Skip to main content


Personal Bible Study Website
Why Believe?
Groom & Bride
3 Ages
The Law
4 Dynasties
7 Signs
10 Lost Tribes
7 Churches
Scripture Lawyers
Ark & Temple
Noah's Flood
Contact Us
Site Map



Religion, philosophy, and natural science were essentially the same subject in ancient times. As time progressed, the advent of the “Scientific Method” has separated these topics (as they should be). There have always been (and always will be) errors associated with teaching and learning subjects we do not fully understand. Within the last several centuries, science has progressed by leap-and-bounds, while theology has not. Only being human, the subjects of religion (and science) have made errors in the past and we will continue to in the future. However, we should attempt to learn from our mistakes and do the best we can with what we have been given to work with. At the very least, to progress we should try to understand why people believe as they do; and to not be so lofty to think we fully understand an opposing point-of-view. Always keep an open mind to new thoughts and beliefs, and you may be surprised how your beliefs can change over time.






Evolution basically says that mutations over millions of years cause the species to evolve.  Mutations of an entity, will give it an advantage or disadvantage on its environment to allow it to excel or diminish.  Sounds logical; however there is significant fact with evolution that cannot be overlooked.  The common cold (viral evolution) has one of the fastest mutation rates of any living organism.  The cold virus will mutate fast enough to prevent a vaccine to be developed.  However, you will not see a cold virus mutate into a different type of entity.  At this rate of mutation, there should be all types of proof where a cold had evolved into some other entity.  The virus may rapidly adapt to its environment to maintain its existence, but it remains a virus and nothing more. 




Most creatures have the ability to adapt to its environment.  People have bred wild dogs to the point that now we have Saint Bernard’s and Pomeranians.  Both types of dogs look very different, however they are still dogs.  For example, in an environment where only fast dogs could survive, the wild dog population my eventually start looking something like greyhounds.  This is natural because only the fastest dogs would survive to breed fast dogs.  Examining pre-human fossils like Lucy, there is no evidence that these are not the remains of an extinct or deformed ape.  Simply because this ape may be bipedal does not mean it is pre-human.  Ever heard of Oliver the Chimp?










Do Animals Have A Soul?









A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism



"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."


"The statement was drafted and circulated by Discovery Institute in 2001 in response to widespread claims that no credible scientists existed who doubted Neo-Darwinism. Discovery Institute subsequently took out an ad in The New York Review of Books and elsewhere showcasing over 100 scientists who were willing to publicly express their scientific skepticism of Neo-Darwinism. Since 2001 the signatories of the statement have grown to over 700 scientists, both in the United States and around the world." 



Article originally appeared in The American Spectator - December 2000 / January 2001

This was last publicly updated January 2010. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position.

Reference From:  www.DissentFromDarwin.ORG



"Darwin’s theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought. It is large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe." 

--- Dr. David Berlinski, Philosophy








Survival of the Fakest


Science now knows that many of the pillars of Darwinian Theory are either false or misleading. Yet Biology texts continue to present them as factual evidence of evolution. What does this imply about their scientific standards?

-- Johathan Wells


If you had asked me during my years studying science at Berkeley whether or not I believed what I read in my science textbooks, I would have responded much as any of my fellow students: puzzled that such a question would be asked in the the first place. One might find tiny errors, of course, typos and misprints. And science is always discovering new things. But I believed – took it as a given – that my science textbooks represented the best scientific knowledge available at that time.


It was only when I was finishing my Ph.D. in cell and development biology, however, that I noticed what at first I took to be a strange anomaly. The textbook I was using prominently featured drawings of vertebrate embryos – fish, chickens, humans, etc. – where similarities were presented as evidence for descent from a common ancestor.  Indeed, the drawings did appear very similar. But I’d been studying embryos for some time, looking at them under a microscope. And I knew that the drawings were just plain wrong.


