According to many significant scientists, the universe popped out of nothing with a neon sign proclaiming, “Well, here we are.” That is a little irreverent, but that is what many “experts” teach. Moreover, they are offended if you roll your eyes at that ludicrous assumption and are downright insulted if you roll on the floor, holding your sides in raucous laughter.

After all, scientists are supposed to be respected, even revered, never ridiculed.

Some of my readers, with an idealized view of science, will assume I am using ridicule and hyperbole to express my creationist views; however, that is not true. Major physicists believe nothing created everything, which is unreasonable, unbelievable, and unnatural, and it’s also unsane.

Atheist Stephen Hawking declared: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Hawking also claimed the universe “popped into existence without violating the known laws of Nature.”

Sure, Steve.

Many scientists are uncomfortable with nothing creating everything; consequently, that statement is often denied, but the facts are in: many prominent scientists believe the silly nothing-created-everything doctrine. Atheist Anthony Kenny confessed, “A proponent of [the Big Bang,] […] at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the matter of the universe came from nothing and by nothing.” Another scientist declared, “It seems impossible that you could get something from nothing, but the fact that once there was nothing and now there is a universe is evident proof that you can.”

That is not science but religion.

First, there was nothing, and it is admittedly impossible to “get something from nothing,”; but here we are, so it “is evident proof that you can!” That is the most shameful tautology ever. With such thinking, is it surprising that many scientists are analogous to snake-oil salesmen? The atheist philosopher Quinton Smith indicated that “the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing.” Of course, that is reasonable if you are a resident of a state institution for the demented, delusional, or disoriented.

Dr. Lawrence Krauss wrote a book supporting the nothing-to-everything theme, titling his book, A Universe from Nothing. The title means exactly what it says. The book’s afterward was written by atheist Richard Dawkins, who compares the book to Darwin’s Origin.

In The Ancestor’s Tale, Dawkins wrote, “The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.” Yes, Richard, that is so outrageous that I would not attempt to put it in words. Astute readers know that by his silly statement, he is not required to prove anything! It is a sophomoric ploy to give him a place to hide.

Atheism is off the charts in human folly. By contrast, the flat-earthers, Elvis spotters, Hitler-did-not-shoot-himself, and man-has-not-been-to-the-moon skeptics are the epitome of stability.

Some famous scientists are embarrassed when their peers specialize in such “scientific” gibberish. World renowned astronomer Robert Jastrow declared, “But the creation of matter out of nothing would violate a cherished concept in science–the principle of the conservation of matter and energy–which states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed.”

Prominent physicist George Davis seems to agree that every effect has a cause when he writes, “No material thing can create itself. This is the basic law of science, the Law of Causality; every effect has a cause.” Even the famous skeptic David Hume did not deny that law. He declared, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause.”

Scientists often claim that real scientists do not believe in Special Creation by a sovereign, personal God, but the kitty is out of the sack: many foremost scientists do believe that God is the answer, not “nothing.” Astronomer Robert Jastrow admitted, “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”

In case that is not clear enough for atheists to understand, Jastrow admits that “there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”

Scientist George Smoot, who led the team of scientists who first measured ripples in the cosmic background radiation, declares, “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.”

The physicist Gordon Van Wyden wrote in his book  Thermodynamics: “The author has found that the 2nd law tends to increase his conviction that there is a creator who has the answer for the future destiny of man and the universe.”

It is evident that “Bible thumpers” are not the only ones convinced that nothing cannot create anything. Such teaching is not scientific; it is silly. Bible thumpers have been vindicated! [In the interest of full disclosure, I have been called a “Bible thumper,” but really, I don’t thump my Bible very much and not really hard, and seldom in public. And when I do a little Bible-thumping, it is always the King James Version.]

God haters often ridicule Christians who declare that God created everything out of nothing, and they do so with scorn and sarcasm. When I demand to know their answer as to how everything got here (after all, we are here!), they get as uncomfortable as a dog in hot ashes, try to fake a scholarly look, then they squirm and with less authority in their voice tell me “Nothing created everything.”

That is shabby, shabby thinking. If you have nothing, it is evident that nothing can be produced. In my book, Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? and in one of my evolution/creation conferences, I began by saying, “When did time begin? Where did the universe come from? Who started it? Where did man come from? Why are we here? John 1:1 declares, ‘In the beginning was the Word.’ Evolutionists parody this by saying, ‘In the beginning was hydrogen.’ (As if that would solve anything. After all, where did the hydrogen come from?) Hydrogen is a colorless, tasteless, odorless gas when given billions of years, produces planets, plants, and people–even university professors.”

I further explain, “A sovereign God created everything out of nothing, but scientists believe that nothing created everything out of nothing! Or nothing became something, and something became everything! Nothing, working on nothing by nothing through nothing for nothing, created everything. Wouldn’t that require that the universe existed before it came into existence? I’m getting dizzy. Stop the world. I want to get off!”

Atheists get indignant when we reveal what they believe; then, they often deny it since no sane person will accept such nonsense. However, American physicist Paul Davies of Arizona State University wrote, “Even if we don’t have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific.” No, of course not! How dare we suggest that such scientists are unscientific if not unstable! Davies also wrote it is “possible to imagine the Universe coming into being from nothing entirely spontaneously.” I think Paul stared at the stars too long, exposing himself to the moonlight.

Physicist Robert A.J. Matthews of Ashton University in England wrote, “It is now becoming clear that everything can–and probably did–come from nothing.”

Wait a minute! Are those atheists trying to convince me that nothing can produce something? But they aren’t just declaring that nothing created something but that nothing created everything. Look, I’m not an Oxford scholar, but you will have to do better than that. I wasn’t born yesterday, and Momma didn’t rear a fool, and you will have to do more than pucker your lips, wipe your sweaty palms, and tout your scholarship to convince me that nothing can do, say, think, or produce anything.

