Creationism and logical fallacy

creation of sun and moon michelangelo exodus 33:23 sistine chapel

Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel image of God (Exodus 33:23)

Information on logical fallacy is available on many websites. If you really wish to argue coherently and honestly please visit one of those websites and learn what the logical fallacies are and how to avoid them.

What is more important is how the supernaturalists employ these very same logical fallacies in almost every argument. To demonstrate this point I will use a few arguments from creationism.

Creationists don’t seem to care about logical fallacies. They use them freely and then demand absolute perfection in the arguments from the other side. It is frustrating that a supernatural point of view normally gets a pass on the application of the rules of debate. However, this merely illustrates how faulted their position is. Lets take a look at some of the most popular creationist arguments:

Claim: Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact.

Logical Fallacies: False Major Premise, Strawman


  1. The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means “a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena” (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
    • Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
    • Life forms have changed and diversified over life’s history;
    • Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
    • Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.

    Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.

  2. The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
  3. Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin’s theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
  4. If “only a theory” were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
  5. Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless.

Claim: No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.

Logical Fallacies: False major premise (Some people call this a lie), Strawman


  1. We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.
  2. The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see alsoevolution proof.
  3. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.
  4. Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).
  5. There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred

Claim: Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview, therefore you should believe in creationism.

Logical Fallacies: False major premise, Non-Sequitur, and Strawman


  1. Evolution is descriptive. It can be immoral only if attempting to accurately describe nature is immoral.
  2. Any morals derived from evolution would have to recognize the fact that humans have evolved to be social animals. In a social setting, cooperation and even altruism lead to better fitness (Wedekind and Milinski 2000). The process of evolution leads naturally to social animals such as humans developing ethical principles such as the Golden Rule.
  3. morals, such as eugenics and social Darwinism, are based on misunderstandings of evolution. Therefore, it is important that evolution be taught well to negate such misunderstandings.
  4. Despite claims otherwise, creationism has its own problems. For one thing, it is founded on religious bigotry, so the foundation of creationism, by most standards, is immoral.
  5. Probably the most effective weapon against bad morals is exposure and publicity. Evolution (and science in general) is based on a culture of making information public.
  6. Scientists are their own harshest critics. They have developed codes of ethical behavior for several circumstances, and they have begun to talk about a general ethics (Rotblat 1999). Creationists have nothing similar.
  7. Some people feel better about themselves by demonizing others. Those people who are truly interested in morals begin by looking for immorality within themselves, not others.

J.H. Chrestos is the pen name of the creator of Christ Plagiarized.


  1. Right on the topic.
    The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is the currently accepted paradigm to explain the history and diversity of life on earth. Yet, ever since the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species it has been under attack on a variety of grounds. Some of these criticisms have been put forth in the philosophical arena, where evolutionary theory has often been accused of being incoherent or logically fallacious.

    Perhaps the best-known philosophical criticism of evolution has been put forth by Karl Popper, who once claimed that “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program” (Unended Quest, 1976). Famously, Popper retracted his comments, once it was explained to him that there was quite a bit more to the theory of evolution than he had understood from a cursory examination of the subject: “I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation” (Dialectica 32:344-346).

    In Issue 44 of Philosophy Now, Peter Williams listed a bewildering array of eleven logical fallacies allegedly committed by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in a variety of his writings. In what follows we reexamine each of the fallacies and comment on the extent to which Dawkins actually commits them. This article is not meant as a defense of Dawkins (who can surely take care of himself), but rather as a stimulating exercise tackling the logical framework of modern evolutionary theory and its real or perceived philosophical implications.

    The Alleged Fallacies

    1. Self-Contradiction – a statement that refers to and falsifies itself.

    Williams quotes an open letter of Dawkins to his daughter, in which he advises her to think for herself, determine if a claim is being made on the basis of evidence or authority, and ask for evidence whenever somebody claims to know the truth. The problem allegedly is that Dawkins is conflating evidence with empirical evidence, from which it apparently derives that Dawkins also equates knowledge with scientific knowledge. Since the latter position is not itself based on empirical evidence, it follows that Dawkins contradicts himself by suggesting a course of action to his daughter that cannot actually be backed up by the very methods proposed by Dawkins.

    We feel Williams is reading too much into Dawkins’ advice. Dawkins starts out by simply suggesting a sensible course of action to his daughter whenever faced with evaluating somebody’s claim to truth; he is not saying that his advice is scientific, nor is he equating knowledge with scientific knowledge. As for what counts as evidence, the American Heritage Dictionary defines the latter as: “the available facts, circumstances, etc., indicating whether or not a thing is true or valid.” From this perspective, most evidence is in fact empirical. The only exception would be mathematical or logical reasoning, although most people wouldn’t think of this as ‘evidence’ so much as a ‘reason’ in favor of a certain conclusion. Finally, empirical (but not necessarily scientific) evidence for Dawkins’ statement could be brought in: one only needs to compare the number of successful decisions that people make about, say, their finances based on reading their horoscopes vs. following the advice of a financial expert (if the latter is backed by empirical evidence on the performance of various portfolios).

    2. Begging the Question – the fallacy of using the conclusion of an argument as one of the premises employed to establish that conclusion.

    The problem here is that Dawkins seems to assume a naturalistic and gradualistic explanation for the diversification of life on earth. He claims that one can see that this must be true without stirring from one’s chair, as any other explanation can be ruled out on first principles. Williams concludes that Dawkins must take this philosophical (not scientific) position because he wants to exclude intelligent design a priori.

    Indeed, Dawkins should not have said that one can see the truth of Darwinian evolution without stirring from one’s chair. Evolutionary biology is an empirical science, and it is only because of more than a century and a half of investigation that we have concluded that it is the best available explanation for the history of life on this planet. But there are two crucial distinctions that Williams fails to make: a) Darwinian gradualism is only one of a panoply of naturalistic explanations of evolution (others include Lamarckism, orthogenesis, and saltationism); while it is indeed the one currently most widely accepted by scientists, it is false to charge that it is the only game in town and is therefore accepted by default. b) Both Dawkins and Williams should make the all-important distinction between philosophical and methodological naturalism. Philosophical naturalism, the position that all there is to the world is natural phenomena, is indeed outside of science proper. But what all scientists espouse is methodological naturalism, the operational position that the best way to find a testable explanation for a phenomenon is to assume that only natural laws are at work. While creationists make a big deal of this alleged ‘bias’, in fact all of us behave as methodological naturalists most of the time. We are willing to bet (and this is an empirically verifiable prediction) that the next time that Williams’ car breaks down he will not go to church and ask his preacher to fix it; he will instead bring it to a mechanic, seeking a natural solution to the problem. Moreover, even if the mechanic should not find any remedy, Williams will not therefore turn to God, but will ditch the car assuming (reasonably) that the facts are simply insufficient to find the correct natural fix, and that he is better served by another means of transportation.