I re-checked all my other textbooks. They all had similar drawings, and they were all obviously wrong. Not only did they distort the embryos they pictured; they omitted earlier stages in which the embryos look very different from one another. Like most other science students, like most scientists themselves, I let it pass. It didn’t immediately affect my work, and I assumed that while the texts had somehow gotten this particular issue wrong, it was the exception to the rule. In 1997, however, my interest in the embryo drawings was revived when British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleagues published the result of their study comparing the textbook drawings with actual embryos. As Richardson himself was quoted in the prestigious journal Science: “It looks like it’s turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology.” 


Worse, this was no recent fraud. Nor was its discovery recent. The embryo drawings that appear in most every high school and college textbook are either reproductions of, or based on, a famous series of drawings by the 19th century German biologist and fervent Darwinian, Ernst Haeckel, and they have been known to scholars of Darwin and evolutionary theory to be forgeries for over a hundred years. But none of them, apparently, have seen fit to correct this almost ubiquitous misinformation. 


Still thinking this an exceptional circumstance, I became curious to see if I could find other mistakes in the standard biology texts dealing with evolution. My search revealed a startling fact however: Far from being exceptions, such blatant misrepresentations are more often the rule. In my recent book I call them “Icons of Evolution,” because so many of them are represented by classic oft-repeated illustrations which, like the Haeckel drawings, have served their pedagogical purpose only too well –fixing basic misinformation about evolutionary theory in the public’s mind.


We all remember them from biology class: the experiment that created the “building blocks of life” in a tube; the evolutionary “tree,” rooted in the primordial slime and branching out into animal and plant life. Then there were the similar bone structures of, say, a bird’s wing and a man’s hand, the peppered moths, and Darwin’s finches. And, of course, the Haeckel embryos.  As it happens, all of these examples, as well as many others purportedly standing as evidence of evolution, turn out to be incorrect. Not just slightly off. Not just slightly mistaken. On the subject of Darwinian evolution, the texts contained massive distortions and even some faked evidence. Nor are we only talking about high-school textbooks that some might excuse (but shouldn’t) for adhering to a lower standard. Also guilty are some of the most prestigious and widely used college texts, such as Douglas Futuyma’s Evolutionary Biology, and the latest edition of the graduate-level textbook Molecular Biology of the Cell, coauthored by the president of the National Academy of Sciences, Bruce Alberts. In fact, when the false “evidence” is taken away, the case for Darwinian evolution, in the textbooks at least, is so thin it’s almost invisible.



Life in a Bottle


Anyone old enough in 1953 to understand the import of the news remembers how shocking, and to many, exhilarating, it was. Scientists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey had succeeded in creating “the building blocks” of life in a flask. Mimicking what were believed to be the natural conditions of the early Earth’s atmosphere, and then sending an electric spark through it, Miller and Urey had formed simple amino acids. As amino acids are the “building blocks” of life, it was thought just a matter of time before scientists could themselves create living organisms.


At the time, it appeared a dramatic confirmation of evolutionary theory. Life wasn’t a “miracle.” No outside agency or divine intelligence was necessary. Put the right gasses together, add electricity, and life is bound to happen. It’s a common event. Carl Sagan could thus confidently predict on PBS that the planets orbiting those “billlllions and billlllions” of stars out there must be just teeming with life.


There were problems, however. Scientists were never able to get beyond the simplest amino acids in their simulated primordial environment, and the creation of proteins began to seem not a small step or couple of steps, but a great, perhaps impassable, divide.


The telling blow to the Miller-Urey experiment, however, came in the 1970’s, when scientists began to conclude that the Earth’s early atmosphere was nothing like the mixture of gasses used by Miller and Urey. Instead of being what scientists call a “reducing,” or hydrogen-rich environment, the Earth’s early atmosphere probably consisted of gasses released by volcanoes. Today there is a near consensus among geochemists on this point. But put those volcanic gasses in the Miller-Urey apparatus, and the experiment doesn’t work –in other words, no “building blocks” of life.


What do textbooks do with this inconvenient fact?  By and large, they ignore it and continue to use the Miller-Urey experiment to convince students that scientists have demonstrated an important first step in the origin of life.  This includes the above-mentioned Molecular Biology of the Cell, co-authored by the National Academy of Sciences president, Bruce Alberts. Most textbooks also go on to tell students that origin-of-life researchers have found a wealth of other evidence to explain how life originated spontaneously – but they don’t tell students that the researchers themselves now acknowledge that the explanation still eludes them.