Moreover, in light of the above, evolutionists tell us a sovereign God did not create everything because it is simply outrageous!

Let’s start over again. What is nothing? Atheists don’t know, but they know it brought everything into existence! Aristotle suggested that “nothing” is what rocks dream about!

Look, Bible haters can’t flimflam me because I’ve been around. I’ve been across the state line in two directions, been to three county fairs, one state fair, attended three tractor pulls, one demolition derby, and even been to the Grand Ole Opry, where I shook hands with Minnie Pearle. I’ve been around!

So, this is one good ole boy who can’t be seduced with snake-oil salesmanship. But, back to the origin of everything when nothing did its big job. Evolutionists expect us to believe that once upon a time (as all fairytales begin), there was nothing; well, there was something. There was space, and we are to give them that graciously; I won’t. How and when did space arrive?

There was nothing, then what happened? “Well,” says the atheist, “after a few billion years, a cosmic egg about the size of the head of a pin started floating through space.” “Wait a minute, tell me about the cosmic egg. Where did it come from? He doesn’t know. Well, could it have been laid by a cosmic chicken? Well, tell me what was in that cosmic egg!” The evolutionist/atheist, with a straight face, says, “Well, everything you see around you and everything in the universe was in the head of that pin.” “Say what! Everything in the whole universe was in that pinhead? There you go trying to flimflam me again, but I can’t be flimmed or flammed.”

The scientist assures me that everything (created by nothing) was encapsulated in that pinhead–Then it exploded. I asked, “And what caused the explosion?” The atheist continues his myth by saying, “I don’t know, but it exploded, and everything went everywhere and continued to expand into this massive universe.” About this time, I’m getting a little scared and looking for the men in white coats carrying nets. It is incredible that scientists could be so misinformed, miseducated, and mistaken to believe such nonsense and be willing to declare it in books, lectures, on television, etc. Then, accepting money and perks for propagating such nonsense to others indeed displays a massive absence of character. Those scientists should be out selling insurance or driving trucks, and I don’t mean to insult truck drivers and insurance salesmen.

Atheists want us to believe that the egg exploded, producing a well-ordered universe that runs like an expensive watch! However, no honest scientist suggests that an explosion will produce anything but disorder. Yet, all planets (except Venus and Uranus) go around the Sun counterclockwise, but the Sun spins clockwise! How could an explosion produce such a contradiction? And in our solar system, everything is the necessary distance from each other to make life on Earth possible. That’s called the “anthropic principle,” whereby creation seems to have been tweaked (by whom?) to make life possible for mankind.

The above is reinforced by former Cambridge astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle who argued, “A common-sense interpretation of the data suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics” to make life possible.

Nevertheless, angry atheists tell us that it is improbable, even impossible, that a self-existent, sovereign God created the universe, but it is very reasonable to believe that everything came into existence without a cause! That is pure religion, even fanatical religion, and it might constitute child abuse if taught to children.

Look, maybe we are overdoing the origination of the universe, but after all, we are here. Perhaps we should be more concerned about why we are here and where we are going than how we got here. But the fact is an obvious truth that something can do something, but nothing can do nothing.

(Dr. Don Boys is a former Indiana House of Representatives member who ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. Boys authored 20 books, the most recent, Reflections of a Lifetime Fundamentalist: No Reserves, No Retreats, No Regrets! The eBook is available at Amazon.com for $4.99. Other titles at www.cstnews.com. Follow him on Facebook at Don  Boys, Ph.D., and visit his blog. Send a request to DBoysphd@aol.com for a free subscription to his articles and click here to support  his work with a donation.)

“You have not lived today until you have done something for someone who can never repay you.” John Bunyan, Baptist Preacher

With apologies to Kierkegaard, there are two ways to be deceived. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. I prefer always to assume the Bible is right, while atheists always assume the scientists are right. Both positions are based on faith. Evolutionists have done a good job convincing people the theory of evolution has scientific merit; however, it is a wrong assumption and not a winning argument.

Evolution is like a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black cat—that isn’t there.

The Bible says that God is responsible for everything we see and don’t see, but evolutionists tell us He is not responsible for creation because He does not exist. If that’s true, how did this incredible universe originate?

Some scientists are willing to admit that they honestly don’t know. Scientist L. John concluded, “…the sad truth is that we do not know how the galaxies came into being.”

There are four theories of the universe’s origins: (1) It created itself, but then that is contrary to the first law of thermodynamics (that says no new energy and matter are being created), so a well-established scientific law disqualifies that possibility. (2) The universe has always been here, but that is contrary to the second law of thermodynamics that says everything is running down, and if the universe had always been here, it would have totally unwound and disintegrated. (3) The old Greek notion that the universe is not here. Everything is an illusion! That is contrary to the law of common sense, a law not understood by most evolutionists! (4) God did it!

Each person has a choice, and frankly, the ancient Greeks’ mental meanderings make almost as much sense as modern-day evolutionists!

Evolution could not exist without guesses based on inference and extrapolation, but they hold to the first position that the universe created itself. Many refuse to use those words since they make one look stupid, if not silly, and for sure not scientific. Some scientists have plainly declared that nothing created everything! Thinking people with common sense realize that absurdity; knowing nothing cannot do or create anything.

Such teaching is desperation, and they call it the Big Bang Theory (BBT), but it really wasn’t a bang, nor was it big! It also doesn’t rise to the level of a theory but only a hypothesis, guess, or assumption.  Of course, the really Big Bang is God spoke, and Bang, it happened!

Space has proved in recent years to be dark, deep, and disturbing to scientists as they observe detailed space photos that scream, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.”

