Creation advocates start campaign to ‘question evolution’

Charles Darwin, father of modern evolution, source of two prime secular falsehoods in America today.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

An international creation-advocacy group is partnering with a noted social-conservative group to promote a grass-roots campaign to question the conventional wisdom about the origin and “evolution” of life.

Creation Ministries International announced today their “Question Evolution” campaign, in cooperation with the Traditional Values Coalition in the USA. The object is to have ordinary people, including high-school and college students, question everything that they have ever heard about evolution, which says that all life descends from a common ancestor but which says remarkably little about where that common ancestor came from.

Students certainly should question Darwinism in their schools and encourage others to do it too—after all, don’t teachers urge students to “question everything”? Students have a right to question the evolutionary pseudoscience peddled to them.

CMI offers tracts that people can hand out, and also a variety of merchandise to help people call attention to the campaign. The merchandise items all feature a drawing of Charles Darwin, who popularized the concept of “evolution” a century and a half ago, with a red circle-and-bar symbol covering it.

The tracts, titled “15 Questions for Evolutionists,” ask a number of questions about biological evolution, none of which any evolutionist has ever answered satisfactorily, and some of which evolutionists reject as irrelevant:

  1. How did life originate?
  2. How did the DNA code originate?
  3. How could mutations create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? (about 3 gigabytes, by CMI’s estimate)
  4. Why is natural selection taught as “evolution,” when natural selection selects, but does not create?
  5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?
  6. Why do living things bear the hallmarks of design, if no one designed them?
  7. How did multi-cellular life originate?
  8. How did sexual reproduction originate?
  9. Why do the millions of “missing links” remain missing?
  10. How do “living fossils” remain unchanged while so many other life forms are supposed to have changed radically? (The classic examples: coelacanth, lemmulus)
  11. How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning and morality?
  12. Why do evolutionists tolerate the telling of “just-so” stories in their work?
  13. What scientific breakthroughs resulted from evolutionary theory?
  14. Why is evolution taught as operational science, when it does not involve true experiment?
  15. Why is evolution accepted and taught as science when in fact it cannot explain the evidence?

CMI urges people to involve their churches in the campaign. The reason, according to CMI’s Don Batten, is that biological evolution is an inherently atheistic doctrine, one that says explicitly that no “God” was necessary to the origin or development of life.

Editor-in-chief at | + posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

18 Responses to Creation advocates start campaign to ‘question evolution’

  1. John says:

    I think you’ve misunderstood and/or misrepresented the theory of evolution here, and as a result, most of these questions don’t really have much to do with the topic at hand.

    1. This has nothing to do with evolution, and is instead a question concerned with abiogenesis. The two theories are quite different. Evolution makes no claim to explain the origins of life, and attempts instead of explain the origin of species, which is to say, the method of speciation.
    2. Again, this question is not concerned with the theory of evolution.
    3. These mutations have been going on for billions of years, and considering all of the complex organs and the like that DNA is responsible for providing building instructions for, this number does not seem remarkable.
    4. Natural Selection is only a part of evolution, and is more complicated than “natural selection” as a phrase would entail. The rest of this question is a moot semantics point.
    5. Probably gradually, over time. That whole billions of years thing.
    6. Human beings are pattern recognition computers, for a lot of reasons. Right now, I can look out my window and see a cloud that I think looks vaguely like a duck. Now, I can conclude that it just happens to look vaguely like a duck, and my mind is filling in the details in the attempt to recognize a pattern. Or I could believe that someone or something is actively designing the clouds to look like ducks. Which seems more reasonable?
    7. Again, probably gradually, over time. Science isn’t totally sure about this one yet, but not having an answer now is not evidence for all science being wrong, it just means that science has more research to do.
    8. Probably as a slow modification to asexual reproduction, but then again, I’m not sure. Again, not having an answer is not evidence that evolution is wrong. Science is full of holes that get slowly filled as we learn more. That’s part of the beauty of science, there will always be something more to learn and discover.
    9. Because the fossil record isn’t perfect, due to the complex nature of fossilization. Fossilization happens rarely.
    10. The “living fossils” have changed some, but many are adapted to a specific living environment, and as long as that environment doesn’t have cataclysmic change, the living fossil will continue to survive and experience very few of the selection pressures that cause a species to evolve. Basically, if it isn’t broken, evolution will not attempt to fix it.
    11. Chemistry isn’t “blind”, it is controlled by a myriad of hard physical laws. Furthermore, we do not know what “mind/intelligence” is as we aren’t sure what consciousness is. Meaning and morality are human social constructs. People created those concepts.
    12. I’m not sure what you mean by “just-so” stories. Would Genesis be a “just-so” story?
    13. Breakthroughs from Evolution: the vast majority of our advances in biological science over the past 150 years. What we know of DNA, the genome, genetic modification, all a result of the theory of Evolution. The theory of evolution pays for its own scientific research because it continually finds new applications for itself. That’s one of the big reasons why evolution is science and intelligent design is not.
    14. Um, Lenski?
    15. I’m not sure how evolution does not explain the evidence, you’ll need to highlight specific examples, as the vast majority of the evidence is best explained through evolutionary theory (so far as I’m aware). Also, simply because science doesn’t know something today does not mean that all science is flawed, or that scientists won’t know the answer tomorrow.

