern platypus which has some features of one animal type and other features of another. Evolutionists do not know what necessary processes would have occurred to change from a reptiles scales into birds feathers and bird’s lungs, etc.

Note – there are also other birds which have teeth and claws. And more typical birds have been found in ‘lower’ geologic layers than Archeopteryx, leaving scientists to admit that they must look for the transitional fossil elsewhere.

Google originally published about 12 hominid species establishing the link between humans and monkeys later had had to reduce it to five.

Note – they like to claim all sorts of finds, but it’s the same story of hoaxes and imaginative supposition.

The theory of evolution was accepted first, and later they came up with their supporting evidence for it of transitional humans. With their theory in hand evolutionists went hunting everywhere for the evidence to support it. The theory did not come from a bunch of transitional skeletons we didn’t know what to do with, these transitional skeletons were invented to support the pre-existing idea that we needed them!

Public pressure to find the missing link between humans and monkeys was so great that there were lots of frauds. Piltdown man was one of these frauds that lasted for 40 years before it was detected because they kept it heavily guarded. We see what we expect to see unless we are extremely rigorous in checking our prejudice. Nebraska man was another known fraud.

Note – there are two types of hominids. Known frauds, and undetected frauds.

Many scientists doubt that there’s much difference in the limited species between monkeys and humans and suggest these are actually the same species.

Genetic evidence of the mitochondrial eve shuts down a lot of hominid claims limiting them to a couple hundred thousand years.

Whales are very complex with lots of features which couldn’t have evolved over time such as their ability to swim deep and their ability to use sonar and their ability for the young to suckle without taking in water. Even the vestigial legs are a problem of great complexity which evolution has no answers for such as when and how they would have come.

Darwin conceded that fossil evidence weighs heavily against his theory and the same holds true today. This is why they avoid talking about fossils and try to focus on molecular evidence.

 

Ch. 7 The Molecular Evidence

 

Darwinists conveniently claim that all the transitional species quickly died so we don’t have evidence of them existing.

Evolutionists do not insist that natural selection is the only method for speciation, but they are very vague about what else could have happened.

There are no transitional species between single cellular and multicellular life.

No explanation is given for the difference between apes and humans; no explanation for why they’re different or how they became different. (Note – no legitimate cohesive reasonable sufficiently-detailed explanation, at least.)

There’s no empirical evidence that transitional species link together to a single distance to a single ancestor, and not evidence this common ancestor existed.

If molecular change occurred, it must have been at clock-like intervals, not depending on environmental changes as evolution suggests.

Just because two molecular forms are different does not imply natural selection.

There’s no evidence that natural selection has creative power. (Note – nature selects, it doesn’t create new material to select from. It can show survival of the fittest, but not arrival of the fittest. Further, beneficial mutations are extremely rare and short-lived.)

Many scientists advocate that the molecular clock says humans evolved from a common ancestor in Africa less than 200,000 years ago. Many evolutionists don’t like this because it rules out a lot of the hominid transitional species from an older time and other location.

We can’t just look at molecular evolution because the molecules had to be housed in organisms which would have had to evolve along with the molecules.

The real mystery is how a simple thing could have turned into a complex thing.

The molecular information adds to the complexity showing that these are complex machinery requiring the cooperation of multiple parts to carry out their function.

(Note – every field of science brings more complexity to the table, and makes evolution that much more ridiculous.)

The hemoglobin is so complex it’s called the molecular lung.

The more complex molecular biology is the less likely there could have been mechanisms to transform one kind into another and time to do it. (Note – this is why evolutionists are in the business of downplaying complexity, and lengthening timeframes.)

Testing Darwinism by molecular evidence is never even attempted.

 

Ch. 8 Pre-biological Evolution

 

Pre-biological evolution refers to chemicals and how chemicals evolved.

When the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana’s law that you have to teach creation science in addition to evolution science, chief justice Scalia dissented because he knew that the people of Louisiana deserve to teach evidence which doesn’t support evolution. (Note – Scalia wanted more academic freedom, less of a monopoly on science. He wanted science to point out pros and cons of multiple theories. Too bad Scalia was the minority losing voice!)

When scientists use the word evolution they’re trying to say an explanation of everything from the Big Bang to the present without allowing any role for a creator (intelligent designer). (Note – evolution is multi-disciplinary, a spreading malicious cancer killing all truth.)

The Miller Yuri experiment was about taking several amino acids and attempting to spark them into a protein, but this is flawed for multiple reasons, one of which is they already started out with the amino acids.

An organism forming from prebiotic soup is about as unlikely as a tornado going through a junkyard making an airplane. These microorganisms are more complex than a spaceship, yet we say they assembled by chance? No matter how much time you give, this is bizarre.