The Hubble space telescope, launched on April 24, 1990, caused concern making some scientists “jump ship.” That new information from the Hubble pegged the age of the universe at 8 to 12 billion years while the “dense groupings of stars in a galaxy…are thought to be 16 billion years old.” That would make the universe a few billion years younger than some of its stars! Well, we know that isn’t true, don’t we? That’s like you being older than your parents!

The incredible new photos from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) are causing heartburn and loss of sleep for many big bangers in recent weeks. The photos from the JWST have generated the opposite of what the BBT should have produced. The new photos show galaxies that are too small, too old, too smooth, and less chaotic for their accepted (and assumed) age of 13.8 billion years.

Astronomer Alison Patrick said, “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.” Since the stars being discovered are thought to be older than the Big Bang, maybe the BBT should be renamed the Big Bust Theory or the Big Fizzle.

Some Big Bang theorists were shocked, and some were panicked by the photos from JWST. They appear to cast doubt on their myth. Based on the published literature right now, “the Big Bang makes 16 wrong predictions and only one right one.”

Not a very good track record.

This problem was admitted by Ken Croswell in a New Scientist article where he says such a young age “…suggests contradictions that would destroy the big bang theory.” Breaks my heart.

English astronomer Fred Hoyle coined “big bang” during a 1949 BBC broadcast, although he did not believe it. He taught the steady state theory of origins that teaches the universe has always existed. That’s almost as silly as the BBT, but it does not require a Creator, satisfying most scientists.

Unbelieving scientists pretend that God does not exist (they might as well pretend the sun doesn’t shine), so they have decided that creation could not have taken place and Genesis is not a scientific or historic source. All right, then how did the universe get here? It is here! Trying to deal with that reality, they desperately posited the Big Bang Theory; but I believe the BBT takes more faith than creation! (The Bible does teach a Big Bang in that this world will end with a Big Bang!)

According to a high school textbook, “…a fireball exploded 15 to 20 billion years ago. Then matter and energy spread outward in all directions, cooling as it expanded. After about 500,000 years, hydrogen gas formed. The gas collected into clouds which formed galaxies during the next half billion years. Now all that remains are galaxies and radiation.

“Within the galaxies, stars form and die and new ones form….Probably the most widely accepted theory for the origin of the solar system is the dust cloud theory. According to this idea, a dust cloud began to rotate….When the mass had swept up most of the material in an eddy, a planet was formed.” Proof? None!

Note that nowhere does the textbook tell the students where time, energy, space, and matter originated. Genesis 1 tells us when all four began. The Bible says, “In the beginning (time) God created (energy) the heaven (space) and the earth (matter).”

We are told a fireball came out of nowhere and exploded, but the students were not told what caused the explosion. Explosions don’t just happen. Where did the hydrogen gas come from? That book should be listed as “mythology,” not science.

I would also like to know the origin of the scientific laws under which the universe operates. You know, like gravity, inertia, laws of planetary motion, etc. Who had the power to originate such laws? Also, did they precede or follow the Big Bang?

While many people assume the BBT is an accepted fact, some experts are not convinced the theory is valid. J. Trefi says that one problem with the Big Bang is “how the galaxies could have formed in the time allotted for this process.” Leslie, author and scientist, agrees by saying it “is hard to see how galaxies could have formed in a universe which is flying apart so fast.”

How did order come out of an explosion? Does that happen if a large firecracker goes off inside a television set? Why and how could it happen in the universe? Leading British astronomer Paul Davies wrote, “The greatest puzzle is where all the order in the universe came from originally.” Order does not come from an explosion.

Davies wrote in a New Scientist article, “Everywhere we look in the universe, from the far flung galaxies to the deepest recesses of the atom, we encounter order….” Nobel Prize winner Max Planck agrees: “There is evidence of an intelligent order of the universe.” Einstein seemed to concur, suggesting that the “high degree of order” was somewhat of a “miracle.”

Famous astronomer Alan Sandage confessed, “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”

One does not have to be a scientist to understand that obvious problem.

If the universe is the result of an explosion, how does it run like a Swiss clock? This was a comparison made by astronomer Johannes Kepler whose laws describe planetary orbits. Why, if the planets resulted from a big bang, do Venus and Uranus revolve backward, and why do at least six moons (out of 60 in our solar system) rotate around their planets opposite to the other moons? How could the same explosive thrust produce objects revolving in different directions?

It is no surprise the Big Bang has started to fizzle!

Astronomer Hoyle says that a “sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory.” The Big Bang has fallen with a big bang! Eminent scientists who reject the BBT include Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfven, astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer Jayant Narlikar, astronomer N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, astronomer Geoffrey Burbidge, physicist Allen Allen, physicist Hermann Bondi, physicist Robert Oldershaw, and physicist G. de Vaucouleurs.

American physicist Eric J. Lerner penned, The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe. That sums it up succinctly.

It is mind-boggling to think how rejecting the BBT would impact academia. Professors, scientists, and writers would have to repudiate a lifetime of work, remove their books from bookstores, refuse future royalties, and, if they possess any character, refund their salary for teaching lies to gullible students.

Alas, they would also lose tenure.

Probably the biggest problem the Big Bangers have was voiced by A. Krauskopt and A. Beiser: “A number of scientists are unhappy with the big bang theory….For one thing, it leaves unanswered the questions that always arise when a precise date is given for the creation of the universe: Where did the matter come from in the first place?” (Emphasis added.) That is the question that evolutionists simply can’t answer unless they are willing to whimper, “God.”

On Pat Buchanan’s national talk show, I debated Eugenie Scott, scientist/atheist/evolutionist  and president of the National Center for Science Education and major creationist critic. Reluctantly, she admitted that maybe God started it all! I had debated her earlier, and she was not willing to make that concession.

There are various theories as to the beginning of all things, but they can be distilled into two theories: God created everything according to the Bible record, or He did not. Under the column “He did not,” you can place the day-age theory, gap theory, theistic evolution, the Big Bang Theory, steady state theory, etc. Either He did, or He did not act according to the Scripture.