Faked Embryos


Darwin thought “by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of” his theory came from embryology. Darwin was not an embryologist, however, so he relied on the work of German biologist Ernst Haeckel, who produced drawings of embryos from various classes of vertebrates to show that they are virtually identical in their earliest stages, and become noticeably different only as they develop. It was this pattern that Darwin found so convincing.


This may be the most egregious of distortions, since biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos never look as similar as Haeckel drew them. In some cases, Haeckel used the same woodcut to print embryos that were supposedly from different classes. In others, he doctored his drawings to make the embryos appear more alike than they really were. Haeckel’s contemporaries repeatedly criticized him for these misrepresentations, and charges of fraud bounded in his lifetime. In 1997, British embryologist Michael Richardson and an international team of experts compared Haeckel’s drawings with photographs of actual vertebrate embryos, demonstrating conclusively that the drawings misrepresent the truth.


The drawings are misleading in another way.  Darwin based his inference of common ancestry on the belief that the earliest stages of embryo development are the most similar. Haeckel’s drawings, however, entirely omit the earliest stages, which are much different, and start at a more similar midway point. Embryologist William Ballard wrote in 1976 that it is “only by semantic tricks and subjective selection of evidence,” by “bending the facts of nature,” that one can argue that the early stages of vertebrates “are more alike than their adults.”


Yet some version of Haeckel’s drawings can be found in most current biology textbooks. Stephen Jay Gould, one of evolutionary theory’s most vocal proponents, recently wrote that we should be “astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks.” (I will return below to the question of why it is only now that Mr. Gould, who has known of these forgeries for decades, has decided to bring them to widespread attention.)



Darwin’s Tree of Life


Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species: “I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings” that lived in the distant past. He believed that the differences among modern species arose primarily through natural selection, or survival of the fittest, and he described the whole process as “descent with modification.”No one doubts, of course, that a certain amount of descent with modification occurs within species. But Darwin’s theory claims to account for the origin of new species –in fact, for every species since the first cells emerged from the primordial ooze.


This theory does have the virtue of making a prediction:  If all living things are gradually modified descendants of one or a few original forms, then the history of life should resemble a branching tree. Unfortunately, despite official pronouncements, this prediction has in some important respects turned out to be wrong.


The fossil record shows the major groups of animals appearing fully formed at about the same time in a “Cambrian explosion,” rather than diverging from a common ancestor. Darwin knew this, and considered it a serious objection to his theory. But he attributed it to the imperfection of the fossil record, and he thought that future research would supply the missing ancestors.


But a century and a half of continued fossil collecting has only aggravated the problem. Instead of slight differences appearing first, then greater differences emerging later, the greatest differences appear right at the start. Some fossil experts describe this as “top-down evolution,” and note that it contradicts the “bottom-up” pattern predicted by Darwin’s theory. Yet most current biology textbooks don’t even mention the Cambrian explosion, much less point out the challenge it poses for Darwinian evolution.


Then came the evidence from molecular biology.  Biologists in the 1970’s began testing Darwin’s branching-tree pattern by comparing molecules in various species. The more similar the molecules in two different species are, the more closely related they are presumed to be. At first this approach seemed to confirm Darwin’s tree of life.  But as scientists compared more and more molecules, they found that different molecules yield conflicting results. The branching-tree pattern inferred from one molecule often contradicts the pattern obtained from another.


Canadian molecular biologist W. Ford Doolittle doesn’t think the problem will go away. Maybe scientists “have failed to find the ‘true tree’,” he wrote in 1999, “not because their methods are inadequate or because they have chosen the wrong genes, but because the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree.” Nevertheless, biology textbooks continue to assure students that Darwin’s Tree of Life is a scientific fact overwhelmingly confirmed by evidence. Judging from the real fossil and molecular evidence, however, it is an unsubstantiated hypothesis masquerading as a fact.