The prokaryotic bacterial cell is much more complex than a spaceship.

‘Chance assembly’ is another way of saying miracle.

Materialists (who dominate modern science) insist that there cannot be any supernatural element the creation of life. (Note – and no purpose allowed either. Jonathan Wells talks about the Smithsonian refusing to air a program on evolution which also suggested there may be some purpose in life. The evolutionists wildly protested the presentation and got it canceled. Nothing but complete atheistic secular humanism satisfies them. They must dominate all scientific discussion, and ban any who violate their arbitrary definitions of what is and isn’t ‘science.’)

If life is so easy to make it would have happened many times in many places.

A popular theory is that the first RNA managed to synthesize itself from prebiotic soup, without proteins. Though this is conceivable it is not probable or experimentally verifiable. There are many creative theories about how the first life may have came to being, but none of them are experimentally verifiable. (Note – as Isaac Newton said, “A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true.”)

All theories are acceptable so long as none of them are creationism, in other words an intelligent agent creating something; they don’t allow God to be involved in creation at any level or in any way. (Note – what if that’s actually what happened? What if all the evidence points to that? Now you can see how unscientific we become as we insist on these arbitrary parameters.)

Crick (one of the discoverers of DNA) and others recognize the extreme difficulty of creating life on Earth, especially within the parameters of time allotted, even though the time allotted is very long. These skeptical scientists speculate that life arrived here from some other place in space, microscopic life on an asteroid or something. That would mean this life would have to travel through space safely and remain alive.

Crick says there may have been an extra terrestrial civilization who sent bacteria into space to start life on another planet. (Note – as I recall even Richard Dawkins accepts this possibility; he says alien life forms could have placed early life here. These ideas are much closer to the truth than cosmic and chemical evolution.)

Critics of the extra-terrestrial implant theory have issue with the invisibility of these extraterrestrials, but we also are working with invisible transitional hominid species.

When you have to invoke invisible spacemen, it’s time to admit that your theory of evolution doesn’t work.

 

Ch. 9 The Rules of Science

 

Evolution has become orthodox and no one dares stray from it. The fight in Louisiana to allow creation science to be taught in school, or rather to require it to be taught if evolution is taught, was struck down by people trying to uphold the orthodoxy of evolution and liberal religion, afraid of religious fanatics. (Note – ironically, their censorship of non-evolution friendly ideas has made them the new fanatics.) (This concept of orthodoxy was from earlier in the book.)

They define science by whatever is accepted by the scientific community, meaning the official scientific community.

Science is supposed to be guided by natural law and testable with tentative conclusions which are falsifiable. They say creation science doesn’t fit the criteria because it’s not falsifiable or testable as it points to supernatural creation. But scientists study gravity and they can’t explain gravity by natural law. (Note – just as gravity is a law we observe yet don’t fully understand, why not roll out the law of design? The law of creation? Sure we don’t understand it yet, but let’s put a name to what we all are seeing rather than trying to pin it on something we aren’t seeing.)

Mainstream science says young Earth and the flood are false, but how can they say that if this science is unfalsifiable?

Creationists argue that Earth and life had to be designed regardless of how long it took or what way it was done. Then evolution has to answer why it’s against the possibility that nature was designed. Evolutionists advocate naturalistic developments without purpose; no conscious purpose or direction. (Note – it’s a tall order defending that position!)

The scientific community is clear in their advocacy that God was in no way involved in evolution. (Note – evolution is all about a theory of nature making itself. That’s the whole point. Why Christians turn to this vomit for substantive truth is beyond me.)

Naturalist scientists only believe in God when God is an abstract concept, uninvolved in nature. (Note – a perfect fit for the Devil’s kingdom. Incomprehensible & useless. Those acquainted with the teachings of the restored gospel should be the first to object.)

Scientific naturalism is espoused by the theory of evolution. Evolution requires naturalism and it says whatever can’t be seen (detected by common methods) isn’t real. Evolution uses (empirical) naturalism as the only way of finding truth.

Naturalism says all of nature is a closed system of cause and effects not influenced by anything outside.

Naturalism denies that a supernatural being could influence natural events such as evolution, or communicate with natural creatures such as ourselves.

The absence of a Creator is the essential starting point for Darwinism.

Empiricists are willing to dismiss any doctrine that doesn’t match with their limited scientific evidence.

Darwinism is not empirical! You can’t observe creation by natural selection any more than you can observe creation by God. Natural selection exists but it’s going really far out to say it has such creative power. The fossil record does not match the gradual changes that Darwinism implies. When it comes to explaining the origins of life and species, Darwinism is pure philosophy. If empiricism was the top goal, Darwinism would have been limited to observable microevolution with no important philosophical or theological implications.