For those who believe that the Bible is the Word of God and that it means what it says, there is not an iota of doubt: God created the universe and everything therein in six 24-hour days! God very clearly tells us in John 1:1-3, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.” That passage is very clear, isn’t it? All things means all things.

Now, either believe God or not, but don’t play around with the facts. Maybe unbelieving scientists should look again at the Book that says, “Let there be light.”  It was not an explosion or expansion but an exclamation: Let there be light.

In Acts 17:24, Luke tells us again that, “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands.” That is an affirmative statement that leaves no room for doubt. “God that made the world….” Did He or did He not?

If not, the Bible is untrue, unreliable, and unnecessary, and if the Bible is true, evolutionists are untrue, unreliable, and unnecessary. And should be unemployed.

(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives who ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. Boys authored 20 books, the most recent, Reflections of a Lifetime Fundamentalist: No Reserves, No Retreats, No Regrets! The eBook is available at Amazon.com for $4.99. Other titles at www.cstnews.com. Follow him on Facebook at Don  Boys, Ph.D., and visit his blog. Send a request to DBoysphd@aol.com for a free subscription to his articles and click here to support  his work with a donation.)

“You have not lived today until you have done something for someone who can never repay you.”  John Bunyan, Baptist Preacher

The evolutionary positions evaluated in this article are for real although they are so ridiculous, I will be accused of exaggerating to make a point. But, I don’t have to exaggerate. The truth from the pens of evolutionists will finish them off for all studious, sophisticated, and sincere readers.

Before evolutionists can speak about Darwin’s mutations, the fossil record, or natural selection (which Darwin finally rejected), they have to get everything spinning; therein is their first big problem. The more evolutionists teach about origins, the deeper they slide into a really black hole. The evolutionists’ answer to getting everything started is a Big Bang. Well, it really wasn’t a bang nor was it big! (Of course, the real Big Bang is when God spoke and bang, it happened!)

Evolutionists expect us to believe that once upon a time (as all fairytales begin) there was nothing, well yes there was something. There was space and matter (and Creationists are expected to give them that), and all the matter in the universe was compressed into a sphere the size of a needle point! The small ball or sphere is called the “cosmic egg,” and I hope I’m not too pushy by insisting on knowing where the egg came from. Maybe the cosmic egg was laid by a cosmic chicken! And with time, the egg exploded producing the orderly system of stars, planets, comets!

It seems evolutionists feel no obligation to tell us where time, energy, space, and matter came from; however, God does inform us. Genesis 1:1 reveals, “In the beginning (time) God created (energy) the heaven (space) and the earth (matter).” There you have time, space, matter, and energy. The evolutionists say that special creation is too incredible so they came up with their own origin story—that is more unbelievable than God’s account.

We are told that a cosmic egg came out of nowhere and exploded. We are not told what caused the explosion, yet explosions don’t just happen. Moreover, an explosion (whatever size) never, under any circumstances, produces order for which the Universe is well known. The colossal Universe, allegedly caused by a massive explosion, runs like a Swiss clock. I demand an explanation if I am expected to consider their story.

I would also like to know the origin of the scientific laws under which the universe operates such as gravity, inertia, centrifugal force, planetary motion, first and second laws of thermodynamics, etc. I have read more than 40 evolutionary texts and not one even brings up the subject. Where did the scientific laws come from; how did they start; and who caused them? Also, did the scientific laws precede or follow the Big Bang?

Obviously, the Big Bang is in big trouble. It has started to fizzle and has become the Big Bust. World famous astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who coined the term on a BBC broadcast said, a “sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory.” Other scientists are running from the Big Bang as if their hair is on fire.

Highly mis-educated people want us to believe that nothing created something that became everything; we are expected to believe nothing plus nothing equals something. However, zero times zero does not equal anything and for sure not everything. Nothing can do nothing and wishing doesn’t help.

Evolutionists must deal with the origin of the Universe before they can sit down beside Darwin’s warm, little pond and watch life develop—from nothing. Yes, I know, Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation more than a hundred years ago, but somehow, someway life must get started and the only possibility available was rocks that eroded into dirt. So, flowers and all plants then small living creatures came from rock and millions of years later the rocks evolved into rock stars.

But to be gracious, after having a good laugh at nothing creating everything, let’s agree for argument’s sake, to Evolutionists’ position on the origin of the Universe and earth. All right, we are here whether by natural selection or mutations or however, so let’s deal with dinosaurs giving birth to birds! This frantic, false, and fanciful theory was devised because there is a total absence of transitional fossils. This is the “hopeful monster” theory first espoused by paleontologist O. H. Schindewolf and geneticist Richard Goldschmidt in the 1930s and 1940s. This silly theory was resuscitated and nursed back to life by Niles Eldridge and Stephen J. Gould because they were convinced (rightly) that no transitional fossils existed.

Please note that these two major evolutionists admitted what all paleontologists know, that there are no missing links, necessitating this silly “hopeful monster” theory.

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Natural History Museum proved that assertion when he wrote, “[Stephen] Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say that there are no transitional fossils….I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” That’s from a leading evolutionist! Niles Eldredge, world famous evolutionist and coworker with Gould, confessed in the Guardian, “The search for missing links is probably fruitless…no one has yet found any evidence of transitional forms.” However, if molecules-to-monkeys-to-man evolution had happened, there would be billions of in-between fossils all over the earth. But there’s not one.

Realizing his evolutionary world was collapsing around him, Gould grabbed onto the “hopeful monster” theory but gave it more respectability by calling it punctuated equilibrium. Because there are no transitional fossils, Gould said that evolution happened in spurts or jerks such as a dinosaur giving birth to a bird then long ages of no change. Then another spurt or jerk with another major birth of an advanced creature. But it is all silly speculation. Some call this “evolution by jerks.”