They All Look Alike:  Homology in Vertebrate Limbs


Most introductory biology textbooks carry drawings of vertebrate limbs showing similarities in their bone structures. Biologists before Darwin had noticed this sort of similarity and called it “homology,” and they attributed it to construction on a common archetype or design. In The Origin of Species, however, Darwin argued that the best explanation for homology is descent with modification, and he considered it evidence for his theory. Darwin’s followers rely on homologies to arrange fossils in branching trees that supposedly show ancestor/descendant relationships. In his 1990 book, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, biologist Tim Berra compared the fossil record to a series of Corvette models: “If you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious.”


But Berra forgot to consider a crucial, and obvious, point: Corvettes, so far as anyone has yet been able to determine, don’t give birth to little Corvettes. They, like all automobiles, are designed by people working for auto companies. In other words, an outside intelligence. So although Berra believed he was supporting Darwinian evolution rather than the pre-Darwinian explanation, he unwittingly showed that the fossil evidence is compatible with either. Law professor (and critic of Darwinism) Phillip E. Johnson dubbed this: “Berra’s Blunder.”


The lesson of Berra’s Blunder is that we need to specify a natural mechanism before we can scientifically exclude designed construction as the cause of homology. Darwinian biologists have proposed two mechanisms: developmental pathways and genetic programs. According to the first, homologous features arise from similar cells and processes in the embryo; according to the second, homologous features are programmed by similar genes. 


But biologists have known for a hundred years that homologous structures are often not produced by similar developmental pathways. And they have known for thirty years that they are often not produced by similar genes, either. So there is no empirically demonstrated mechanism to establish that homologies are due to common ancestry rather than common design.


Without a mechanism, modern Darwinists have simply defined homology to mean similarity due to common ancestry. According to Ernst Mayr, one of the principal architects of modern neo-Darwinism: “After 1859 there has been only one definition of homologous that makes biological sense: Attributes of two organisms are homologous when they are derived from an equivalent characteristic of the common ancestor.”


This is a classic case of circular reasoning. Darwin saw evolution as a theory, and homology as its evidence.  Darwin’s followers assume evolution is independently established, and homology is its result. But you can’t then use homology as evidence for evolution except by reasoning in a circle: Similarity due to common ancestry demonstrates common ancestry.


Philosophers of biology have been criticizing this approach for decades. As Ronald Brady wrote in 1985: “By making our explanation into the definition of the condition to be explained, we express not scientific hypothesis but belief. We are so convinced that our explanation is true that we no longer see any need to distinguish it from the situation we were trying to explain. Dogmatic endeavors of this kind must eventually leave the realm of science.”


So how do the textbooks treat this controversy?  Once again, they ignore it. In fact, they give students the impression that it makes sense to define homology in terms of common ancestry and then turn around and use it as evidence for common ancestry. And they call this “science.”



Nothing a Little Glue Can’t Fix:  The Peppered Moths


Darwin was convinced that in the course of evolution, “Natural Selection has been the most important, but not the exclusive means of modification,” but he had no direct evidence of this. The best he could do in The Origin of Species was give “one or two imaginary illustrations.”


In the 1950’s, however, British physician Bernard Kettlewell provided what seemed to be conclusive evidence of natural selection. During the previous century, peppered moths in England had gone from being predominantly light-colored to being predominantly dark-colored.  It was thought that the change occurred because dark moths are better camouflaged on pollution-darkened tree trunks, and thus less likely to be eaten by predatory birds.  To test this hypothesis experimentally, ettlewell released light and dark moths onto nearby tree trunks in polluted and unpolluted woodlands, then watched as birds ate the more conspicuous moths. As expected, birds ate more light moths in the polluted woodland, and more dark moths in the unpolluted one. In an article written for Scientific American, Kettlewell called this “Darwin’s missing evidence.” Peppered moths soon became the classic example of natural selection in action, and the story is still retold in most introductory biology textbooks, accompanied by photographs of the moths on tree trunks.