    Evolution says nothing about God, but the theory does not at any point assert that God does not exist, or anything of the sort. There are theists who have no problem with the theory of evolutions. It is not an inherently “atheistic” position as atheism is defined by its lack of dogma, and doesn’t take any position other than, “There is no (evidence for) God”.

    I’m a Christian who believes in the theory of evolution, and I do not feel that my love of scientific endeavor is a threat to my faith. I feel that the opposite is true.

    Initially, the religious in Europe rejected the idea that the Earth is not the center of the universe because it went against established Church dogma at the time. Galileo was imprisoned for the suggestion that we did not live in a geocentric universe, despite the fact that he had hard evidence that this was the case. For many years, the idea that we did not live in a geocentric universe was considered heresy.

    Now, having actually sent things into space, we know that we do not live in a geocentric universe, despite biblical claims to the contrary. Personally, I know that evolution is fact, and this does not shake my belief in God, but I do worry about the future of religion when the religious keep picking losing battles with science. It is becoming akin to “The Boy who Cried Wolf”, and this sort of rhetoric and behavior is what is enabling atheism to grow.

  2. Jpop says:

    Why would I question these when, as a 10th grade student, I already can answer every one of them (seriously, feel free to challenge me on this)? It isn’t a coincidence that you people don’t understand evolution: you obviously haven’t had any education past middle school.

    • Mike Guest says:

      So answer them then!! I havn’t been able to get an honest answer to any of them;’ just the usual gobledegook about “It can be assumed…” “probably” etc.
      I am not one of your religious fanatics, but I would like honest answers…

  3. Seth says:

    If you would agree to post it to your website, I’d like to respond to these questions one by one, as well as provide my contact information in case readers have questions.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      So long as you maintain the same civil tone that you showed in your initial comment, you can always leave a comment right here. As you probably have figured out by now, you’re not the only one proposing answers to those questions. Depending on the quality of the responses, I might publish an article in reply to them.

  4. Joel E. Vannatta says:

    It would seem to me that while these are good questions to ask, one thing that must be addressed is one giant assumption: how life began in the first place. Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life, just the continuance of life. Evolutionists have no idea how life originated, and while they have various hypotheses, none have been validated through scientific experimentation. The fact is that the simplest single-celled bacterium contains more complexity than the world’s top scientists can replicate, yet they claim that it happened by chance, on accident no less.

    Many evolutionists do not realize how much of a leap of faith they are actually making.

    • John says:

      Science does not claim that life originated by chance by alone, nor is biology “random”. Biology is controlled by the laws of chemistry and physics, it is not a “random” process by any stretch of the imagination.