    3. The False Dilemma – Two choices are given when in actuality there are more choices possible.

    Williams quotes Dawkins saying that William Paley’s supernatural explanation for the complexity of life and Charles Darwin’s natural alternative are mutually exclusive. Williams cites Michael Poole as clarifying the difference between explanations in terms of agency and those in terms of mechanisms. The two do not have to be in contradiction, since a particular agent (say, God) could use a given mechanism (say, natural selection) to achieve whatever goal the agent sets forth.

    We see two problems with Williams’ position: first, he equivocates on Paley. Paley was not talking about God just being the agent determining biological complexity, he thought of God as also being the mechanism: in other words, it is anachronistic to see Paley as a theistic evolutionist, since he was defending the classical Christian doctrine that God created humans and everything else directly, not through the action of natural laws. Second, while at a more general level Poole is correct that agency and mechanism are not necessarily mutually exclusive, ‘God did it’ simply does not qualify as a scientific explanation (or, in fact, as any sort of explanation), because it doesn’t add anything to the explanatory schema.

    4. The Fallacy of Equivocation – a word is used in two different contexts and is assumed to have the same meaning in both contexts, when distinct meanings ought to be preferred.

    Williams here takes Dawkins to task for shifting the meaning of the word ‘designoid’, coined to explain why the appearance of design in biological organisms is just that, an appearance. Dawkins says that there are natural objects that superficially look like the result of design, for example a rock looking a bit like the face of an American President. He claims that this is the same sort of phenomenon that induces people to think that, say, the vertebrate eye is designed. The problem is that the first type of ‘designoid’ is obvious (i.e., people immediately realize that the face was not actually carved), while the second is much more subtle and – Williams claims – therefore belongs to a different category.

    We think Williams is partially right here: Dawkins did choose a bad example, and for fundamentally wrong reasons. The resemblance of a cliff outcropping to a human face is the result of entirely random causes (wind patterns, the consistency of the rock, etc.), while biological organisms are the outcome of two processes: mutation (which is indeed random) and natural selection (which is anything but random). That is why Dawkins’ designoids don’t cut it. However, Dawkins’ fundamental point can be rescued by simply using a better analogy. There are natural, non-biological, processes that convey the impression of intelligent design and provide us with a more closer parallel to evolution. For example, on many rocky beaches, pebbles are sorted by size going from the waterline towards the interior, in a distinctly nonrandom pattern. This is not because somebody got all the pebbles out of the ocean, carefully weighed them, and then constructed the beach. Rather, the pattern was created by the joint action of two processes: the (random) action of waves and the (nonrandom) effects of gravity.

    5. The Non Sequitur – Comments or claims that do not logically follow from what has gone before, but that are presented as if they do.

    Williams here leaves the field entirely to a quote from Stephen Barr, who accuses Dawkins of attempting to defend science from allegations of being ‘joyless’ and ‘arid’, while not recognizing that ‘the public’ raises those objections to atheism, not to science itself. Apparently, Dawkins does not seem to see the difference between science and atheism.

    It is a bit difficult to make sense of what exactly the charge is here, and especially of why this would be an example of non sequitur. We take it that Williams’ intended target of criticism is the move from modern science’s discoveries to the philosophical position of atheism. Dawkins does indeed often state that his atheism is reinforced by the scientific understanding of the world: the more science finds out about nature, the less room there is for a direct intervention by supernatural entities. Now, if what Dawkins means is that atheism is logically implied by evolution, then he is surely wrong. On the other hand, to deduce philosophical (moral, existential, etc.) conclusions from the best available knowledge of the world is certainly not illogical, and seems to be the rational thing to do. The important distinction, therefore, is between an atheism that is informed by science (which is plausible), and one that is made logically necessary by science (which is illogical).

    6. Special Pleading (double standard) – the fallacy in which one criticises others for falling short of particular standards and rules, while taking oneself to be exempt, without adequately justifying that exemption.

    The alleged fallacy here lies in the fact that Dawkins on the one hand rejects ‘God’ as an explanation, on the ground that there is no way to tell where God himself came from, while at the same time accepts natural selection as a valid explanation of the diversity of life on earth, even though natural selection itself cannot explain where life comes from.

    We see three problems in William’s position: First, natural selection was never meant as a theory of life’s origins, while ‘God did it’ clearly is. Second, Dawkins would be engaging in special pleading if he had not provided an account of how natural selection (not life) began, since the explanatory principle parallel to ‘God’ here is selection, not life (life is what needs to be explained by either ‘hypothesis’). But evolutionary biology does have an explanation for how natural selection comes into being: it happens as soon as there is a population of self-replicating, variable, molecules. No such explanation is available for God. Third – once again – ‘God did it’ is not an explanation, but a fancy way of admitting ignorance: an explanation is an account of mechanisms (such as natural selection), not a label to put on the facts.

    7. Wishful Thinking – a fallacy that posits a belief because it or its consequence is desired to be true.

    Williams comes really close to catching Dawkins (but not science in general) in flagrante delicto. Dawkins is cited by Williams writing that nobody knows how life on earth originated, but it must have been by natural causes.

    If Dawkins is reaching that conclusion – as Williams alleges – because of his philosophical position of naturalism (i.e., atheism), then he is in fact engaging in wishful thinking (though no more than the other side when they say that life must have originated from an act of special creation). However, there is a more moderate interpretation of Dawkins’ statement: he is just being a good scientist in accepting as a matter of methodology that the only way to find a scientific explanation for the origin of life is to tentatively assume that there is one that doesn’t include supernatural intervention. One may not like the idea that science is limited to natural explanations, but it is hard to see what sort of experiments or testable hypotheses could possibly emerge from introducing a supernatural fiat into these matters. As an aside, we also point out that Williams’ statement that there is “a large body of scientific evidence against” a naturalistic theory of the origin of life is simply false (see, for example, The Emergence of Life on Earth: a Historical and Scientific Overview by I. Fry, Rutgers University Press, 2000.)

    8. The Red Herring – A Red Herring is an irrelevant topic or premise brought into a discussion to divert attention from the topic at hand. Usually, the irrelevancy is subtle, so that it appears relevant to those not paying close attention.

