четверг, 29 декабря 2016 г.

Evolution Is Accepted by Faith in Defiance of Facts - I

Blind leading the blind, illustration by Frits Ahlefeldt, hikingartist.com [1]

“Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. ... That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself ... prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. ... The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor’s new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin’s predicted pattern, simply looked the other way. [2] 

For other revealing quotes see "Evolution is a Religion" by G.S. McMurtry on our official website.

Recommended resources:



[2] Eldredge, N., Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46.

среда, 28 декабря 2016 г.

The Gap Between the Real and the Proclaimed

A reproduction of a 1900 William H. West minstrel show poster. [1]

30 years ago Neo-Darwinism (aka “the modern evolutionary synthesis”) was the most fashionable of the evolutionary theories then in existence. In fact, for most evolutionists it probably still remains the preferred theory of evolution.

Against the backdrop of the apparently high level of acceptance of Neo-Darwinism among scientists, lay people often felt that Neo-Darwinism was a robust explanation of the origins of various kinds of living things.

Yet, the real explanatory power of Neo-Darwinism was (and still is) far more modest than was claimed, taught and believed. A number of specialists, including Dr. Jerome Lejeune, openly said that it was flawed:

‘We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it’s good, we know it is bad, but because there isn’t any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation …’[2]

Please, remember, the theory in question was and still is dogmatically taught in our schools!

I want you to see the gap, the chasm between the real and the proclaimed. Some scientists and especially educators claim that science has long proven that evolution has occurred on the Earth. They further claim that they have a scientific explanation, a theory which shows why, how and when various living things came into being. I want you to engrave it on the tablets of your heart, that such claims are only a facade for the non-initiated.

Recommended Resources:



[1]  By Strobridge & Co. Lith - http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/var.1831, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3162321

[2] Dr. Jerome Lejeune, a lecture given in Paris, March 17, 1985. Translated by Peter Wilders of Monaco.

понедельник, 26 декабря 2016 г.

Creation as a Bridge to the Gospel

What do many non-Christians do, when a person approaches them holding a Bible or a Gospel tract in their hand? Many of them try to avoid a conversation.

When I hold these books in my hands, very often total strangers start asking me questions. Recently, for example, a young businessman’s eye caught a book by Henry Morris which I was reading on a beach. He came up to me, staring at the front cover, and we had a brief but meaningful conversation about the Creator and His salvation. It is so easy to use Creationist literature as a bridge to the Gospel!

Recommended resources:



пятница, 16 декабря 2016 г.

R. Dawkins Believes in Evolution in Spite of Facts

By Должин Жаргалсайхан (Own work) [1]

Richard Dawkins, who is an active anti-creationist, wrote in “The Blind Watchmaker” a while back:
“For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'. Both schools of thought despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. Both schools of thought agree that the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and both would reject this alternative.” [2]
What do the Cambrian fossils tell us? The animals appear fully formed, “without any evolutionary history.” They simply suddenly appear in the Cambrian rocks, “as though they were just planted there.” This is a scientific fact. However evolutionists “of all stripes” refuse to accept the scientific fact in an effort to preserve their theory. Is this kind of behavior characteristic of the honest truth seeker? No, it is characteristic of the doctrinaire.

Dawkins admits that the only alternative to the tall tales about “a very large gap in the fossil record” is divine creation. Good job! This is above and beyond!

If we consider the facts of science (the abrupt appearance of animals in the Cambrian rocks without any evolutionary history), the facts witness to divine creation. Nevertheless, evolutionists stubbornly brush the facts aside, because they do not like the idea of divine creation. They simply prefer fiction to facts.  

Recommended resources:


[1] Dawkins, Richard. "The Blind Watchmaker". London: Penguin, 1991, reprint, pp. 229-230.

[2] Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AApple-watch-selling-points.jpg. Lisence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0), via Wikimedia Commons. 

среда, 14 декабря 2016 г.

Life Has Been Created

Could have even the simplest living organism (which is still indescribably more complex than, say, a picture on the sand) originated all by itself, without any external intelligent agent? Of course, not!

Anatomy of a Cell [1]

Recommended Resources:

[1] By Bruce Blaus. Blausen.com staff. "Blausen gallery 2014". Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. DOI:10.15347/wjm/2014.010. ISSN 20018762. (Own work). License: CC BY 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], via WikimediaCommons. Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ABlausen_0208_CellAnatomy.png

понедельник, 12 декабря 2016 г.

Evolution Is Not Science

Evolution of household articles, animals etc. according to Darwin's doctrine. Color lithographs by Fr. Schmidt, ca. 187-(?). Credit: Wellcome Library, London [1]

Evolution is not a scientific theory, but rather a belief, a doctrine, a philosophy, a worldview:

“Our theory of evolution has become . . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observation. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus ‘outside of empirical science’ but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.” [2]

Recommended Resources:

$5.99 (eBook)


[2] L. C. Birch,  P. R. Ehrlich, Evolutionary History and Population Biology, Nature 214, (22 April 1967), p. 352.