In the 1980’s, however, researchers discovered evidence that the official story was flawed –including the pertinent fact that peppered moths don’t normally rest on tree trunks. Instead, they fly by night and apparently hide under upper branches during the day. By releasing moths onto nearby tree trunks in daylight, Kettlewell had created an artificial situation that does not exist in nature. Many biologists now consider his results invalid, and some even question whether natural selection was responsible for the observed changes.


So where did all those textbook photos of peppered moths on tree trunks come from? They were all staged.  To expedite things, some photographers even glued dead moths to trees. Of course, the people who staged them before the 1980’s thought they were accurately representing the true situation, but we now know they were mistaken. Yet a glance at almost any current biology textbook reveals that they are all still being used as evidence for natural selection.


In 1999, a Canadian textbook-writer justified the practice: “You have to look at the audience. How convoluted do you want to make it for a first time learner?”  Bob Ritter was quoted as saying in the April 1999 Alberta Report Newsmagazine. High school students “are still very concrete in the way they learn,” continued Ritter. “We want to get across the idea of selective adaptation. Later on, they can look at the work critically.”


Apparently, the “later” can be much later. When University of Chicago Professor Jerry Coyne learned the truth in 1998, he was well into his career as an evolutionary biologist. His experience illustrates how insidious the icons of evolution really are, since they mislead experts as well as novices.



Beaks and Birds:  Darwin’s Finches


A quarter of a century before Darwin published The Origin of Species, he was formulating his ideas as a naturalist aboard the British survey ship H.M.S. Beagle . When the Beagle visited the Galapagos Islands in 1835, Darwin collected specimens of the local wildlife, including some finches.


Though the finches had little in fact to do with Darwin’s development of evolutionary theory, they have attracted considerable attention from modern evolutionary biologists as further evidence of natural selection. In the 1970’s, Peter and Rosemary Grant and their colleagues noted a 5 percent increase in beak size after a severe drought, because the finches were left with only hard-tocrack seeds. The change, though significant, was small; yet some Darwinists claim it explains how finch species originated in the first place.


A 1999 booklet published by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences describes Darwin’s finches as “a particularly compelling example” of the origin of species. The booklet cites the Grants’ work, and explains how “a single year of drought on the islands can drive evolutionary changes in the finches.” The booklet also calculates that “if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.”


But the booklet fails to point out that the finches’beaks returned to normal after the rains returned. No net evolution occurred. In fact, several finch species now appear to be merging through hybridization, rather than diverging through natural selection as Darwin’s theory requires.


Withholding evidence in order to give the impression that Darwin’s finches confirm evolutionary theory borders on scientific misconduct. According to Harvard biologist Louis Guenin (writing in Nature in 1999), U.S. securities laws provide “our richest source of experiential guidance” in defining what constitutes scientific misconduct.  But a stock promoter who tells his clients that a particular stock can be expected to double in value in twenty years because it went up 5 percent in 1998, while concealing the fact that the same stock declined 5 percent in 1999, might well be charged with fraud. As Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson wrote in The Wall Street Journal in 1999: “When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail, you know they are in trouble.”



From Apes to Humans


Darwin’s theory really comes into its own when it is applied to human origins. While he scarcely mentioned the topic in The Origin of Species, Darwin later wrote extensively about it in The Descent of Man. “My object,” he explained, “is to show that there is no fundamental difference between man and the higher animals in their mental faculties” - even morality and religion. According to Darwin, a dog’s tendency to imagine hidden agency in things moved by the wind “would easily pass into the belief in the existence of one or more gods.”


Of course, the awareness that the human body is part of nature was around long before Darwin. But Darwin was claiming much more. Like materialistic philosophers since ancient Greece, Darwin believed that human beings are nothing more than animals.


Darwin, however, needed evidence to confirm his conjecture. Although Neanderthals had already been found, they were not then considered ancestral to humans, so Darwin had no fossil evidence for his view. It wasn’t until 1912 that amateur paleontologist Charles Dawson announced that he had found what Darwinists were looking for, in a gravel pit at Piltdown, England.  