    This is really another version of the objection raised under fallacy #6, but with a different twist. Williams claims that the real problem of evolutionary theory is to explain the origin of catalytic proteins (enzymes), and accuses Dawkins of distracting his readers from it by introducing natural selection as an explanation of how enzymes became more complex beginning from a simple molecule.

    Once again, evolution by natural selection is not, and was never meant to be, a theory of life’s origins. Ironically, it is the creationists who make a red herring out of this issue, since they keep misinterpreting the scope of evolutionary theory. Natural selection is (demonstrably) perfectly capable of changing and improving the catalytic actions of proteins, which is all the theory claims. On the other hand, it is true that we still don’t know how the first replicators originated; however, what is needed for a naturalistic theory of origins is that the first replicators were simple enough to originate randomly. This does not seem an inordinately unlikely supposition. Lastly, it is interesting that Williams introduces the concept of ‘irreducible complexity’ of proteins as if it were widely accepted in science. It is not.

    9. Straw Man Argument – a type of Red Herring that attacks a misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. That is called to burn a straw man. It is a surprisingly common fallacy, because it is easy to misunderstand another person’s position.

    The incriminating passage here is one in which Dawkins states that the difference between science and religion is that the former is based on evidence and ‘gets results’, while neither apply to the latter. Williams, curiously, takes this to be an attack on Christianity in particular, and responds that there has been a strong Christian tradition of valuing rationality.

    First, Dawkins was taking aim at religion in general, not especially at Christianity. Second, the criticism was that religion is not based on evidence, which is not the same as accusing religious people of not valuing rationality. One can construe rational arguments in favor of the existence of God, but one cannot provide any evidence to back up such constructs. Science is an inextricable combination of rationality and evidence: without the latter, it would not be different from logic or philosophy. Lastly, while it is certainly true that there are great traditions of rational inquiry within Christianity, do we need to remind Williams that the Church always put very strict limits on such ‘free inquiry’? Just think of Bruno, Copernicus and Galileo. The scholarly tradition of the Catholic Church is surely well represented by the Jesuits (for example, they run the Vatican astronomical observatory in Italy), and yet it was the Jesuits who opposed Galileo and famously refused to acknowledge the observational evidence he was providing through his telescopes. It is hard to think of a better example of how differently science and religion approach the relationship between rationality and faith.

    10. Ad Hominem – the fallacy of attacking the individual instead of the argument.

    Dawkins, in his characteristic bluntness, likens people who believe in God to children who believe in Santa Claus. Williams takes this to be an ad hominem attack, and hence a logical fallacy. Williams then goes on, somewhat curiously, to state that even children are sometimes right, and that therefore one cannot dismiss childish beliefs altogether.

    We chastise Dawkins for his language, which is sure to inflame and certain not to gain him much sympathy. On the other hand, this hardly qualifies as a fallacy because Dawkins is not using the ‘belief in God = childish thinking’ equation as an argument against the existence of God. On the contrary, he begins with the premise that God is a fairy tale and then deduces (in a perfectly logical manner, if one accepts the premise) that believing in God is as childish as believing in fairy tales. Of course children (or childish adults) can be right about certain things, but Socrates (in Plato’s Meno) convincingly argued that true belief without cause is nothing to brag about.

    11. Poisoning the well – a form of ad hominem attack that occurs before the meat of an argument, biasing the audience against the opponent’s side before he can present his case.

    Dawkins is once again taken to task for his language. In some of his writings, he alleges that no qualified scientist doubts the reality of evolution, the implication being that one should not pay attention to arguments advanced from people who do not believe in evolution, because they are not qualified on such matters.

    As in other cases, we agree with the criticism of Dawkins’ language, which is clearly hyperbolic (heck, if one searches hard enough one can find qualified scientists who doubt quantum mechanics, by most accounts the best scientific theory of all time!). Dawkins can indeed reasonably be taken to be ‘poisoning the well’ here. However, we find Williams in turn to be rather disingenuous (and relying on an appeal to authority, a fallacy in itself) when he quotes three allegedly qualified and unbiased authors on his behalf: William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, and Thomas Woodward. All three are open Christian apologists, and therefore cannot seriously be considered to be ideologically unbiased (note that while Dawkins is an open atheist, there is a large number of religious people from many denominations among evolutionary scientists). Moreover, Dembski has degrees in mathematics and philosophy, Woodward teaches theology at a fundamentalist Christian school for ministers, and Wells has a degree in biochemistry and molecular biology. None of them are qualified to comment on evolution for the simple reason that their degrees are not in any of the organismal biological sciences. One of us (Massimo Pigliucci) has a Ph.D. in Botany, which is an organismal biological science, but he would hardly feel qualified to comment about the reasonableness of, say, quantum mechanics. Just because one has a Ph.D. one is not automatically qualified to pontificate on all topics, as much as one’s ego might incline one to think so.

    Science, Philosophy, and the Limits of Logic

    This entire discussion is based on the concept of logical fallacies. But reasoning can be logical, and even correct, at the same time that it is strictly speaking fallacious. For example, one of the classical fallacies is the post hoc ergo propter hoc (after that, therefore because of that), where one infers that the cause of a certain effect is a particular event on the basis of the fact that the alleged cause preceded the effect in short time (e.g., I woke up with a headache this morning; I drunk red wine last night; ergo the wine caused the headache).

    It is important to realize in what (very strict) sense post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy: if one wishes to say that it necessarily follows that if two events are temporally close to each other, then the first one causes the second one, this is obviously not true. We have plenty of examples of temporal sequences the elements of which are not causally connected (e.g., last night it also happened to be full moon, but that very likely had nothing to do with my headache this morning). However, it is perfectly rational to begin the investigation into causes based on correlations, which is exactly what science does. If I know that certain kinds of red wine (e.g., high in sulfites) are prone to cause headaches in certain individuals, and if I repeatedly observe that when I drink those kinds of wine I often develop a headache the following morning, then I am logically justified in tentatively concluding (pending further evidence) that my headaches really are caused by high sulfites levels in red wine (and I ought to stop drinking such concoctions).

    It follows from all of this that science is inherently an approach that can lead only to tentative conclusions, while if one wishes Truth one is limited to the realm of logic and mathematics. Philosophy occupies an interesting middle ground between these two approaches: while a philosopher attempts to build bullet-proof logical arguments (i.e., she aims at logical truth of the formal kind), the premises of her reasoning can only be of two types (Hume’s famous ‘fork’). Either one starts with arbitrary or unfounded statements, in which case even logically tight reasoning leads nowhere; or one begins with empirical observations about the world, and philosophy therefore shares some of the limitations of science. A lot of ink and bad feelings would be avoided if people realized that human beings (with the exception of logicians) cannot attain Truth, but only more or less likely maybes.