This inane theory is being taught to our children in public school classrooms and in The Wonderful Egg (Ipcar, 1958). The book was recommended by the American Council on Education and the Association for Childhood Education International. It is also endorsed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science The book tells of a mother dinosaur laying a wonderful egg that hatched into a baby bird—“the first baby bird in the whole world!” The book asks, “Did a mother dinosaur lay that egg to hatch into a baby dinosaur?” The book answers “no” to various kinds of dinosaurs. Then comes the climax: “It was a wonderful new kind of egg.” And what did the dinosaur egg hatch into? “It hatched into a baby bird, the first bird in the whole world. And the baby bird grew up…with feathers…the first beautiful bird that ever sang a song high in the tree tops…of long, long, ago.”

That is not education; it’s called, brainwashing. Moreover, it is academic child abuse to convince children that a dinosaur could hatch a bird. What nonsense. The book should be listed under science fiction, not children’s books.

It becomes even more absurd when you realize that even if the above happened contrary to elementary science then it would have to happen again—a bird of the opposite sex. And it would have to happen in a timely manner and in the same location! And the second bird would have to be fertile; it would also have to be able to breed with the first and only other bird on earth.

Not only is evolution absurd, asinine, and amusing, it’s also wrong, and I challenge evolutionists to speak to the issues; however, my past experience is they will not deal with their unscientific teachings. They find it easier to attack me.

Evolutionists are like a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black cat—that isn’t there.

Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives, who ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis and wrote columns for USA Today for eight years. Boys’ book, Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! is available here. Follow Dr. Boys on Facebook at Don Boys, Ph.D. and TheGodHaters, Twitter, and visit his blog.

The stunning, world-class exhibits provide detailed explanations of how Noah and his family survived the global flood that destroyed the rest of the world. Moreover, there are explanations of how Noah could have handled the problem of feeding all the animals, removing animal waste, procuring water, and other daily chores that were required. Obviously, Noah and family did not sit around and sing religious songs day and night.

The human figures representing Noah and his family are more professional than anything I have seen in other museums. It seemed most visitors made comments to that effect.

It has a petting zoo and the Ararat Ridge Zoo that has exotic animals from all over the world—yaks, kangaroos, emus, and ostriches.

Critics tell us that such a massive job could not have been done during the early days of civilization because of the lack of tools, but they can’t know that for sure. No doubt, Noah hired local workers since it was a huge job. The ark was a “floater,” not one that sailed. It was about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and had three decks with a window around the top, and one door. That window provided the necessary oxygen and light for its inhabitants which is one of the trivial criticisms by modern critics of creationism.

The ark was equivalent to 522 standard stock cars as used by railroads! “Well, all right, so it was a big boat; but it wasn’t big enough to hold every variety of animals in the world, about 50 million species,” says an honest critic. Well, no one says it did! What Noah did was take two of every species of land-dwelling, air-breathing creatures. He did not take every variety of dog, cat, etc.; but two cats, two horses, two dogs, etc., in the boat. Only one of the 200 plus varieties of dogs went along! That does make more room, doesn’t it?

On major talk shows, I have had evolutionists snicker about the ark and world Flood saying, “Wait a minute, are you telling me that more than 200 varieties of dogs came from one pair of dogs?” My reply is, “Yes, that is what I’m saying.” They continue to snicker and then I reply, “After all, you expect sane people to believe that everything on earth came from rocks and dirt!” My position is far more sensible, scientific, and scriptural than theirs!

Furthermore, Noah took with him very young animals; after all, there was no reason to take full grown elephants, bears, or apes. The smaller animals would be easier to handle, would take less space, would require less food and water, etc. The average size of animal in the ark was smaller than a sheep, so there was plenty of room in the ark with room to spare for living quarters, storage, etc. The size of the ark is not a legitimate criticism, but Flood critics continue to use it. It is interesting to note that in A.D. 1858, the largest vessel of her type in the world was the P & O liner Himalaya, which was 240 feet by 35 feet. The ark was much larger and had the proper proportions for seaworthy vessels. How did Noah know that thousands of years before shipbuilders developed the art of shipbuilding?

Flood critics have objected to the Genesis story of the ark and Flood because it is a perfect framework for what appears in the geological record. The world Flood is a much more reasonable explanation for the present condition of the earth than the fairytale of evolution, so the critics must protect their untenable positions by seeking to discredit the ark and the universal Flood. A world flood account, where only a few people survived usually after obedience to some “god,” is found in more than 200 different cultures. Of course, those stories were corrupted versions of the original Flood.

I have been told on talk shows that Noah could never have chased down all the animals and herded them into the ark, and they ridicule Noah chasing down vicious animals to capture them and to determine whether they were male or female. But of course, the Bible does not say that he did. Only uninformed Bible critics make that accusation. Genesis 7:9 records, “There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.”

Genesis 6:20 promised, “two of every sort shall come unto thee.” So, the silly idea that Noah spent years searching for all the animals to place in the Ark is not supported by Scripture. Why is it so unusual for the animals to make their way to the ark at the proper time? After all, the salmon swim upstream to spawn even if they have never been there; birds fly south for the winter and back again in the spring; and there are numerous other incredible automatic responses from God’s creatures, which cannot be explained by the experts!

We are told that the Flood was not universal, that it was only a local flood along the Tigris River, because unbelieving scientists must never permit anything supernatural since then they would have to give an account to a personal God whom they have rejected, resisted, and refused for a lifetime. However, you don’t have to be too bright to realize that if it were only a local flood, there would be no need to build an ark! People could have simply climbed the nearest hill until the waters receded! Furthermore, it was God’s purpose to destroy a degenerate race, and His purpose could not have been realized by a local flood that carried off only a few thousand people. The local flood theory doesn’t hold water just as evolutionary mythology does not hold water.