      Also, you might want to look up the Miller-Urey experiment.

      Given the vast body of evidence, and the 150+ years the theory has not been proved false, despite great efforts to do so, it is not some huge leap of faith to believe in the theory. Reliance on methodological naturalism is a much more reasonable position to take than holding up bronze and iron age dogma as the unalienable truth.

    • Mike Guest says:

      To the man in the street like myself, evolution and the origins of life are tied together as the theory that stands against creationism, so I think that it is acceptable to lump them together in one list. To me it is simple: either life was created by someone/something or else is “self generated” and evolved to what we have today. If the latter is correct then I would like to see some proof. To see those questions answered honestly.


  5. Mark says:

    Life is so amazing and hard to understand, so a wizard must have done it.

  6. Warriormonk says:

    1) Abiogenesis is NOT a theory; it is pure speculation, and has already been disproved twice already: once by Pasteur and again by Redi. However, Evolutionists still cling to it b/c it is the very foundation of their position. Evolutionists also like to hide behind the “Evolution makes no claim to explain the origins of life” shield b/c they know that their position would fall apart otherwise, so they have to pick a more hospitable starting point.
    2) See above.
    3) You didn’t answer the question.
    4) Again, you evaded the question.
    5) Yet again, you evaded real question. The question was not how long did it take, but how did the pathways originate.
    6) Regardless of how much an organism looks like it had been intelligently designed, evolutionists (without even sounding embarrassed) will insist that natural selection has the power to make it look like it was designed, even though it wasn’t. The Evolutionist literature is replete with phrases that imply design. For example, many scientists inform us that evolution uses a “strategy” in order to find a “solution” to some problem. They know in their hearts that life was no accident but they have to intentionally deny it.
    7) And again, you evaded real question, but you at least conceded the point. It’s interesting that you admit the lack of proof but you still believe it anyway. That’s called “faith”. Oh, and no one is saying that “all science is wrong”. In fact, science *when properly interpreted* supports the creation argument, which is why Creationists are all for science.
    8) See 7 above.
    9) This was Darwin’s position as well, but guess what? Darwin had some huge problems. He found that the lowest fossil-bearing rocks were filled with vast numbers of complex marine fossils that lacked any hint of their origin or transitional forms from one kind of creature to another. What is now called the “Cambrian Explosion” was wedged into Darwin’s thoughts on gaps. Such a sudden appearance of so many different groups of marine invertebrates, Darwin lamented, was “inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument” against his theory.
    10) Living fossils are an embarrassment to Evolutionists, so when one is discovered they backpedal and play the “this creature was already well adapted” card. Oh, and I found you choice of words interesting – “evolution will not attempt to fix it.” This is the fallacy of reification: attributing a concrete characteristic to something that is abstract, such as “natural selection guided”.
    11) You’re right about chemistry, but then you stopped short. True, there are physical laws that govern the universe, but where did those laws come from, and why do they continue to operate? It makes sense that God would create an orderly universe governed by laws that are maintained consistently, rather than chaos. The Bible teaches that God made the universe and the human mind, so we would expect these two things to “go together.” This is also what makes science possible by the way. If chemistry were truly random then we wouldn’t be able to do science at all since we would get random results every time we tried to run an experiment. That means that science can only be performed if Creation were true. In other words, you must assume that creation is true in order to attempt to logically argue against it. :-)