Dawson had found part of a human skull and part of an apelike lower jaw with two teeth. It wasn’t until forty years later that a team of scientists proved that the Piltdown skull, though perhaps thousands of years old, belonged to a modern human, while the jaw fragment was more recent,  and belonged to a modern orangutan. The jaw had been chemically treated to make it look like a fossil, and its teeth had been deliberately filed down to make them look human. Piltdown Man was a forgery.


Most modern biology textbooks do not even mention Piltdown. When critics of Darwinism bring it up, they are usually told that the incident merely proves that science is self-correcting. And so it was, in this case - though the correction took over forty years. But the more interesting lesson to be learned from Piltdown is that scientists, like everyone else, can be fooled into seeing what they want to see.


The same subjectivity that prepared the way for Piltdown continues to plague human-origins research. According to paleoanthropologist Misia Landau, theories of human origins “far exceed what can be inferred from the study of fossils alone and in fact place a heavy burden of interpretation on the fossil record –a burden which is relieved by placing fossils into pre-existing narrative structures.” In 1996, American Museum of Natural History Curator Ian Tattersall acknowledged that “in  paleoanthropology, the patterns we perceive are as likely to result from our unconscious mindsets as from the evidence itself.” Arizona State University anthropologist Geoffrey Clark echoed this view in 1997 when he wrote: “We select among alternative sets of research conclusions in accordance with our biases and preconceptions.” Clark suggested that “paleoanthropology has the form but not the substance of science.”


Biology students and the general public are rarely informed of the deep-seated uncertainty about human origins that is reflected in these statements by scientific experts. Instead, they are simply fed the latest speculation as though it were a fact. And the speculation is typically illustrated with fanciful drawings of cave men, or pictures of human actors wearing heavy make-up.



What’s Going on Here?


Most of us assume that what we hear from scientists is comparatively trustworthy. Politicians might distort or shave the truth to support a preconceived agenda, but scientists, we are told, deal with facts. Sure they might sometimes get it wrong, but the beauty of science is that it’s empirically testable. If a theory is wrong, this will be discovered by other scientists performing independent experiments either to replicate or disprove their results. In this way the data are constantly reviewed and hypotheses become widely accepted theories. So how do we explain such a pervasive and long-standing distortion of the specific facts used to support evolutionary theory?


Perhaps Darwinian evolution has taken on significance in our culture that has little to do with its scientific value, whatever that may be. An indication of this was seen in the nearly universal and censorious reaction to the Kansas School Board’s decision to allow room for dissent in the standard teaching of evolution (much of which, as we have just seen, is plain wrong).


According to the news media, only religious fundamentalists question Darwinian evolution. People who criticize Darwinism, we are told, want to bomb science back to the Stone Age and replace it with the Bible. The growing body of scientific evidence contradicting Darwinian claims is steadfastly ignored. When biochemist Michael Behe pointed out in The New York Times last year that the embryo “evidence” for evolution was faked, Harvard Darwinist Stephen Jay Gould admitted that he had known this for decades (as noted above) – but accused Behe of being a “creationist” for pointing it out.


Now, although Behe supports the idea that some features of living things are best explained by intelligent design, he is not a “creationist” as that word is normally used. Behe is a molecular biologist whose scientific work has convinced him that Darwinian theory doesn’t conform to observation and experimental evidence. Why does Gould, who knows Haeckel’s drawings were faked, dismiss Behe as a creationist for criticizing them?


I suspect that there’s an agenda other than pure science at work here. My evidence is the more or less explicit materialist message woven into many textbook accounts. Futuyma’s Evolutionary Biology is characteristic of this, informing students that “it was Darwin’s theory of evolution,” together with Marx’s theory of history and Freud’s theory of human nature, “that provided a crucial plank to the platform of mechanism and materialism” that has since been “the stage of most Western thought.” One textbook quotes Gould, who openly declares that humans are not created, but are merely fortuitous twigs on a “contingent” (i.e. accidental) tree of life. Oxford Darwinist Richard Dawkins, though not writing in a textbook, puts it even more bluntly: “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”


These are obviously philosophical rather than scientific views. Futuyma, Gould, and Dawkins have a right to their philosophy. But they do not have the right to teach it as though it were science. In science, all theories – including Darwinian evolution – must be tested against the evidence.  Since Gould knows that the real embryological evidence contradicts the faked drawings in biology textbooks, why doesn’t he take a more active role in cleaning up science education? The misrepresentations and omissions I’ve examined here are just a small sampling. There are many more. For too long the debate about evolution has assumed “facts” that aren’t true. It’s time to clear away the lies that obstruct popular discussion of evolution, and insist that theories conform to the evidence. In other words, it’s time to do science as it’s supposed to be done. 