воскресенье, 11 декабря 2016 г.

A Fossil Puzzle

G Avery's opinion of The modern theory of the descent of man, by Ernst Haeckel, published in Anthropogenie oder Entwicklungsgeschichte des Menschen (The Evolution of Man),1874 [1]

It is commonly believed that fossils are arranged in a certain order across sedimentary layers: generally, fossilized organisms in upper layers are allegedly more complex than those in lower layers. It is also believed that the order of fossils vividly demonstrates evolution of life.

However, an eminent evolutionist of the XX century Stephen J. Gould noted that fossils had not recorded any obvious progress from simple to complex:

“I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.” [2]

Gould offers his own explanation as to why there is no clear ‘vector of progress’ in the fossils. His explanation involves “punctuated equilibrium” [3] and, possibly, mass extinctions. Yet, the Bible teaches us that there was a global Flood about 4500 years ago. The Flood should have formed a layered graveyard of fossils. 

Recommended resources:



[1] G Avery's opinion of The modern theory of the descent of man, by Ernst Haeckel, published in Anthropogenie oder Entwicklungsgeschichte des Menschen (The Evolution of Man),1874. The figure show the human pedigree as a Great Chain of Being, illustrated by modern and fossil species. Hand-coloured print. Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AHuman_pidegree.jpg. License: By G Avery (Scientific American) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.

[2] Stephen Jay Gould, The Ediacaran Experiment, Natural History, Vol. 93 (February 1984), pp.14-23.

[3] “Rather, species form rapidly in geological perspective (thousands of years) and tend to be highly stable for millions of years thereafter.” (S. J. Gould, The Ediacaran Experiment)

Thus, I would call it “evolution by leaps” versus the Darwinian “evolution by small steps” – I.B.

четверг, 8 декабря 2016 г.

Fossils Do Not Prove Evolution

Fossil nautilus [1]

David B. Kitts (1923–2010) studied zoology, population genetics, paleontology and geology. Among his professors were prominent evolutionists Th. Dobzhansky and G.G. Simpson. He got his PhD in geology in 1953. Certainly, he is qualified to evaluate the significance of the fossil record.

In 1979 he authored a review of a book by another evolutionist, Pierre-P. Grassé, who was decidedly critical of the Darwinian flavor of evolutionary theory. The review is full of revealing statements about how paleontologists reconstruct the history of life on Earth. It is a highly recommended reading for anyone interested in the origins debate.  

Here is one of the most interesting statements from the review:

“Darwinian paleontologists cannot take much comfort from the fact that the fossil record does not compel them to reject their theory because it does not compel them to accept it either. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories and special creationist theories and even ahistorical theories.” [2]

According to D.B. Kitts it is impossible to prove either Darwinian or any other flavor of evolution using the fossil record. More than that, the fossil record is compatible, again according to Kitts, an evolutionary geologist, even with the theory of special creation.

So, if someone tells you that fossils prove Darwin was right, you can rest assured it is not true.

Why do so many people believe that fossils prove Darwinian evolution? In the work reviewed by Kitts, P.-P. Grassé gives quite blunt an answer:

 “ … Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis is correct, they interpret fossil data according to it; it is only logical that they should confirm it: the premises imply the conclusion. The error in method is obvious.” [3] (italics in the original – I.B.)

Grassé says, in other words, that they start with an assumption that Darwin was right, and they make fossils look like he was.

Does D.B. Kitts argue with P.-P. Grassé over this point? Not at all. He wholeheartedly agrees with Grassé’s indictment:

“If a paleontologist claims to have supported the fundamental tenets of Darwinian theory in citing the fossil record then he has indeed committed a methodological error.”

In conclusion, let me repeat the obvious truth: fossils do not prove evolution. However, creation believing scientists make a stronger claim. They assert that fossils disprove evolution and argue powerfully for creation.

Recommended resources:

  $34.99 Evolution: The Grand Experiment Vol.




[2] Kitts, D.B. Search for the Holy Transformation, Paleobiology, Vol. 5, No. 3 (Summer, 1979), p. 354.

[3] ibid., p. 353.

воскресенье, 4 декабря 2016 г.

Do Our Children Need Any Further Indoctrination?

"Pied Piper of Hamelin", an illustration by Kate Greenaway [1]

School textbooks and science publications of popular kind routinely claim with a good deal of optimism that fossils prove evolution. 

However, the tone of technical publications (for specialists) is far more cautious. It turns out that most scientists studying fossils do not regard the fossils to be a bullet-proof argument for evolution:

“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred.” [2]

In other words, children and youths are simply indoctrinated. Would it not be better for them if they were honestly familiarized with scientific data instead?

Recommended resources:


The Greatest Hoax on Earth?

[1] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothers_Grimm#/media/File:Pied_Piper2.jpg. License: Public Domain. 