World geology clearly supports a global flood. What happens when a fish or sea creature dies today? We have all seen the results: the body floats on the surface of the water or sinks to the bottom where it is devoured quickly by other fish. But the fossil fish are often found very well preserved in sedimentary rocks. Over large areas of the world, billions of specimens are found in a state of agony, but with no mark of a scavenger’s attack. Fossils of dinosaurs and other creatures have been unearthed in positions that suggest violent and sudden death. In fact, many entire skeletons of duckbilled dinosaurs have been excavated in a swimming position with the head thrown back as if in death throes. Evolutionists have had to scramble madly to explain why so many land animals died violently and suddenly in water, but the answer is simple: They were buried quickly in sediment of the waters during the universal Flood.

Remember that all creationists recognize the billions of fossils that have been uncovered; however, fossils do not come stamped with their birthday! Three questions arise: How old are the fossils? How did they die? Were they covered quickly or slowly? There are remnants of a worldwide Flood all over the Earth. Marine crustaceans have been found in the Alps, twelve thousand feet above sea level; hippopotami have been unearthed in England; and about twenty mammoths were dug up near the Neckar River in Germany. Hordes of dinosaurs, mixed with other creatures have been found buried together, all dying the same way. Evolutionists cannot explain that very unusual phenomenon.

Huge fossil beds have been discovered where billions of creatures’ remains were buried together. One such place is the Karoo Formation of South Africa that contains 800 billion vertebrates such as reptiles. And many of those creatures, when alive, did not share the same environment, yet they were buried together! Evidently, they had one thing in common: escape the Flood.

The world was covered with water; earthquakes rumbled from pole to pole; seaquakes disturbed the oceans and seas; violent storms whipped across the face of the globe and massive waves churned up violent whirlpools as lightning streaked across the heavens. (Noah and his family were safe inside the ark, built according to God’s plan.) During the year of flood, the churning water laid down sediment over three-fourths of the Earth. Only one-fourth of the world’s rock is volcanic rock. Proof that the Flood covered our highest mountains is seen in the sedimentary rock that covers those mountains. Sea fossils are found on all the mountains of the world! Furthermore, geologists have found a field of pillow lava on Mt. Ararat at the 14,000-15,000 foot level. Pillow lava is formed only under water! Any evolutionist can call me collect when he has a convincing non-flood explanation.

Evolutionists tell us that the sedimentary stratum were not laid in a short period of time, but over long ages lasting billions of years! However, geological evidence suggests otherwise. It is obvious to the unbiased person that massive amounts of vegetation were carried by swirling waters and dumped in various locations. Then, layers of dirt and mud washed over those lower layers of vegetation and were deposited followed later by another layer of vegetation. All this took place in a very short period of time.

The vegetation was pressed by the various layers of dirt and more vegetation, producing the coal seams in the eastern part of America and other parts of the Earth. Evolutionists deny the Flood (since it supports the Bible, and the Bible reveals God), but they can’t refute the evidence of the Flood.

Creationists and evolutionists don’t disagree on geology, but on the interpretation of geology. The critics of Flood Geology have a massive problem with the fossils found in the rock and coal strata. Often, upright trees are found through different seams of coal (that took millions of years to form according to evolutionists). A good example of this is found in the Craigllieth Quarry in England where an eighty foot tree was discovered that intersected up to twelve different stratum of limestone! How could a tree live millions of years so that the stratum could be very slowly laid around it? Why didn’t it rot as trees do today? Evolutionists are strangely silent.

The Flood in Noah’s day answers the major problems as to the geological condition of the Earth, but unbelieving scientists’ knees begin to jerk incessantly when an ark and a universal Flood are discussed. They would say the ark and universal Flood are too preposterous to be accepted as fact even by the ignorant folk of Noah’s day.

But, of course, the “ignorant folk” in Noah’s day missed the boat—just as the evolutionists today!

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

Evolutionists have had their knickers in a knot since Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, announced his intention to build a state-of-the-art, 27-million-dollar creation museum in Northern Kentucky near the Cincinnati Airport. It was opened in May of 2007 as knees began jerking in every secular university in America—left ones of course. Those evolutionists (believers in freedom, fairness, equality, and civility) did their best to kill the very ambitious project.

The necessary funds were given by generous Christians and no tax dollars were used to keep their doors open. That can’t be said about thousands of other museums across the nation. The typical U.S. museum derives “just over 24 percent of its operating revenue” from local, state, and federal sources. Most of them are non-profit so they don’t pay any property taxes nor do they pay any taxes on their revenue.

The Creation Museum did get some concessions from the county as a quid pro quo for bringing millions of tourists to the area.

God haters, evolutionists, and general commentators tried to excel each other in their negative comments about the creation museum. One called it “Ken Ham’s fabulous fake museum,” while another dubbed it the “Fred and Wilma Flintstone Museum.” Of course, Eugenie Scott, head of the National Center for Science Education, had to add her two cents calling it the “Creationist Disneyland.” Eugenie is an avowed atheist whom I debated on the “Pat Buchanan Show” while promoting my book, Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? During that show, Pat and I applied enormous pressure and she reluctantly admitted the slight possibility of a supernatural Being. She may deny her confession but I have it on tape. I hope that revelation doesn’t cause her to lose membership in the American Association of Atheists.

Others were positive in their assessment. Jonathan Gitlin said the museum’s displays were “on a par with the better modern museums I’ve been to.” He added that the museum was “designed for a fundamentalist Christian crowd” and was “no friend to those who do not hold to its creationist tenets,” also containing “what can only be described as a house of horrors about the dangers of abortion and drugs and the devil’s music.”

Ham and his crowd were not fearful that the truth might offend someone. After all, if children are taught that they are only advanced animals then why not act like animals? But some will argue that that is indoctrination but then does anyone suggest that evolution is not indoctrination?