    © THE AUTHORS, 2004

    This article was written jointly by Professor Massimo Pigliucci and the members of his graduate class on evolutionary thinking at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

  2. I read all your articles
    Read thus:

    Millions of people believe that this universe started with a big bang; and that after billions of years life on earth evolved in all its complexity – of its own accord! Is this the case? Are living creatures able to bring themselves into being and then change from one kind to another? Have earth’s myriad life forms: plants, insects, birds, animals and mankind all evolved from a common ancestor? Is there evidence to support this notion? Or is our generation being taken in by the greatest hoax of all time – the theory of evolution?
    Listed below are a few eye-opening quotations by prominent scientists and thinkers of our time. They are worthy of consideration. We could list many, many more by palaeontologists, geologists, astronomers, chemists, physicists, mathematicians, cosmologists, zoologists, geneticists and physicians: but the sheer volume of quotations would exhaust the reader. Those listed below should suffice to prove our point that the theory of evolution is not as fool-proof as it is cracked up to be, and hundreds of scientists are distancing themselves from it every year. After all, who wants to be associated with a theory if it’s wrong? Driving down the wrong highway will never get you to your destination. Now to the quotations. Bear in mind that they are made by prominent scientists and scholars of our day.

    “I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory.”
    Sir. Fred Hoyle, -Astronomer, Cosmologist, and Mathematician, Cambridge University
    “The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove Evolution, which no scientist can ever prove.”
    Dr. Robert Millikan, – Nobel Prize Winner and Eminent Evolutionist
    “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.”
    Dr A Fleishmann, – Zoologist, Erlangen University
    “It is good to keep in mind … that nobody has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation of micromutations. Darwin’s theory of natural selection has never had any proof, yet it has been universally accepted.”
    Prof. R. Goldschmidt, – PhD, DSc Prof. Zoology, University of Calif. In Material Basis of Evolution Yale Univ. Press
    “The theory of the transmutation of species is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency.”
    Prof. J Agassiz, – of Harvard in Methods of Study in Natural History
    “Evolution is baseless and quite incredible.”
    Dr. Ambrose Fleming, – President, British Assoc. Advancement of Science, In The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought
    “Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us … The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words.”
    Lord Kelvin, – Vict. Inst., 124, p267
    “It is possible (and, given the Flood, probable) that materials which give radiocarbon dates of tens of thousands of radiocarbon years could have true ages of many fewer calendar years.”
    Gerald Aardsman, – Ph.D., Physicist and C-14 Dating Specialist
    “We have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the views of conservative creationists.”
    Edmund Ambrose, -Evolutionist
    “The best physical evidence that the earth is young is the dwindling resource that Evolutionists refuse to admit is dwindling … the magnetic energy in the field of the earth’s dipole magnet … To deny that it is a dwindling resource is phoney science.”
    Thomas Barnes, – Ph.D., Physicist
    “No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of Evolution.”
    Pierre-Paul Grasse, – Evolutionist
    “The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it … It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution … if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.”
    Sir Fred Hoyle, – Astronomer, Cosmologist and Mathematician, Cambridge University
    “It is easy enough to make up stories, of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.”
    Luther D. Sutherland, – Darwin’s Enigma, Master Books 1988, p89
    “Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which – a functional protein or gene – is complex beyond … anything produced by the intelligence of man?”
    Michael Denton, -Molecular Biologist Evolutionist: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985) p 342.
    “When I make an incision with my scalpel, I see organs of such intricacy that there simply hasn’t been enough time for natural Evolutionary processes to have developed them.”
    C. Everett Koop, – Former US Surgeon General
    “Modern apes … seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans … is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.”
    Lyall Watson, – Ph.D., Evolutionist
    “Although bacteria are tiny, they display biochemical, structural and behavioural complexities that outstrip scientific description. In keeping with the current microelectronics revolution, it may make more sense to equate their size with sophistication rather than with simplicity … Without bacteria life on earth could not exist in its present form.”
    James A. Shipiro, – Bacteria As Multicellular Organisms, Scientific America, Vol.258, No.6 (June 1988)
    “Eighty to eighty-five percent of earth’s land surface does not have even 3 geological periods appearing in ‘correct’ consecutive order … it becomes an overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary-uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were geologic periods.”
    John Woodmorappe, – Geologist
    “That a mindless, purposeless, chance process such as natural selection, acting on the sequels of recombinant DNA or random mutation, most of which are injurious or fatal, could fabricate such complexity and organization as the vertebrate eye, where each component part must carry out its own distinctive task in a harmoniously functioning optical unit, is inconceivable. The absence of transitional forms between the invertebrates retina and that of the vertebrates poses another difficulty. Here there is a great gulf fixed which remains inviolate with no seeming likelihood of ever being bridged. The total picture speaks of intelligent creative design of an infinitely high order.”
    H. S. Hamilton, – (MD) The Retina of The Eye – An Evolutionary Road Block
    “My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed.”
    N. H. Nilson, – Famous Botanist and Evolutionist
    “None of five museum officials could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilised organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.”
    Luther Sunderland, -Science Researcher
    “The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, but it has spawned a science because it is distinguished by two factors which inflate its apparent relevance far beyond its merits. First, the fossils hint at the ancestry of a supremely self-important animal – ourselves. Secondly, the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. Hence the amazing quantity of literature on the subject ever since Darwin’s work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human Evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man.”
    (John Reader, – Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus? New Scientist Vol. 89, No.12446 (March 26,1981) pp 802-805)
    “The Evolutionist thesis has become more stringently unthinkable than ever before.”
    Wolfgang Smith, – Ph.D.
    “The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of Special Creation.”
    Niles Eldridge, – PhD., Palaeontologist and Evolutionist, American Museum of Natural History
    2. Darwin’s Own Confession