    Regarding morality, the idea of a moral code goes back to biblical creation. If people were just complex chemicals and our decisions were just chemical reactions, then people wouldn’t have any genuine choice in what they do. If we were not created by God, then any moral code invented by people would just be arbitrary opinion.
    12) Just-so stories are where scientists basically tell fairy tales as if they were fact. Put another way, they find a fossil or something and then construct an elaborate story around it based not on any evidence, but on assumption and presupposition. And no, Genesis is a historical account of events that actually happened, where God (who was there as eyewitness) inspired men to document details of those events. If you reject that, then you’re left with taking the word of men who were NOT there, yet who talk and act as if they were.
    13) FALSE. You are committing the fallacy of equivocation, aka “bait and switch”, by conflating “evolution” (change within a population) with Evolution (descent from a common ancestor). A true statement would be that many advances have been made in biology as a result of evolution research, but NONE have been made as a result of Evolution research, namely b/c Evolution has NEVER BEEN OBSERVED, is UNTESTABLE, and is HISTORICAL science as opposed to OPERATIONAL science.
    14) ??
    15) Evolution IS inherently atheistic and it does have its own dogma. The entire foundation is based on the non-existence of God. If you disagree then I dare you to even suggest to your professor (or whomever) that Evolution just might not be true and/or there just might be a God and see what happens.

    The Bible plainly teaches the earth is NOT flat: Isaiah 40:22, Job 26:10.

    Also, this “religion vs. science” talk represents the fallacy of bifurcation, meaning that it implies an either/or choice, when in reality there is a third option: you can be a Christian AND do science, as many have and do. Are you saying that people like Newton, Kepler, Pasteur, Faraday, were not “real” scientists. I certainly hope not.

    Lastly, I seriously question whether or not you are truly a Christian given these answers you gave. Either you’re lying, or you have no idea what you believe and why you believe it. I suggest you spend some time gaining a better understanding of the Creation (not “Creation-ism”) position. You can start by reading Romans 1:18-25 to see if that describes you.

  7. Warriormonk says:

    The fact that you brought up the Miller-Urey experiment tells me that you are woefully uninformed. This experiment actually supports Creation. The experiment did NOT succeed in creating the “building blocks of life” (left-handed amino acids), and how did Miller know what the atmosphere was like billions of years ago anyway? This was a tightly controlled experiment based on assumptions about the composition of the early atmosphere, namely that the early atmosphere had little or no free oxygen. However, the evidence supports the exact opposite. “There is no scientific proof that Earth ever had a non-oxygen atmosphere such as evolutionists require. Earth’s oldest rocks contain evidence of being formed in an oxygen atmosphere.” H. Clemmey and N. Badham, “Oxygen in the Atmosphere: An Evaluation of the Geological Evidence,” Geology 10 (1982): 141.

    This experiment has been thoroughly discredited, even by secular scientists, despite what the textbooks still say.

  8. John says:

    For starters, I would remind you that it is not in keeping with the teachings of Christ, nor in keeping with a good faith effort to keep a civil and productive tone to impugn another’s character and faith simply for disagreeing with you.

    I am not a biologist, nor do I claim to be. Where my answers are deficient, I would ask the thoughtful reader to look for more information elsewhere. The gaps in my knowledge are many, but this is not evidence in and of itself that evolution is wrong. However, in the interest of a healthy debate, I will attempt to answer all questions as best I can, and with a civil, friendly tone.

    The theory of evolution makes no claim as to the process of abiogenesis. It simply does not concern itself with such, and instead is concerned with speciation, that is to say, the origin of species. Abiogenesis is not required, nor relevant to the theory of evolution, as evolution already takes the existence of life as given. Attempts to change the meaning of the theory to claim that it has something to do with abiogenesis is ignorant at best, and often times, dishonest. Theories of abiogenesis are a different thing entirely than the theory of evolution. Abiogenesis has not been proven impossible, even in the experiments mentioned. Pasteur was concerned with the spontaneous generation of life, which while certainly similarly sounding to the concept of abiogenesis, is not the same thing. The theory of evolution also does not describe the creation of DNA, that theory would be called something different. When evolution was first proposed, people did not know that DNA existed yet, nor what it was made of, nor what it looked like, or how it functioned. DNA came after the theory of evolution. Claiming that the theory of evolution has to cover these things, or doesn’t cover them as a sort of shield, is similar to claiming that evolution must also explain how the Sun converts hydrogen into helium.