Permission is granted to copy this article for noncommercial purposes provided credit is given to Discovery Institute. 








The Collapse of Evolution

Scott Huse, , 1997, pp. 159-160



“For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. In the world around us,we can behold the obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design . . .


“And we are humbled by the powerful forces at work on a galactic scale, and the purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny and ungainly seed with the ability to develop into a beautiful flower. The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based . . .


 “To be forced to believe only one conclusion— that everything in the universe happened by chance—would violate the very objectivity of science itself. Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye?


“Some people say that science has been unable to prove the existence of a Designer. They admit that many of the miracles in the world around us are hard to understand, and they do not deny that the universe, as modern science sees it, is indeed a far more wondrous thing than the creation medieval man could perceive. But they still maintain that since science has provided us with so many answers the day will soon arrive when we will be able to understand even the fundamental laws of nature without a Divine intent. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun? . . .


“What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive of Him?”


-- Wernher von Braun (father of the American space program)











Climate Change Predictions That Failed

By Dr. Richard A. Barrett



The following quotations are from people who believe that the economic activities of our industrial way of life are upsetting the normal rhythms of our climatic system, and, if not corrected, will lead to horrific damage in the future. They include environmentalists, political activists and the occasional scientist. Many of these people have been good enough to provide dates for their predictions, or at least a general time frame for the damage that is likely to occur. These are the most useful predictions because they can be tested against the trials of time. Vague generalities (like those frequently issued by the IPCC) are not at all helpful. In future, therefore, I would hope that when doomsday predictions are made, they will be accompanied by dates or some concrete time frame for their accomplishment.


I have gleaned these quotations from my reading and from the internet. One internet source was particularly valuable titled “117 Years of Failed Climate and Environmental Predictions.” I encourage all readers to consult that wonderful site. The only way I can improve upon it is by continually updating these predictions (and many are coming due in the very near future). Regards, Richard Barrett




March 20, 2000, from The Independent, According to Dr David Viner of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, snowfall in Britain would become “a very rare and exciting event” and “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”




September 2006, Arnold Schwarzenegger signing California’s anti-emissions law, “We simply must do everything in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late…The science is clear. The global warming debate is over.”




1990 Actress Meryl Streep ”By the year 2000–that’s less than ten years away–earth’s climate will be warmer than it’s been in over 100,000 years. If we don’t do something, there’ll be enormous calamities in a very short time.”




April 2008, Media Mogul Ted Turner on Charlie Rose (On not taking drastic action to correct global warming) ”Not doing it will be catastrophic. We’ll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not ten but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals.” [Strictly speaking, this is not a failed prediction. It won't be until at least 2048 that our church-going and pie-baking neighbors come after us for their noonday meal. But the prediction is so bizarre that I include it here.]




January 1970 Life Magazine ”Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support …the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”




Earth Day 1970 Kenneth Watt, ecologist ”At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”




Earth Day 1970 Kenneth Watt, ecologist ”The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”




April 28, 1975 Newsweek ”There are ominous signs that Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically….The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it….The central fact is that…the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down….If the climate change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.”




1976 Lowell Ponte in “The Cooling,” ”This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.”




July 9, 1971, Washington Post “In the next 50 years fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun’s rays that the Earth’s average temperature could fall by six degrees. Sustained emissions over five to ten years, could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”




June, 1975, Nigel Calder in International Wildlife ” The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.”




June 30, 1989, Associated Press U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER, SAYS GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAP–entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of “eco-refugees,” threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect.




Sept 19, 1989, St. Louis Post-Dispatch ”New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now.”