    “Not one change of species into another is on record … we cannot prove that a single species has been changed.”
    Charles Darwin, – My Life & Letters
    “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I Freely Confess, Absurd In The Highest Degree.”
    Charles Darwin, – Origin of Species, Chapter Difficulties
    “A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the Evolutionist camp … moreover, for the most part these ‘experts’ have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.”
    Wolfgang Smith, – Ph.D., Physicist and Mathematician
    “As yet we have not been able to track the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present.”
    Chester A. Arnold, – Professor of Botany and Curator of Fossil Plants, University of Michigan, An Introduction to Paleobotany New York: McGraw-Hill, 1947, p.7
    “The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated.”
    John Adler with John Carey, – Is Man a Subtle Accident, Newsweek, Vol.96, No.18 November 3, 1980, p.95
    “…most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favour of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true.”
    Dr. David Raup, – Curator of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago
    “Despite the bright promise that palaeontology provides means of ‘seeing’ Evolution, it has provided some nasty difficulties for Evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps’ in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and palaeontology does not provide them.”
    David Kitts, – Ph.D. Palaeontology and Evolutionary Theory, Evolution, Vol. 28 Sept. 1974 p.467
    “Hundreds of scientists who once taught their university students that the bottom line on origins had been figured out and settled are today confessing that they were completely wrong. They’ve discovered that their previous conclusions, once held so fervently, were based on very fragile evidences and suppositions which have since been refuted by new discoveries. This has necessitated a change in their basic philisophical position on origins. Others are admitting great weaknesses in Evolution theory.”
    Luther D. Sutherland, – Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition Santee, California: Master Books, 1988 pp.7-8
    “The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise applied in ‘hard’ science has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds.”
    Ludwig von Bertalanffy, – Biologist
    “Micromutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either falsified, or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical theory. I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: … I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?”
    S. Lovtrup, – Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth London: Croom Helm, p.422
    “If one allows the unquestionably largest experimenter to speak, namely nature, one gets a clear and incontrovertible answer to the question about the significance of mutations for the formation of species and Evolution. They disappear under the competitive conditions of natural selection, as soap bubbles burst in a breeze.”
    Herbert Nilson, – Evolutionist, Synthetische Artbildung Lund, Sweden:Verlag CWK Gleerup Press, 1953, p 174
    “In all the thousands of fly-breeding experiments carried out all over the world for more than fifty years, a distinct new species has never been seen to emerge … or even a new enzyme.”
    Gordon Taylor, – The Great Evolution Mystery New York: Harper and Row, 1983, pp 34, 38
    “The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature.”
    George Simpson, – Palaeontologist and Evolutionist
    3. Fossils

    “As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record.”
    Tom Kemp, – Oxford University
    “The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools … Clearly some refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is ‘no doubt’ how man originated: if only they had the evidence…”
    William R. Fix, – The Bone Pedlars, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, p.150
    “The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places.”
    Francis Hitching, – Archaeologist
    “The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply.”
    J. O’ Rourke, – In The American Journal of Science
    “In most people’s minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of palaeontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It’s those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation.”
    Dr. Gary Parker, – Biologist/Palaeontologist and Former Ardent Evolutionist
    “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and palaeontology does not provide them.”
    David Kitts, – Palaeontologist and Evolutionist
    “…I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed and a palm tree have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The Evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition.”
    Dr. Eldred Corner, – Professor of Botany at Cambridge University, England: Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961, p.97)
    “Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation.”
    Gary Parker, – Ph.D., Biologist/Palaeontologist and Former Evolutionist
    “So firmly does the modern geologist believe in Evolution up from simple organisms to complex ones over huge time spans, that he is perfectly willing to use the theory of Evolution to prove the theory of Evolution (p.128) … one is applying the theory of Evolution to prove the correctness of Evolution. For we are assuming that the oldest formations contain only the most primitive and least complex organisms, which is the base assumption of Darwinism … (p.127) If we now assume that only simple organisms will occur in old formations, we are assuming the basic premise of Darwinism to be correct. To use, therefore, for dating purposes, the assumption that only simple organisms will be present in old formations is to thoroughly beg the whole question. It is arguing in a circle (p.128).”
    Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, – Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1968, pp127-8
    “It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms they contain.”
    R. H. Rastall, – Lecturer In Economic Geology, Cambridge University: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol.10. Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1956, p.168
    “I admit that an awful lot of that (fantasy) has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum of Natural History) is the exhibit on horse Evolution prepared fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now, I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we have a problem.”
    Dr. Niles Eldredge, – Palaeontologist and Evolutionist
    4. DNA