    Biology does make any claim that life is random or an accident. It is clearly guided by the laws of chemistry and physics, in addition to natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, adaptive pressures from the environment et alia. Life can certainly appear to be designed, but appearance of design and actual conscious design are two different things. In order to prove the latter, one must prove the existence of a designer. Such evidence is still forthcoming, and has been for thousands of years. Since evolution proposes a pathway for the adaptation of life into these seemingly-designed forms, it seems more reasonable (requiring fewer unproven assumptions) to give the process of evolution credit for these changes than any deity or supernatural method.

    The Cambrian explosion is not a nail in the coffin of evolution, and there are many, many explanations for the sudden appearance of new, complex life, from the appearance of an enriched oxygen environment, to more complex organs developing (such as the eye), thus allowing for predator/prey relationships to evolve much faster. If fossils mammals were ever found in rock from the Cambrian era, that would pretty much end the theory of evolution. This evidence has not arrived in the past 150 years.

    In some ways, yes, the existence of god certainly makes sense, especially as a first cause for the formation of the universe. This runs into the problem of the teleological fallacy, in that just because something makes sense does not mean that it happens to be true. There is a face validity to the idea that the sun orbits the Earth, after all, it certainly looks that way upon first observation. Further evidence however proves this doctrine to be bullshit, despite the face validity of it.

    Taken at face value, it makes sense that some sort of supernatural warden would be responsible for the establishment of all the laws of the universe, but there’s no evidence for this, which makes it an assumption. Assumptions are dangerous things, because an assumption can force the evidence to fit the theory as opposed to the theory being made to fit the evidence. Science does not assume the existence or nonexistence of any deity, from God, to Zeus, to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    If Genesis is a literal account of the creation of the universe, and God is the eyewitness to these events, God is made an unreliable narrator. Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 contradict each other in multiple, irreconcilable ways. Then come the problems of poor story logic. So if God knows all that will ever come to be, God knows that Adam and Eve will eat the fruit of forbidden knowledge, yet God places the tree right in front of them, and then still gets pissed at them for it. God warns them that if they eat the fruit of forbidden knowledge, they will surely die. Well, if nothing has ever died in the garden of Eden before that, Adam and Eve had no concept of death to begin with, which seems a little unfair since they couldn’t have comprehended their punishment to begin with. Lastly, the fruit of forbidden knowledge doesn’t given any useful knowledge, like geometry or chemistry, but instead teaches what is evil and how to be evil. Why God felt it necessary to make that extremely useless piece of information the “forbidden knowledge” he’s going to place in front of the people he knows will eat it, yet cannot comprehend the ramifications of eating it, is a big enough of a plot hole cast the whole “literal account” bit as nonsense. Genesis as a metaphor makes a whole lot more sense, and many biblical scholars agree.

    Doctor Richard Lenski’s 20 year E. Coli experiment involved getting E. Coli, a bacterium known for not being able to process citrate, to evolve and gain the ability to process citrate. He accomplished this task, thus proving evolution as observable, testable and repeatable science. I would make some similar claim that your lack of knowledge on this part makes you “woefully uninformed”, but like Christ, I try not to be a dick.

    To claim that evolution is right about change in a species population, but that the theory is wrong about descent from a common ancestor opens up all kinds of questions that must be then answered. If there is no common descent, why does all life as we know it have such a remarkable genetic overlap? Why are chimps and people so similar? How come people share an absurd amount of genetic information with a banana? Why does the fossil record seem to suggest common descent for so many organisms that exist today?

    I do not mean to imply that someone cannot be a theist and a scientist at the same time, only that the two deal with non-overlapping realms. Science does not make any claim about the existence or non-existence of any supernatural or paranormal event, God(s) included. Likewise, religion should not make claims on what is true or false about science, especially due to the dangers of religion being proven wrong. I should also point out that your claim that I cannot be a Christian and believe in the theory of evolution is tantamount to what you accuse me of in the paragraph before.

