• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Back in 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a 1981 Louisiana law
which mandated a balanced treatment in teaching evolution and creation in
the public schools. The court decided that the intent of the law “was
clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created
humankind,” and therefore violated the First Amendment’s prohibition on a
government establishment of religion. In other words, the court adopted the
atheist position that creation is a religious myth.

In speaking for the majority, Justice William J. Brennan wrote, “The
legislative history documents that the act’s primary purpose was to change
the science curriculum of public schools in order to provide an advantage to
a particular religious doctrine that rejects the factual basis of evolution
in its entirety.”

It is surprising that no one saw fit to remind Justice Brennan that some
of the world’s greatest scientists were and are devout Christians and that
atheism is actually destroying true science. And we are surprised that no
one on the Louisiana side informed the justice that there is no “factual
basis of evolution.” It is all theory and speculation, and each year the
theory becomes less and less tenable in the light of new scientific
evidence.

In the light of the court’s decision, it is important for us to do what
the court failed to do: review the theory of evolution and determine exactly
what are the “facts.”

First, what exactly is the theory of evolution? For the answer, we must
go to the source: Charles Darwin’s famous book, “The Origin of Species,”
published in 1859. Darwin claimed that the thousands of different species
of animals, insects and plants that exist on earth were not the works of a
Divine Creator who made each species in its present immutable form, as
described in Genesis, but were the products of a very long natural process
of development from simpler organic forms to more complex organic forms.

Thus, according to Darwin, species continue to change, or “evolve,”
through a process of natural selection in which nature’s harsh conditions
permit only the fittest to survive in more adaptable forms.

These views, of course, had considerable moral and religious
implications. Ronald Clark, in his biography of Darwin, writes,

    While Darwin was proud of his theory of natural selection, his most
    important single contribution to the evolutionary argument, he saw as one of
    its main virtues the fact that it provided a counterblow to the idea of
    creation.

Darwin also believed that all life originated from a single source
– a kind of primeval slime in which the first living organisms formed
spontaneously out of non-living matter through a random process. These
organisms are supposed to have branched off into different forms — plants,
insects and animals.

Evolutionists have worked out all sorts of fascinating genealogical
diagrams purporting to show the descent and relationship of one species to
another. But what they don’t tell the public is that all of the connections
in these family trees are based on pure speculation and conjecture. Sir
Fred Hoyle writes,

“It has been through the device of presenting such diagrams with the
presumed connections drawn in firm solid lines that the general scientific
world has been bamboozled into believing that evolution has been proved.
Nothing could be further from the truth. … The absence from the fossil
record of the intermediate forms required by the usual evolutionary theory
shows that if terrestrial life-forms have evolved from a common stock, the
major branchings must have developed very quickly. And the major
branchings, if they occurred were accompanied by genetic changes that were
not small.”

Probably the most controversial aspect of Darwin’s theory concerns man’s
place in the evolutionary scheme. In his book, “The Descent of Man,”
published in 1870, Darwin contended that man and ape were evolutionary
cousins with a common ancestor. When it came to the mind, to intelligence,
the gap between man and the other animals, Darwin believed, was one of
degree.

But the fossil record, revealing the different stages of man’s evolution
from apelike creature to homo sapiens, has not been found.
Paleoanthropologists have hunted high and low for the missing link or links.
But not only have they not found them, they are now pretty sure that such
links do not exist. So instead of admitting defeat, they’ve proclaimed
victory! According to David Pilbeam, a paleoanthropologist at Harvard, “We
should no longer say that we are descended from apes. We are apes.”

All of which means that some scientists are willing to accept a bigger
lie if the smaller one cannot be proven true. Apparently, to some
scientists, any lie is preferable to accepting the possibility that a
Creator had something to do with everything that exists.

The simple fact is that no proof whatever has been found indicating that
one species evolves into another. The fossil record is simply a series of
still pictures of species that existed at one time. They do not show how
one species evolves into another. Transitional fossils have not been found.
The fossil record shows new species appearing suddenly without any
ancestors. What scientific investigation indicates is that the species are
immutable and that when mutations occur they do not become new species. For
example, evolutionists have been experimenting with fruit flies for years in
the hope of demonstrating evolution at work. But the fruit flies have
stubbornly refused to develop into anything but more fruit flies, despite
all kinds of stimuli, including radiation. Some mutations have occurred,
but nothing to suggest the beginnings of a new species.

Even Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, a passionate defender of evolution, has
written, “The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support
for gradual change.” As Darwin wrote in “The Origin of Species,”

    the geological record is extremely imperfect … and (this fact) will
    to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties,
    connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest
    graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological
    record, will rightly reject my whole theory.

As for the theory that life originated by accident in some sort of
chemical soup, it was Louis Pasteur who proved that spontaneous generation
is impossible. He contended that every generation of every living creature
had to be derived from a preceding generation. Life could not have started
spontaneously from inorganic matter.

In other words, the spontaneous generation-of-life idea is just wishful
thinking on the part of evolutionists. Dr. Fred Hoyle has calculated that
such an accident had one chance in 10 to the power of 40,000 of occurring,
making it beyond possibility. And now that we know of the enormous
complexity of the DNA genetic code and that the information content of a
simple cell has been estimated at around 10 to the power of 12 bits, we know
that random development of living matter is an impossibility.

Consider this fact: there are 2,000 complex enzymes required for a living
organism, but not a single one of them could have formed accidentally. As
Fred Hoyle has put it, “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged
in this (accidental) way is comparable with the chance that a tornado
sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials
therein.”

To sum it all up: the fossil record does not support the idea of gradual
evolution; it supports creation. Orthodox evolutionists call it “punctuated
equilibrium.” Nor does the fossil record support the idea of a common
accidental source of all life. Evidences of common ancestry have not been
found. In addition, Louis Pasteur debunked the idea of spontaneous
generation of living organic matter from non-living, inanimate matter.

Also, the recent revelations of the Human Genome Project have shown that
man is programmed from conception to death to go through physical and
hormonal changes that would have required evolution to be able to predict
what an organism would be doing 50 years after birth. And all of this
predictable programming would have had to be neatly packaged in millions of
genetic capsules in perfect sequence, all invisible to the eye. In short,
the more we learn about the complexity of life, the less is the likelihood
that it all came about by accident, with no purpose, and no Creator.

Is the theory of evolution fact or fairy tale? You be the judge.


Samuel L. Blumenfeld is the author of eight books on education, including
“NEA: Trojan Horse in American Education,” “How to Tutor,” “The Whole
Language/OBE Fraud,” and “Alpha-Phonics: A Primer for Beginning Readers.”
These books are available from The Paradigm Company, 208-322-4440.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.