    DNA is Deoxyribo Nucleic Acid. Chromosomes are thread-like structures made of DNA and protein. There are 46 chromosomes in man.
    “The set of genetic instructions for humans is roughly three billion letters long.”
    Miroslav Radman & Robert Wagner, – The High Fidelity of DNA Duplication, Scientific America, Vol. 259, No.2 August 1988, pp40-46
    “DNA and the molecules that surround it form a truly superb mechanism – a miniaturised marvel. The information is so compactly stored that the amount of DNA necessary to code all the people living on our planet might fit into a space no larger than an aspirin tablet.”
    Paul S. Taylor, – In The Illustrated Origins Answer Book Page 23
    “…Life cannot have had a random beginning … The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the power of 40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court…”
    Fred Hoyle & Chandra Wickramasinghe, – Evolution From Space
    “The chance that useful DNA molecules would develop without a Designer are apparently zero. Then let me conclude by asking which came first – the DNA (which is essential for the synthesis of proteins) or the protein enzyme (DNA-polymerase) without which DNA synthesis is nil? … there is virtually no chance that chemical ‘letters’ would spontaneously produce coherent DNA and protein ‘words.’”
    George Howe, – Expert In Biology Sciences
    “…An intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn’t the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence.”
    Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley & Robert L. Olsen: – The Mystery of Life’s Origin, Reassessing Current Theories (New York Philosophical Library 1984) pp 211-212
    “Generation after generation, through countless cell divisions, the genetic heritage of living things is scrupulously preserved in DNA … All of life depends on the accurate transmission of information. As genetic messages are passed through generations of dividing cells, even small mistakes can be life-threatening … if mistakes were as rare as one in a million, 3000 mistakes would be made during each duplication of the human genome. Since the genome replicates about a million billion times in the course of building a human being from a single fertilised egg, it is unlikely that the human organism could tolerate such a high rate of error. In fact, the actual rate of mistakes is more like one in 10 billion.”
    Miroslav Radman & Robert Wagner, – The High Fidelity of DNA Duplication… Scientific America. Vol. 299, No 2 August 1988, pp 40-44. Quote is from page 24
    “In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection – quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology.”
    Arthur Koestler, – Author
    “Evolution lacks a scientifically acceptable explanation of the source of the precisely planned codes within cells without which there can be no specific proteins and hence, no life.”
    David A. Kaufman, – Ph.D., University of Florida, Gainsesville
    “Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate …. It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect … higher intelligences … even to the limit of God … 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.”
    Sir Fred Hoyle, – Well-Known British Mathematician, Astronomer & Cosmologist
    “Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of Evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.”
    Michael Denton, – ‘Evolution, A Theory in Crisis’ Page 358
    “Any suppression which undermines and destroys that very foundation on which scientific methodology and research was erected, Evolutionist or otherwise, cannot and must not be allowed to flourish … It is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice – between logic and emotion – between fact and fiction … In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail – no matter what the final result is – no matter how many time-honoured idols have to be discarded in the process … After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of Evolution and stick by it to the bitter end -no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers … If in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside intelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let’s cut the umbilical chord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back … Every single concept advanced by the theory of Evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established probability concepts. Darwin was wrong… The theory of Evolution may be the worst mistake made in science.”
    I. L. Cohen, – Darwin Was Wrong – A Study in Probabilities P.O. Box 231, Greenvale, New York 11548: New Research Publications, Inc. pp 6-8, 209-210, 214-215. I.L.Cohen, Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America.
    “The notion that … the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.”
    Sir Fred Hoyle, – Evolutionist
    “The theory of Evolution … will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity it has.”
    Malcolm Muggeridge, -Well-known Philosopher
    “We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time that we cry: ‘The emperor has no clothes.’”
    K. Hsu, – Geologist At The Geological Institute At Zurich
    “Far from being an established fact of science that it is so typically portrayed to be, Evolution is, in reality, an unreasonable and unfounded hypothesis that is riddled with countless scientific fallacies.”
    Scott M. Huse, – The Collapse of Evolution Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, pp 127
    “Unfortunately many scientists and non-scientists have made Evolution into a religion, something to be defended against infidels. In my experience, many students of biology – professors and textbook writers included – have been so carried away with the arguments for Evolution that they neglect to question it. They preach it … College students, having gone through such a closed system of education, themselves become teachers, entering high schools to continue the process, using textbooks written by former classmates or professors. High standards of scholarship and teaching break down. Propaganda and the pursuit of power replace the pursuit knowledge. Education becomes a fraud.”
    George Kocan, – Evolution Isn’t Faith But Theory, Chicago Tribune 9 Monday April 21 1980
    “Scientists who go about teaching that Evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining Evolution we do not have one iota of fact.”
    Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, – A Former U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Physiologist
    “Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.”
    Dr, Louise Bounoure, – Director of Research at the French National Centre for Scientific Research, Director of the Zoological Museum and former president of the Biological Society of Strasbourg
    “I, as a scientist, must postulate a source of information to supply the teleonomy or know-how, I don’t find it in the universe, and, therefore, I assume that it is transcendent to this universe. I believe, myself, in a living God who did it. I believe that this God, who supplied the information, revealed Himself in the form of a man – so that man could understand Him. We are made to understand. I want to understand God. But I can only do it if He comes down to my wavelength, the wavelength of man. I believe that God revealed Himself in the form of Christ, and that we can serve Him and know Him in our hearts as the source of the Logos – all information is necessary to make the universe and to make life itself … Look at the beauty of nature around us. When you consider that it all grew out of matter injected with information of the type I have been describing, you can only be filled with wonder of the wisdom of a Creator, who, first of all, had the sense of beauty to do it, and then the technical ability. I am filled with wonder as I look at nature, to see how God technically did it and realized the beauty of His own soul in doing it. The Scripture teaches perfectly plainly, and it fits in with my science perfectly well, that the one who did called Himself THE LOGOS. That Logos was Jesus. Jesus called Himself the Creator who made everything – ‘for Him and by Him,’ Now, if that is the case, then I am very happy and filled with joy that He made the Creation so beautiful and that He also valued me enough to die for me, to become my Redeemer as well.” For further information on Wilder-Smith’s views on Teleonomy send for The Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory: Information Sources PO Box 8000, Costa Mesa, California 92628 USA
    Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, – Ph.D.,D.Sc.,, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (Santee, California: Master Books, p.154.)
    5. The Everlasting Gospel

    One of the last messages to be preached to mankind is called the Everlasting Gospel. It is everlasting simply because the truth it encompasses will never cease to be relevant. The Everlasting Gospel is briefly described in the book of Revelation as follows:
    Revelation 14: 6: “And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
    7: Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.”

    It is plain to see that the Everlasting Gospel is not merely a call to ‘fear God,’ (which means to revere Him, honour Him and obey Him with respectful awe) but it is a call to ‘worship Him as the CREATOR, the One who made the heavens, the earth the sea and the fountains of waters.’ In other words the ‘Everlasting Gospel’, as preached in these last days, is calling upon mankind to jettison the popular but totally fallacious theory of ‘Evolution’ and to accept the fact that the Almighty God of Israel ‘made the heavens, the earth the sea and the fountains of waters.’ In other words, the Everlasting Gospel is a call to worship the Creator; the One who made the universe in six literal days as the Bible teaches. The doctrine of ‘Special Creation’ is a foundation teaching of Scripture which true science will always verify. The first two chapters of Genesis and the last two chapters of Revelation are about the Almighty’s creative powers and the Everlasting Gospel is a call to humanity to accept these facts before it is too late.
    Those who accept that the Almighty created the heavens, the earth, the sea and the fountains of waters in six literal days will worship Him by keeping the seventh day Sabbath (Saturday) which is the divinely appointed memorial of His creation.
    Exodus 20: 8: “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
    9: Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
    10: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
    11: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”

    I repeat: The Everlasting Gospel is a call to faith and obedience; especially obedience of the seventh day Sabbath command, which commemorates the creation of the universe! Pause dear reader and consider what you have just read.