    Geocentrism has nothing to do with a flat earth. Given that a round earth was accepted as fact for most, if not all cultures at the time, it isn’t shocking or revolutionary that the bible expresses the same belief. The bible is notably silent on the fact of our heliocentric solar system however, and at a certain point seems to suggest that the value of pi is 3.

    As for why people believe what they believe, we do not find the truth to be pleasurable just for being the truth, and in fact, often times we believe what we believe is true because we find these ideas to be pleasurable to us. The truth is not ascribed qualities of being pleasurable, but pleasurable things are almost always ascribed qualities of truth. You are as guilty of this as I am.

    Lastly, I’ll just copy and paste part of the Wikipedia entry on Miller-Urey:

    “After Miller’s death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller’s original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth’s original atmosphere might have had a different composition than the gas used in the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.[8]”

    In Christ,

    • Warriormonk says:

      I believe my original post stands on its own quite well, notwithstanding the TalkOrigins talking points you keep throwing out, but I will address a few points you made.

      First, I was not impugning your character and faith simply for disagreeing with me. You claim to be a Christian, yet you imply that Genesis is a “just so” story. However, Jesus himself referenced Genesis as literal history in the NT, so what are we to conclude? God created everything in 6 literal days and then rested on the 7th. God even reaffirmed that in Exodus 20:11. If you reject this then you seriously need to examine what you believe and why you believe it. I believe the entire Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and certain books like Genesis were written as literal historical accounts — history books if you will. If you reject this by saying it’s a “metaphor”, then you are placing your own wisdom above God’s, and we know what He says about that (Romans 1:22). You’re right that “many biblical scholars agree” that Genesis is a metaphor, but that doesn’t mean they’re right. This is the fallacy of faulty appeal to authority. Just b/c someone says X is true doesn’t mean it is true. Truth is not decided by a vote. It is plain to everyone who has eyes to see that Genesis was written as a historical account, as opposed to other books like Psalms and Proverbs, where metaphors are used frequently. It doesn’t take an English major to see that.

      Second, I never engaged in name-calling or foul language with you, but you have done so with me, so again, what are we to conclude?

      Third, you mention Lenski’s E. Coli experiment. I was aware of the experiment but not the researcher’s name. Oh well. The point is that you’re right — he demonstrated that evolution (little ‘e’) is observable, but not Evolution (big ‘E’). After all, the bacteria were still bacteria; they didn’t turn into something completely different, nor was any genetic information added, so thanks for supporting my argument.

      Fourth, you should know better than to use the “prove God exists” argument. No true Christian would ever throw that out, so again, what are we to conclude? Belief in God and the Bible and absolute truth is my presupposition, or starting point, for how I view the world, interpret evidence, and so forth. The alternative is that there is no GOD, the Bible is just a bunch of fairy tales, and truth is relative. Both of these views are assumptions upon which people base their views on life, origins and so on, and could be called “faith. For example, I have faith that God exists, but an atheist has faith that he doesn’t, since the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. Your comments on this strongly suggest you’re an atheist, but that’s between you and God.

      Fifth, you go on about what the theory of evolution says and doesn’t say, but in reality, there is no common agreement on this. I debate people like you quite often and I do quite well b/c I know the games they play. My favorite is where they continually redefine the Theory by playing word games in order to avoid getting nailed to the wall. For example, they deny that Pasteur and Redi DESTROYED the abiogenesis idea, which they did; they deny that the discovery of DNA destroyed the descent from a common ancestor idea, and there are many others. In a sense it’s comical, but it’s also sad. I really think that Darwin, were he alive today and could see all of our advances in genetics and biology, would kick himself for being such an idiot.

      Lastly, regarding the Miller-Urey experiment you reference Wikipedia. Um, seriously? Wikipedia contributors are not exactly pro-Christian so of course you won’t find the dirty little secrets about that experiment. Do your research on this, especially on the “chirality” problem.