Another critic called the museum “an impressive and sophisticated visual argument on behalf of young Earth creationism and a highly politicized fundamentalism.” Hemant Mehta said that the “layout at the Creation Museum really is beautiful. However, the quality of information is worthless, which makes the ‘museum’ nothing more than an expensive way to confuse and indoctrinate children.” Mehta is a flaming atheist and hater of the Creation Museum.

Whatever the critics may think of the museum, the taxpayers in Northern Kentucky seem to be pleased. In 2015, the Creation Museum and AiG were recognized on the Cincinnati Enquirer’s list of top 100 workplaces in the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky region. The assessment was made based on a confidential survey of employees conducted by an independent research firm.

We visited the museum recently and were delighted at the accuracy of the content and the class with which it was done. That may be the reason for the left’s antagonism, anger, and attacks: evolutionists would not be so belligerent if the museum were done in a shoddy way with mediocre displays, misspelled words, and gaudiness. The critics simply can’t abide Fundamentalists or Evangelicals with class.

Ham and his crew tell the story of life starting with the Seven C’s of History: creation, corruption, catastrophe, confusion, Christ, cross, and consummation. The accompanying displays support that story based on true science and the Bible.

I have not seen any critic attempt to disprove the museum’s message since they cannot do so. They do attack the museum with arrogance, anger, and absurdity since they don’t have the answer to evolution’s major problems.

In various debates, I have asked evolutionists some questions and have not had any answers. Wonder why. It is rather simple. There are some hurdles that evolutionists can’t jump and when they occasionally try, they trip over them. In fact, they usually don’t even try. My simple questions:

• Tell us that you do or do not believe the unsupportable, unscientific, and unlikely—even outrageous teaching that nothing created everything. I promise not to laugh out loud–maybe only a snicker or two. And don’t try to flimflam common people with scientific jargon, but make your points in clear English. Do you really believe that nothing created something and something created everything?

• Tell us how all the natural functions such as gravity, inertia, the First and Second Laws, laws of planetary motion, etc., began. How does a natural function evolve? If they did not evolve, where did they come from?

• Did the formation of those natural functions (now identified as scientific laws) precede or follow the Big Bang? What was the facilitator?

• Can you provide any example of an explosion resulting in order?

• Tell us how life first formed on a planet made up entirely of rock. All atheists want to sit down beside Darwin’s warm, little pond and watch the first forms of life but I demand we go back much further than that.

• Do you, or do you not, believe in spontaneous generation? No honest, informed scientist will agree to that irrational fable!

• Where are the ancestors of insects?

• Explain the Cambrian Explosion: why do all the fossils in the lower level of the Geologic Column appear in their final form with no fossils indicating a transition from lower to higher creatures?

• Why are meteorites not found in ancient rocks? Could it be because the universe is not that old?

• Tell us how men and women evolved at the same time in history at the same location? What if “early man” had been all male?

• Which evolved first, the mouth, the stomach, the digestive system, or the elimination system? What good is a mouth if there is no stomach or a digestive system and what good are the three without an elimination system?

It would be interesting to have an evolutionary “expert” (anyone with a briefcase, a goatee, a cheap suit, and tenure) to provide answers to the above.

But I won’t hold my breath.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

Edward Simon, a Jewish biology professor at Purdue University, wrote, “I don’t claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution brought on the holocaust; but I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible.”

Because I want to be balanced, honest, and factual, I am forced to include here that the ravings against the Jews of one of the world’s greatest, most principled men, Martin Luther also added fuel to the fire. All great men do a few stupid things in their lives because they are flawed creatures.

I wonder what the current “moral climate” is doing to students in public schools as they are taught they came from animals and are without any purpose in life? Could the incredible number and depth of our social problems be the result of Darwinism? I am convinced this is so, for if one believes that life has no purpose, and man came from beasts, then dignity, fairness, kindness, honesty, faithfulness, honor, and justice have no relevance and importance.

A well-known evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith assessed Darwin’s impact on Hitler and Germany: “We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy….The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were (sic) organized slaughter which has drenched Europe in blood.” Keith asserted, “Hitler (was) an uncompromising evolutionist, and we must seek for an evolutionary explanation if we are to understand his action.”

In Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, Alan Bullock wrote: “The basis of Hitler’s political beliefs was a crude Darwinism.” Adolph was aghast at Christianity’s rejection of Darwin’s theory. Hitler declared that “Its [Christianity] teaching was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest.”

Hannah Arendt wrote in her 1951 classic, The Origins of Totalitarianism, “Underlying the Nazis’ belief in race laws as the expression of the law of nature in man, is Darwin’s idea of man as the product of a natural development which does not necessarily stop with the present species of human being.”

John Toland’s Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography says this of Hitler’s Second Book written in 1928 but not published until after his suicide in his underground bunker within hours after his marriage to Eva Braun: “An essential of Hitler’s conclusions in this book was the conviction drawn from Darwin that might makes right.”

The unreasonable, unbiblical, unscientific philosophy of Darwin and his disciples laid a foundation for hundreds of years of hatred, barbarity, and unbelief reaching into the future and impacting millions of innocent lives.

If Darwin were alive today, he would be hooted out of the scientific community because he was not a trained scientist and because of his outrageous views about black people. Darwin thought that Blacks were closer to man’s ape “ancestors” than the white race! Wonder what the race baiters think of that?

Darwin’s disciple T. H. Huxley wrote, “It may be quite true that some negroes [sic] are better than some white men, but no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro [sic] is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man….The highest places in the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins….” (I inserted sic in the above places not because he used the term Negro but because he did not capitalize it.)

“Dusky cousins!” How would that be received down at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People? But it gets worse. Henry Osborne, who was professor of biology and zoology at Columbia University, said that Blacks were further back on the evolutionary ladder (nearer the apes) than Whites, and “The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens.” Blacks aren’t human! Wow! The most KKK nut doesn’t believe that!