    6. Conclusion

    As we can see the theory of Evolution cannot be proved. It is hopelessly flawed and unworthy of serious consideration. The foregoing quotations, and we could have bombarded the reader with many, many more, make this fact obvious to the unprejudiced mind. The alternative theory of ‘Special Creation’ also cannot be proved: but the abundance of evidence in the natural world, the fossil records and the DNA code of living creatures should lead the unbiased mind to the inevitable conclusion that of the two possibilities – ‘Special Creation’ is the more likely. The fact is, God will not dance to anyone’s puny request to prove His existence or power to create. Both these theories, therefore, are accepted by those who believe them – purely on the basis of faith. In effect each theory forms the basis of a religion.
    One religion believing that the Almighty God created all matter, the physical laws of the universe and life in its myriad forms.
    The other religion believing that there is no God in the universe, no supernatural Being and that all the matter in the vast universe, all the complex laws contained therein and finally life itself all came into existence of their own accord.
    Basically these are the two alternative views on the origin of the universe and the myriad life forms in our world. There are no others. There either is or there isn’t a Creator! It’s as simple as that. Millions have settled for the first option – ‘Special Creation.’ Sad to say it is seldom taught in the colleges of the West. Millions have settled for the second option – Evolution. This is taught in most western schools and colleges as though it were fact: but you now know that certainly isn’t the case.
    Which viewpoint society bases its faith upon eventually determines the behaviour of that society. If the youth are taught that they came from apes, then the ‘law of the jungle – the survival of the fittest’ – will take over: and no one should be surprised at the moral collapse of society, particularly amongst the youth. They are merely living out the ‘law of the jungle’ as taught to them by their elders.

    If on the other hand we were made by God ‘in His own image’ then we are accountable to Him for our actions. We cannot – yea we dare not – live as we please; because the Creator declares that there is coming a Day of Judgment when He will judge the world. On that awesome day every man, woman and child will have to give account of the deeds done in the body.

  3. about the big bang
    The doctrines of a “no God” crowd require more faith than to believe in God. I will demonstrate this throughout this forum.

    The Bigbang Doctrine

    #1 I call it “doctrine” because it is a theory based on faith. It is not science nor does it adhere to the scientific method. It is not observable, nor repeatable.

    #2 This doctrine teaches that the whole universe came from a dot smaller than this one => .

    #3 This dot came from absolutely nothing. Basically, “nothing exploded”. lol

    The existence of the universe cannot come from nothing. Something must have been there and from that something it all came to be. If there was “absolutely nothing” in the past, then today we would have absolutely nothing.

    Atheists criticize Christians for believing in miracles when in fact they are the ones who believe in extreme miracles. When I ask God to do something for me, it is like asking a friend for a hand to do something that otherwise would be impossible for me to do. The help of my friend is referred to by atheists as a miracle when in fact IT IS NOT a miracle.

    Believing that the whole universe came from absolute nothing is IN FACT a miracle.

    Nothing cannot produce something. This a fallacy and to believe this you need EXTREME FAITH.

  4. Scientific American Evolution of the Mind: 4 Fall
    Some evolutionary psychologists have made widely popularized claims about how the human mind evolved, but other scholars argue that the grand claims lack solid evidence

    By David J. Buller

    Among Charles Darwin’s lasting legacies is our knowledge that the human mind evolved by some adaptive process.
    A major, widely discussed branch of evolutionary psychology—Pop EP—holds that the human brain has many specialized mechanisms that evolved to solve the adaptive problems of our hunter-gatherer ancestors.
    The author and several other scholars suggest that some assumptions of Pop EP are flawed: that we can know the psychology of our Stone Age ancestors, that we can thereby figure out how distinctively human traits evolved, that our minds have not evolved much since the Stone Age, and that standard psychological questionnaires yield clear evidence of the adaptations.
    Charles Darwin wasted no time applying his theory of evolution to human psychology, following On the Origin of Species (1859) with The Descent of Man (1871) and The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872). Ever since, the issue hasn’t been whether evolutionary theory can illuminate the study of psychology but how it will do so. Still, a concerted effort to explain how evolution has affected human behavior began only in the 1970s with the emergence of sociobiology. The core idea of sociobiology was simple: behavior has evolved under natural and sexual selection (in response to competition for survival and reproduction, respectively), just as organic form has. Sociobiology thereby extended the study of adaptation to include human behavior.

    In his 1985 critique of sociobiology, Vaulting Ambition, philosopher Philip Kitcher noted that, whereas some sociobiology backed modest claims with careful empirical research, the theoretical reach of the dominant program greatly exceeded its evidential grasp. Kitcher called this program “pop sociobiology” because it employed evolutionary principles “to advance grand claims about human nature and human social institutions” and was “deliberately designed to command popular attention.”

  5. Easy living
    The Fallacies of Evolution
    Posted on November 23, 2011 by OgreMkV
    I was given this list of fallacies that were claimed to be used by science to defend evolution. It was supposed by the person that gave these to me that they would be unanswerable assaults on the premises of science. Unfortunately, it was child’s play to respond.

    What is worse, is that this was one of the worst cases of projection I have ever seen. I was able to actually use the exact same comments as assaults on creationism rather than evolution.

    All of the quote boxes are the original comments and ‘fallacies of evolution’. My responses are below each.

    Hasty Generalization basing a general statement on too small a sample; building general rules from accidental or exceptional situations. (Microevolution is evidence of macroevolution; origin of life experiments in the laboratory can be extrapolated to the actual evolution of life in the primitive oceans, alleged transitionary forms [Archaeopteryx, Semouria, etc.] prove evolution.)

    There is only one book that supports creationist suppositions of the global flood and the 6 day creation.

    Since science produces about 15,000 peer-reviewed papers per year over the last 40 years are so (and, in fact) produced hundreds if not thousands of papers per year for the preceding 120 years.

    So, in this case the fallacy only applies to creationism.

    Links to commentary on the actual claims in the ‘fallacy’.

    evidence of macroevolution (see also my reviews of Your Inner Fish)
    Origins of life (multiple posts)
    transitional fossils (see also Your Inner Fish)

    Begging the Question (petitio principii) reasoning in a circle, using your conclusion as a premise, assuming the very thing to be proved as proof of itself. (Natural selection; paleoanthropology; geologic record.)

    The Bible says God created the universe and everything in it (including the Bible). The Bible is infallible because it is the word of God. Therefore God created the universe and everything in it.

    Circular reasoning. Got it, thanks.

    In fact, science does not use evolution to support evolution. I listed some 20 odd pieces of evidence, none of which use evolutionary theory as a prerequisite, for common descent. Yes, anyone piece in isolation, isn’t enough, but all of them together paint a pretty good picture.

    This fallacy only applies to creationism and intelligent design.

    Misuse of Authority attempting to prove a conclusion by appealing to a real or alleged authority in such a way that the conclusion does not necessarily follow. (All competent scientists declare evolution is a fact!)


    In science, all work is subject to revision, double-checking and critique. Work in ID and creationism is not because it is fundamentally based on the Judeo-Christian Bible.

    For example, Mendel didn’t know about codominance. Doesn’t mean that Mendelian genetics is wrong. It also doesn’t mean that we couldn’t change Mendelian genetics to encompass new information.