      • John says:


        There are many, many problems with a doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy. For starters, not all Christians agree on what books make up the Bible. Second, early church leaders, notably St. Augustine, did not adhere to a literal interpretation of scripture, making it pretty clear that literal belief in Genesis is not required for faith in the Christian God. The Bible itself is not internally consistent, even from the start. Genesis 1:1 contradicts Genesis 1:2. They cannot both be right (and most Biblical scholars agree that they were written by different people at different times). Bringing up the consensus of Biblical scholars is not a faulty appeal to authority when discussing the Bible any more than referencing the work of scientists is inappropriate when discussing science.

        Lenski proved big E evolution too (this is a distinction that no biologist makes, by the way). The e. coli genome gained new information in order to process citrate, and by developing the ability became a new species unto itself. You can continue to deny this, but scientists are going to keep proving the theory with more studies, and your denial of scientific fact will continue to seem more and more unreasonable.

        I’m not asking you to prove God exists. I know you can’t do that. I’m pointing out that science doesn’t try to prove God exists or not. God is irrelevant to science, but this doesn’t make science a doctrine of atheism. Your comments strongly suggest that you’re a fundamentalist.

        Abiogenesis has not been proven impossible, no matter how you’d like to misrepresent the data. Miller-Urey isn’t the only study in the field, and others have found similar results. Any problems will be understood with further study, this is how science works.

        Here’s why evolution has stood as a valid scientific theory for over a hundred years, despite many efforts to prove the theory wrong. First, we have the observed evolution of species, as in Lenski’s experiment. Second, we have biogeography, which is where the observations leading up to the proposal of the theory came in the first place. Darwin was not the only scientist to reach this conclusion from a study of biogeography, he just happened to be the biggest name associated with the theory, and the first guy to write a widely read book about it. Lastly, we have the hierarchical nature of taxonomy, which is occasionally summed up as the fossil record, although it is far deeper than that. One additional thing evolution has over intelligent design is that evolution can explain both biological features that appear to be designed and features that lack the appearance of design (like vestigial organs), intelligent design (creationism) cannot.

        Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, and explain away all of the evidence in support of the theory of evolution, your position will continue to be the untenable one.

      • I think we could all gain knowledge of something

    • Alking says:

      Why does this have to be the ONLY realible source? Oh well, gj!

  9. David says:

    1. Edward Blyth, English chemist/zoologist (and creationist), wrote his first of three major articles on natural selection in The Magazine of Natural History, 24 years before Darwin’s “Origin of Species” was published. Why then, do evolutionists think of natural selection as
    Darwin’s idea?

    2. On page one of Richard Dawkins’ 1986 book, “The Blind Watchmaker” he writes: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”.

    a) If living things look designed–if the empirical evidence suggests purpose–then how do evolutionists know they weren’t designed? b) What is the criteria for “apparent” design?

    3. How does evolution explain the Cambrian explosion of new life? Stephen Jay Gould noted that the Burgess Shale fossils turn the cone of increasing species diversity predicted by neo-Darwinian theory virtually upside down.
    Do you agree with Gould’s assessment: that the disparity of the phyla precedes the diversity of species? Isn’t this, in fact, backwards from Darwinian predictions?

    4. How does geology explain dinosaur bones with soft tissue, supposedly dated at “80 million years”? (Schweitzer et al, Science 324:626-631). Watch: 60 Minutes Presents: B-Rex (

    5. Most geologists believe diamonds formed deep below the earth’s surface, 1 to 3 billion years ago. How do these geologists explain the presence of carbon-14 in a number of diamond samples?

    6. All radiometric dating methods assume that a) no decay product was present initially or that initial quantities can be accurately estimated b) the decay system was closed through the years and c) the decay rate was constant over time. What conditions could invalidate these assumptions?

    7. Regarding vertical evolution (information-enhancing evolution), can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?

    If science is a search for truth, no scientific theory should be allowed to freeze into dogma, immune from critical examination and evaluation.

    For further reference:

    Teaching Evolution– Is There a Better Way?

    Teaching Origins in Public Schools

    Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution

  10. […] The campaign […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.