[2] Kitts, David B. Search for the Holy Transformation, Paleobiology 5 (3), 1979, pp. 353-355.

суббота, 3 декабря 2016 г.

No Transitional Fossils Between Fishes And Four-Legged Animals

Tiktaalik in the Field Museum, Chicago [1]

Evolutionists assume that limbed animals evolved from fishes. Can they prove it by any fossil evidence?

In 1983 there were no known intermediates:

“… there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world”. [2]

In 1995 there were no intermediates still:

“Which fish was ancestral to the tetrapods [four legged anmals – I.B.] is, however, a very controversial subject among evolutionists. … Why such confusion and lack of agreement? As the saying goes today, ‘It’s the lack of transitional forms, stupid!’ Just a few transitional forms would reveal what was ancestral to amphibians [who are believed to be the first limbed creatures – I.B.] and what the evolutionary pathway was. Lacking that, all suggestions are mere scenarios and empty rhetoric.” [3]

In 2004 a supposedly 375-383 million year old fossil fish named Tiktaalik was discovered. [4] In later years more fossilized remains of Tiktaalik were undug. Tiktaalik indeed became an iconic “link” between fishes and four-leggers. And then unexpectedly fossil tracks of four legged animals were found in the year 2010 [5], which are dated by evolutionists at 397 million years.

If there already were some four legged animals supposed 14-22 million years before Tiktaalik, how can it be an evolutionary intermediate between fishes and four leggers?

With Tiktaalik dethroned, “ … there is currently no body-fossil evidence and no detailed story for how the transition from fish to land animal took place.” [6]

Recommended resources:

[2] Taylor, Gordon Rattray. The Great Evolution Mystery. 1st. Harper & Row, 1983, p.60.

[3] Gish, Duane T. Evolution: The Fossils Still Say NO! El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1995, p.85.

[4] Nunn, Warren It’s all talk,Tiktaalik can’t walk: A fishy story that has no legs, Published: 30 January 2014, http://creation.com/tiktaalik-pelvis.

[5] Grzegorz Niedźwiedzki, Piotr Szrek, Katarzyna Narkiewicz, Marek Narkiewicz & Per E. Ahlberg, Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland, Nature 463, 43-48 (7 January 2010), http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/pdf/nature08623.pdf.

[6] Walker, Tas  Tetrapods from Poland trample the Tiktaalik school of evolutionhttp://creation.com/polish-tetrapod-footprints-trample-tiktaalik

пятница, 25 ноября 2016 г.

The Fruit Flies Point to Creation

Drosophila melanogaster female [1]

The Fruit Flies (Drosophila) have been the favorite lab guinea-pigs of scientists through the XX century.

After a hundred years of experimentation and about 3000 consecutive generations of the fruit flies, there have been found no grounds to believe that scientists discovered any means to improve the flies or make them more viable. [2]

Attempting to induce mutations in the fruit flies scientists poisoned them and exposed them to radiation. [3] By the late 1960s some 3000 different mutations have been documented, including an extra pair of wings (nonfunctional, [4]), and an extra pair of legs instead of the antennae [5]. None of the mutations have given them any new genes to produce some new organs or structures. [6]

All attempts to artificially induce or accelerate supposed evolution of the fruit flies broke down.

Have the fruit flies evolved from other insects supposedly millions of years ago?

Scientists found fossil fruit flies in amber supposedly 30 million years old. [7] Other rare fossil finds indicate that the fruit flies have remained just what they are for at least 60 supposed million years. [8] Have the fruit flies remained the same for millions of years?! Where is the supposed evolution?

It turns out that neither modern fruit flies experiments, nor fossil fruit flies confirm the evolutionary idea of some forms of life evolving from other essentially different forms of life.

The accumulated set of scientific data is far better explained by the idea of the Creator having originated separate forms of life, which are able to adapt to various environments, but not to evolve into essentially different forms of life.

Recommended products:


Evolution: The Grand Experiment Vol. 1 REVISED AND EXPANDED EDITION!

 New Answers Book Volume 1 (eBook)

New Answers Book Vol. 1 (eBook) 

[1] By Chris Fifield-Smith, source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/robbersdog/3604967450, license: CC BY-NC 2.0 [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/]

[2] Brown, Walter T. Jr. In the Beginning: Complelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. 8. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, 2008, p.7.

[3] Mutations are changes in the genes that are passed on to the next generation.

[4] Sarfati, Jonathan D., and Mike Matthews. Refuting Evolution 2. Master Books, 2002, chapter 5.

[6] Lester, Lane. "Genetics: no friend of evolution." Creation 20, no. 2 (1998): 20-22.

[7] Powell, Jeffrey R. Progress and Prospects in Evolutionary Biology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997, p.11.

[8] Tamura, Koichiro, Sankar Subramanian, and Sudhir Kumar. "Temporal patterns of fruit fly (Drosophila) evolution revealed by mutation clocks." Molecular Biology and Evolution21, no. 1 (2004): 36-44.