    This fallacy only applies to creationism and intelligent design.

    Misuse of Analogy trying to prove something by improper use of a parallel case. (Hominid fossils prove evolution.)

    Intelligent design supposes a designer because things ‘look’ designed. The attempt to use anthropology (where we can identify the designers) to support Intelligent Design (where it is specifically stated that they do not know who the designer is and absolutely refuse to speculate or search for the designer), is misuse of analogy.

    Homonid fossils do prove that evolution has occurred. It can easily be shown that certain changes to brain volume and various structures (hips, knees, jaw, etc) can be shown to change over time… therefore evolution.

    This fallacy only applies to creationism and intelligent design.

    Chronological Snobbery (argumentum ad futuris) attempting to refute an idea merely by dating it, usually dating it very old. (Creationism was refuted long ago.)

    Creationists always attack Darwin (150 years ago) when the modern evolutionary theory is much more advanced that Darwin could have possibly imagined.

    Science ignores ‘hypotheses’ that have no testable properties, no falsifiable statements, and no way of measuring or determining differences between competing theories. Also, creationism has NOT changed, since Paley. Even Behe and Meyer’s argument boils down to ‘I don’t know how it happened, therefore God’.

    This fallacy only applies to creationism and intelligent design.

    Argument to Future trying to prove something by appealing to evidence that might be turned up in the (unknown) future. (As science progresses, proof of evolution will eventually be forthcoming.)

    Creationism and ID always look to the future when such and such will be proven and Darwin will fall. The 5 year wedge strategy, Nelson’s book ‘in a few years’ almost a decade ago. The constant yammering about how Darwin will be defeated soon and materialistic science will be defeated soon is more examples of creationists hoping the future has better results for them*.

    Science is perfectly happy with the volume of information currently at hand. That does not mean that science does not continue to experiment and work towards more information. Indeed, part of the point of science is its predictive power. That must be considered as a future experiment. Einstein’s work couldn’t have been tested until many years after it was shown mathematically.

    This fallacy only applies to creationism and intelligent design.

    Poisoning the Wells attempting to refute an argument by discrediting in advance the source of the evidence for the argument. (Creationists are “know-nothings” opposed to modern science; they get their arguments mostly from the book of Genesis.)

    Creationists and ID proponentists do not publish their hypothesis and experiments in peer-reviewed journals for critique. Their books have been found to ignore relevant information in order to present information with a certain bias. There are obvious mathematical, technical, scientific and factual errors in their books and blog posts.

    Science does ignore people who have continually shown that they do not have the requisite knowledge to play in the big leagues. However, the creationist argument is NOT discredited because the proponents don’t know science. There are thousands of reasons that creationism is discredited.

    Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum) substituting force or the threat of force for reason and evidence. (Evolutionists’ intimidation of creationist students and professors.)

    Galileo and the church. Comer in Texas lost her job because she forwarded an e-mail about evolution.

    There has never been a verifiable instance of anyone losing a job because they were a creationist. Notably, in a few cases someone has lost a job because they were harassing coworkers. If students do not learn the material being presented, then right or wrong, they fail.

    This fallacy only applies to creationism and intelligent design.

    Appeal to the People (argumentum ad populum) trying to establish a position by appealing to popular sentiments instead of relevant evidence. (Everybody believes in evolution, therefore it must be true.)

    Creationism constantly quotes statistical studies that show belief in evolution is low.

    Science has never made this argument. However, it does poll the people who actually know about a subject (the Steve project) in an effort to show creationists how silly they are.

    This fallacy only applies to creationism and intelligent design.

    The Fallacy of Extension attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent’s position, i.e., to attack a “straw man.” (Creationism is only the religious doctrine of a small but vocal minority.)

    Creationism and ID have created their own caricature of evolution then attacked it without mercy. For example, no scientist expects fossils to provide a continuous record of every organism from 4.5 billion years ago to present, yet that’s what some creationists want provided to them.

    Scientists, who study this, know exactly what creationism is and have shown it as such in courts of law.

    This fallacy only applies to creationism and intelligent design.

    Contrary to Fact arguing from “what might have been,” from a past hypothetical condition. (The fossil record.)

    Creationists ‘create’ arguments about how certain ‘facts’ of the bible occurred. For example, the confusion about when humans were created, where the water came from in the flood, the parting of the red sea… etc.

    Scientists use known examples of modern phenomenon to show that certain things COULD have occurred in the past. There is no claim that this is HOW it DID occur, only that it is possible to have occurred. In other words, if there is no physical law that prevents it, then it can happen.

    This fallacy only applies to creationism and intelligent design.

    The Ultimate Fallacy: Pigheadedness refusing to accept a proposition even when it has been established by adequate evidence. (That evolution is false is established by the law of biogenesis, probability considerations, thermodynamics, etc.)

    I have been arguing with creationists for over a decade. Not once has any creationist read a peer-reviewed article I presented and said, “Oh, well, I guess I was wrong about that.”

    I personally have been shown information by creationists and said, “oh, you’re right”, as would any scientist when presented with valid evidence.

    Oh, none of the things in the parentheses are valid reasons to deny evolution as a science. I’ve discussed probability here. I guess I should do one on thermodynamics since most creationists don’t understand what it is.

    This fallacy only applies to creationism and intelligent design.

    As you can see… creationism uses the fallacies, but science doesn’t.
    * This actually reminds me of a joke.

    A fellow prayed to God every night to win the lottery. Every time he thought about it, he prayed to God to win the lottery. He prayed and prayed and prayed.

    Finally God had enough and visited the man.

    “Look, I’ve heard your constant praying and am willing to grant your prayer. But YOU have to BUY a lottery ticket!)

    In other words, if you want to change things, then roll up your sleeves and do the damned work. 15 blogs and a handful of books (and a bunch of lost court cases) will never impress anyone.

  6. Evolition genre
    We routinely hear that the biological evidence proves evolution, beyond any shadow of a doubt. Recently PZ Myers made this claim for the fossil evidence and Sean Carroll for the molecular evidence. These evidences are often debated and discussed, but what is often missed is that this evolutionary reasoning is illogical to begin with. Philosophical failure is not a good starting point for discussion. Any debate needs to start with a clear understanding of the evidence and what it means. Unfortunately, such a starting point is difficult to come by. In fact, three different fallacies are routinely at work in the evolution genre.

Comments are closed.

© 2015 Freethought Nation, Acharya S, D.M. Murdock & Stellar House Publishing ~