Many Christian articles on a wide range of topics.
Preaching and Teaching the Word of God. Also real life
stories about witnessing and other related topics.
Local and Worldwide news events religious or otherwise which are impacting the
A resource guide of links with descriptions of
content from various websites for Christians and Non-Christians alike.
Letters on a wide range of subject matter that do not pertain
directly to this website. All those other letters that do pertain to this
site are kept personal and are not posted unless under special circumstances.
A collection of links in this site that are
listed by topic rather than from new to old. News Items are not featured
in the topical listing.
A collection of authors contained in this site
The Scientific Case Against Evolution
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.
Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately
defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable
scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct
kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by
citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of
proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant
scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never
happen at all.
Evolution Is Not Happening Now
First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no
one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still
be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could
observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of
plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and
-- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example,
there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or
"cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor
horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not
true "vertical" evolution.
Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other
rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead
to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal.
No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."
A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at
the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:. . . it was and
still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new
species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has
never been observed.
The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and
replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has
never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science.
Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology
at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless
agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are
inappropriate techniques" by which to explain it. One can never actually see
evolution in action. Evolution Never Happened in the Past Evolutionists
commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly
for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for
evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the
billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form
with transitional structures in the process of evolving.
Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion .
. . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of
transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved. Even those
who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of
generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another
more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true
transitional structures preserved in the fossils -- after all, there are
billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few
very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the
alleged walking whales), they are not there. Instead of filling in the
gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists
found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil
record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented
fossil species. The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life
from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the
evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links
are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.
With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie
Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen
without the other, concludes: And so, at first glance, one might have to
conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.
Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such
conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but
then he still has to admit that:
The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . .
investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of
them is fragmentary at best.
Translation: "There is no known way by which life could have arisen
naturalistically." Unfortunately, two generations of students have been taught
that Stanley Miller's famous experiment on a gaseous mixture, practically proved
the naturalistic origin of life. But not so! Miller put the whole thing in
a ball, gave it an electric charge, and waited. He found that amino acids and
other fundamental complex molecules were accumulating at the bottom of the
apparatus. His discovery gave a huge boost to the scientific investigation of
the origin of life. Indeed, for some time it seemed like creation of life in a
test tube was within reach of experimental science. Unfortunately, such
experiments have not progressed much further than the original prototype,
leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.
Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial
world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled
invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits
that: The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in
the history of life. Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate
creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard parts" on the outside, managed
to evolve into the first vertebrate -- that is, the first fish-- with its hard
parts all on the inside. Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates
to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories
Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very
bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has
acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions
in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same! It is a simple
ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable,
with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations. . . .So how do
evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees from fossils of oganisms which
didn't change during their durations? Fossil discoveries can muddle over
attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees -- fossils from key periods are
often not intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many
different groups. . . . Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled
in a simple linear or progressive manner -- new features are often "cut and
pasted" on different groups at different times. As far as ape/human
intermediates are concerned, the same is true, although anthropologists have
been eagerly searching for them for many years. Many have been proposed, but
each has been rejected in turn.
All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of digging
are remains from fewer than 2000 of our ancestors. They have used this
assortment of jawbones, teeth and fossilized scraps, together with molecular
evidence from living species, to piece together a line of human descent going
back 5 to 8 million years to the time when humans and chimpanzees diverged from
a common ancestor. Anthropologists supplemented their extremely
fragmentary fossil evidence with DNA and other types of molecular genetic
evidence from living animals to try to work out an evolutionary scenario that
will fit. But this genetic evidence really doesn't help much either, for it
contradicts fossil evidence. Lewin notes that: The overall effect is that
molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers
believed. . . . The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other
consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different
genes tell different stories.
Summarizing the genetic data from humans, another author concludes, rather
pessimistically: Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the
processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be
achieved only by creative imagination. Since there is no real scientific
evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it
is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many
claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built
upon faith in universal naturalism. Actually, these negative evidences
against evolution are, at the same time, strong positive evidences for special
creation. They are, in fact, specific predictions based on the creation model of
Creationists would obviously predict ubiquitous gaps between created kinds,
though with many varieties capable of arising within each kind, in order to
enable each basic kind to cope with changing environments without becoming
extinct. Creationists also would anticipate that any "vertical changes" in
organized complexity would be downward, since the Creator (by definition) would
create things correctly to begin with. Thus, arguments and evidences against
evolution are, at the same time, positive evidences for creation.
The Equivocal Evidence from Genetics
Nevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution,
evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial evidences, such
as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms as their
"proof" that evolution is a scientific fact. A number of evolutionists have even
argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution since it is common to all
organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two
different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry. Neither argument
is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use
the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This
is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution.