December 5, 1989, Dallas Morning News “Some predictions for the next decade are not difficult to make…Americans may see the ’80s migration to the Sun Belt reverse as a global warming trend rekindles interest in cooler climates.




1990 Michael Oppenheimer, The Environmental Defense Fund, “(By) 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…”(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers…The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”




April 18, 1990, Denver Post “Giant sand dunes may turn Plains to desert–huge sand dunes extending east from Colorado’s Front Range may be on the verge of breaking through the thin topsoil, transforming America’s rolling High Plains into a desert, new research suggests. The giant sand dunes discovered by NASA satellite photos are expected to re-emerge over the next 20 to 50 years, depending on how fast average temperatures rise from the suspected ‘greenhouse effect’ scientists believe”




1991 Edward Goldsmith, 5000 Days to Save the Planet ”By 2000, British and American oil will have diminished to a trickle….Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North’s greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live….At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years.”




April 22, 1990 ABC, The Miracle Planet “I think we’re in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left–we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.”




February 1993, Thomas E. Lovejoy, Smithsonian Institution “Most of the great environmental struggles will be either won or lost in the 1990s and by the next century it will be too late.”




November 7, 1997, BBC (A commentator) “It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Ninos are going to become more frequent, and they’re going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we’ll go into a permanent El Nino. So instead of having cool water periods for a year or two, we’ll have El Nino upon El Nino, and that will become the norm. And you’ll have an El Nino, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years.”




July 26, 1999 The Birmingham Post ”Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people.”




October 15, 1990 Carl Sagan ”The planet could face an ‘ecological and agricultural catastrophe’ by the next decade if global warming trends continue.”




Sept 11, 1999, The Guardian “A report last week claimed that within a decade, the disease (malaria) will be common again on the Spanish coast. The effects of global warming are coming home to roost in the developed world.”




March 29, 2001, CNN ”In ten years time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu’s nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels.” [Next year we'll know if this extremely unlikely prediction comes true.]




1988 or 1989, Dr. James Hansen (In an interview with author Rob Reiss. Reiss asked how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the neighborhood below Hansen’s office in NYC in the next 20 years). Hansen, looking out the window, answered: ”The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change….There will be more police cars….[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.” [I am thankful to WUWT for this account.]




1969 Lubos Moti, Czech physicist, ”It is now pretty clearly agreed that CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.




2005 Andrew Simms, policy director of the New Economics Foundation, “Scholars are predicting that 50 million people worldwide will be displaced by 2010 because of rising sea levels, desertification, dried up aquifers, weather-induced flooding and other serious environmental changes.”




Oct 20, 2009, Gordon Brown UK Prime Minister (referring to the Copenhagen climate conference): ”World leaders have 50 days to save the Earth from irreversible global warming.”




June 2008, Ted Alvarez, Backpacker Magazine Blogs, “you could potentially sail, kayak, or even swim to the North Pole by the end of the summer. Climate scientists say that the Arctic ice…is currently on track to melt sometime in 2008.” [Shortly after this prediction was made, a Russian icebreaker was trapped in the ice of the Northwest Passage for a week.]




1992, Al Gore “Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.”




May 31, 2006 Al Gore, on CBS Early Show “…the debate among the scientists is over. There is no more debate. We face a planetary emergency. There is no more scientific debate among serious people who’ve looked at the science…Well, I guess in some quarters, there’s still a debate over whether the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona, or whether the Earth is flat instead of round.” [The "bibliography for climate skeptics (above) suggests that there are some "serious people" still willing to debate.]




January 2000 Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund commenting (in a NY Times interview) on the mild winters in New York City. ”But it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless winters on the children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school is unknown.”




2008 Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) on a visit to Britain, “The recent warm winters that Britain has experienced are a sign that the climate is changing.” [Two exceptionally cold winters followed. The 2009-10 winter may be the coldest experienced in the UK since 1683.]




June 11, 1986 Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) in testimony to Congress (according to the Milwaukee Journal) “Hansen predicted global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, ‘which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.’”




June 8, 1972 Christian Science Monitor ”Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.”




May 15, 1989 Associated Press ”Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide [USA] two degrees by 2010.”