They’ve typed up a bunch of rules about what science is that keep anyone from doing anything which isn’t naturalistic, and they’ve declared that everything which is science is truth and everything which is not science is false.

In making these arbitrary rules scientists dismiss entire arguments from the onset and simply claim that advocates of these dissenting ideas don’t understand how science works. (Note – modern science has become a good old boys club rather than an evidence-based institution.)

In one moment evolutionists say they don’t deal with religion, in the next they make sweeping statements about the purpose of the cosmos.

 

When a paradigm is established, it serves as a grand organizing principle. The paradigm of evolution has become the lens through which we view everything and the way we study everything.

The problem of stasis in the fossil record was not described for a very long time because Darwinists did not want to put it to print. This is an example of how a certain paradigm can limit our understanding of nature.

Naturalistic evolutionists don’t bother with whether something is true or not, they only say it’s the best way of describing things and may change in the future. (Note – in other words they deny our ability to discover laws of nature or that such even exist. They no longer are engaged in a pursuit of truth.

Since science (particularly evolutionary science) has the monopoly on knowledge, that now has to explain philosophical and theological questions.

They insist that this is not just their way of seeing things, it’s the only way, and they’re trying to convert everyone to it. (Note – long have the creationists made the modest request that both sides be taught. Evolutionists can’t stand this idea.)

 

Ch. 10 Darwinist Religion

 

Modern science claims that anything which can’t be proven (particularly proven their way) is a mere superstition, a feeling. (Note – an outdated crutch people are growing out of.)

It is said that those who accept religion and science have to check (leave) their brains at the church door. (Note – must we check our faith at the school door? Neither option is acceptable.)

Modern science is at war with creationism and demands absolute surrender.

An organization called ASA of Christian scientists wanted to claim that you can have it both ways with evolution and the bible, and the science establishment came down hard on them for allowing any sort of God to be involved in any way, demanding that such involvement is unscientific.

The message of secular humanism advocated by John Dewey etc. is that salvation is by science. They see science as the answer to everything.

Secular philosophers praise evolution’s ability to control the destiny of mankind.

Evolution isn’t just a theory, it’s a theory to which all other theories must bow. It is the light that illuminates all, is the god we must worship, it is taking us to heaven.

Note – The Book of Mormon describes the great abominable church of the devil as having dominion over all the Earth, and this does seem to fit the bill, particularly in light of its takeover of all other sciences, its self-declared tyranny over all methods of learning, and its forceful attempts to be the only voice allowed to answer questions of philosophy & theology.

Evolution is indoctrination, not education.

 

Ch. 11 Darwinist Education

Darwinism is deduced by logic, not experimental evidence.

Scientific theories are often related to social theories.

One exhibit said that Darwinism is one of several theories about the origin of Life etc. The evolutionists promptly got this taken down and replaced it with a sign that said the evidence supports Darwinism.

Policies avoid referring to evolution itself, rather they refer to ‘science,’ not wanting to admit that evolution is a special case of controversy.

Teachers and students are not allowed to discuss disbelief in Darwinism any more than they’re allowed to discuss disbelief in 2 + 2 = 4.

Note – education is supposed to be non-dogmatic and evidence based, to promote understanding. Evolution dogmatically taught in school is about gaining converts to an orthodox theory.

They say evolution belongs to the category of knowledge not belief, yet we have to believe in these transitional fossils we can’t see, believe in life sparking into existence on its own, and believe in one species transforming into another, which is never been observed.

The language that evolution is couched in is calculated more to conceal knowledge than to portray it.

 

Ch. 12 Science & Pseudoscience

 

Marx made predictions and when those predictions failed to come to pass, his followers modified his predictions so it looked like they still came to pass.

Note – surely Marx is the anti-prophet of the apocalypse, born shortly after the true prophet Joseph Smith.

People base their entire careers on theories like evolution and they’re afraid to see them go down.

Freud was a pseudoscientist. (Note – A ‘fraud’)

The word evolution means lots of different things. The trick is to use it to prove something very simple and then apply that to everything else. Demonstrate a minor change and use that to claim that major changes happen.

Amongst themselves Darwinists blame everything on natural selection. When criticized about just how that works, they change the subject to molecular evolution and claim that we don’t even really need natural selection because there are other methods.

When molecular science came around it was just what the evolutionist had predicted… just after they changed the theory of evolution to accommodate the new information.

Evolutionists call anyone who believes in an involved creator who is involved a ‘religious fundamentalist.’

Scientists are devoted to protecting evolution, not defending it.

Scientific naturalism is philosophical, not scientific.