The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee
"similarity," noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same
as humans. This is hardly surprising, however, considering the many
physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees. Why shouldn't they
have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between
men and spiders? Similarities -- whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic
development, or anything else -- are better explained in terms of creation by a
common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between
organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism
has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same
ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any
The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously
produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc.
The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing
compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense.
Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil
record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there
should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic
evidence as proof of evolution. However, as noted above by Roger Lewin, this is
often inconsistent with, not only the fossil record, but also with the
comparative morphology of the creatures. Lewin also mentions just a few typical
contradictions yielded by this type of evidence in relation to more traditional
The elephant shrew, consigned by traditional analysis to the order insectivores
. . . is in fact more closely related to . . . the true elephant. Cows are more
closely related to dolphins than they are to horses. The duckbilled platypus . .
. is on equal evolutionary footing with . . . kangaroos and koalas. There
are many even more bizarre comparisons yielded by this approach. The abundance
of so-called "junk DNA" in the genetic code also has been offered as a special
type of evidence for evolution, especially those genes which they think have
experienced mutations, sometimes called "pseudogenes." However, evidence is
accumulating rapidly today that these supposedly useless genes do actually
perform useful functions.
Enough genes have already been uncovered in the genetic midden to show that what
was once thought to be waste is definitely being transmitted into scientific
code. It is thus wrong to decide that junk DNA, even the socalled "pseudogenes,"
have no function. That is merely an admission of ignorance and an object for
fruitful research. Like the socalled "vestigial organs" in man, once considered
as evidence of evolution but now all known to have specific uses, so the junk
DNA and pseudogenes most probably are specifically useful to the organism,
whether or not those uses have yet been discovered by scientists. At the
very best this type of evidence is strictly circumstantial and can be explained
just as well in terms of primeval creation supplemented in some cases by later
deterioration, just as expected in the creation model.
The real issue is, as noted before, whether there is any observable evidence
that evolution is occurring now or has ever occurred in the past. As we have
seen, even evolutionists have to acknowledge that this type of real scientific
evidence for evolution does not exist. A good question to ask is: Why are all
observable evolutionary changes either horizontal and trivial (so-called
microevolution) or downward toward deterioration and extinction? The answer
seems to be found in the universally applicable laws of the science of
Evolution Could Never Happen at All
The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the
present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary
scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it.
The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics
-- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it
were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity. This law of entropy
is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It
applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and
geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.
No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even
a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a
law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical
foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of
interacting particles. The author of this quote is referring primarily to
physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of
models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists --
that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and
that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry.
That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with
the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.
Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and
that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with
the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the
geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate
toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed
W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist
defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by
noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the
second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?
Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease,
local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an
intelligent agent. This naive response to the entropy law is typical of
evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an
open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not
meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from
the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased
complexity in any system, open or closed.
The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics
says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of
that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased
organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or
more energy conversion mechanisms. Evolution has neither of these.
Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the
second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial
(at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot
generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented
to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In
principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open
systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or
later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to
overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is
still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.
From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that
there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable
evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict
Evolution is Religion -- Not Science
In no way does the
idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a
scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever
been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy
seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.
Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always
lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most
evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring
instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists. Scientists should
refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still
need to counter the creationist message.
The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why
are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?
The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is
their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator.
Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to
call it humanism, and "new age" evolutionists place it in the context of some
form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or
humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from
any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including
man. The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism -- the proposition that
the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without
divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are
creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of
the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described
their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and
Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active
function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it
is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less
than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard
Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true.
Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.
Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion.
The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by
most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:
Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.
A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is
excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.
It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such
influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard,
Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other
evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and
ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is
their religion! Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than
mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a
full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . .
Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is
true of evolution still today. Another way of saying "religion" is
"worldview," the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only
to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm
of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from
experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of
evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation.
Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.
Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been
remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions. They must believe in
evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And
speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement. We take
the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,
. . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated
commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to
material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that
produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how
mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we
cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since
evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so
all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that
doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but
more critical) evolutionist, says: We cannot identify ancestors or "missing
links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular
episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories
about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed
wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans
evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and
A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate
commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust
students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:
And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods
are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal -- without demonstration -- to
evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence
that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any
evidence to the contrary. Creationist students in scientific courses
taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that
statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious
atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another
scientist who frankly acknowledges this.
As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people.
One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the
religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.
Once again, we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists' tirades
notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more.
(Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains
everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory
value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said
because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.
Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating
true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not "minimal." It is nonexistent!
The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long
War Against God,32 I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been
the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very
beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as
such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the
"liberal" movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism,
Islam). As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading
evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect
of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation"
and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:
Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has
ever arisen on earth.
Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of
religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern."
went on to say that: "The God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and
moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct
something to take its place." That something, of course, is the religion
of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism
are trying to do today.
In closing this survey of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore,
for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article
are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no
statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and
purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in