Edwin Conklin (died 1975), Professor of Biology at Princeton University and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said that Blacks had not evolved as far as Whites and “Every consideration should lead those who believe in the superiority of the white race to strive to preserve its purity and to establish and maintain the segregation of the races, for the longer this is maintained, the greater the preponderance of the white race will be.” Well, maybe that was the reason Ed never received a lifetime Achievement Award from the NAACP. Too bad.

The major haters of the last 100 years have been evolutionists. Men like Nietzsche (who often said God was dead, called for the breeding of a master race and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), Hitler, Mussolini, Marx, Engels, and Stalin were all outspoken evolutionists. Darwin’s dangerous book is credited for making mass killer Joseph Stalin an atheist and evolutionist.

Few people know Stalin was first an evolutionist then a revolutionist drenching Eastern Europe in blood. He was baptized after his birth in 1878 into the Russian Orthodox Church and at age ten enrolled in the Gori Church School where he found Darwin’s book on a shelf. He read it and began to doubt all religious truth, but at 16 he enrolled in the Spiritual Seminary in Tiflis. There he joined 600 trainee priests who lived at the seminary. His twisted evolutionary teaching helped turn him into a master monster of murder–killing 20 to 60 millions of people and spreading Communist hatred around the world.

E. Yaroslavsky, a close friend of Stalin, wrote about this in his Landmarks in the Life of Stalin, “At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist.” So, Joe Stalin attended two church schools and became an unbelieving Communist because of Darwin’s book.

Found in a church school!

Shortly after The Origin of Species was published, Friedrich Engels wrote to Karl Marx, “Darwin, whom I am just now reading, is splendid.” About a year later Karl Marx, responded, “During my time of trial, these last few weeks, I have read all sorts of things. Among others, Darwin’s book of Natural Selection,…this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.”

These people and their theories have been responsible for the slaughter of multi-millions of people, and the destruction of freedom all over the earth. It is amazing that so many liberals, radicals, fascists, communists, and the easily impressed worship at Darwin’s shrine.

Obviously, the foundation of racism, hatred, and violence in the last hundred years is based in evolutionary teaching of the last one hundred and fifty years. This, coupled with not understanding that all people are created in God’s image and are to be respected until they prove by their actions that they are rebels against God and society made racism inevitable.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution or creation can be proved scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support our position.

In every debate I’ve had with evolutionary scientists, the arrogant, asinine accusation is made, “Well, evolution is science while creationism is religion.” Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster-plucking ceremony in Haiti. Almost.

Science means to know and systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc. It is based on observation and experimentation. Evolutionists don’t “know” anything about man’s origins. They guess, suppose, speculate, etc., but they don’t know. Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted, and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. They have watched their colleagues rush to defend Darwin rather than putting him to rigorous tests.

World famous scientist G. G. Simpson stated, “It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about anything…or at the very best, they are not science.” Neither creationism nor evolution can be observed or tested.

Need I remind my readers of the many incredible mistakes made by evolutionists because of their faith: Haeckel’s recapitulation theory that only third-rate scientists believe; also the vestigial organ error; the failure of the fossil record (that no informed evolutionist uses to prove his position), etc.

Let me dwell on the fossil record since most people assume it supports evolution. It does not.

Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma, said, “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them….” And Lord Zuckerman admitted there are no “fossil traces” of transformation from an ape-like creature to man! I assume that all college professors know that Darwin admitted the same fact. I also assume they know that Darwin was not trained as a scientist but for the ministry, so evolutionists are worshipping at the feet of an apostate preacher!

Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, “…geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them.” Dr. Eldredge further said, “…no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures.”

World famous paleontologist Colin Patterson agreed saying, “there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” Not one.

All the alleged transitional fossils, that were so dear to the hearts of evolutionists a generation ago, are now an embarrassment to them. Breaks my heart! Archaeopteryx is now considered only a bird, not an intermediate fossil. The famous horse series that is still found in some textbooks and museums has been discarded and is considered a phantom and illusion because it is not proof of evolution. In fact, the first horse in the series is no longer thought to be a horse! And when a horse can’t be counted on being a horse then of course we’ve got trouble, real trouble right here in River City.

Surely it is not necessary for me to remind college professors that Piltdown Man was a total fraud and Nebraska Man turned out to be a pig’s tooth, not an ape man! And in recent years we have discovered that Neanderthal Man was simply a man with rickets and arthritis, not the much desired “ape man.” Need I go on? The truth is that only a fool says evolution is a fact as compared to gravity, and to equate scientific creationists with flat earthers as some evolutionists do is outrageous irresponsibility.

Dr. Soren Lovtrup, Professor of Zoo-physiology at the University of Umea in Sweden, wrote, “I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar ‘Darwinian’ vocabulary…thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events.” He went on to say, “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.” He also said, “Evolution is ‘anti-science.'” And so it is.

Do those who teach evolution know that scientists have characterized Darwinism as speculation, based on faith, similar to theories of little green men, dead, effectively dead, very flimsy, incoherent, and a myth. Hey, with friends like that, evolutionists don’t need scientific creationists to hold their feet to the fire. Nevertheless, our public school textbooks and teachers, even up to most colleges and some universities, are not up to date on current thought. Did you get that–current “thought”?

I have assumed that the three college professors are familiar with all the world famous scientists I quoted above. All of them! If not, they are really uninformed, and should stay out of the evolution/creation discussion until they spend some time to bring themselves up to date.

So you see evolutionists are dishonest or uninformed when they suggest that creationists are backwoods, snake handling fanatics. In fact, over a thousand scientists with advanced degrees belong to one group that takes a stand for scientific creationism and against the guess of evolution.

Those college professors were correct in stating that Darwin’s book does not deal with the origins of life even though its title was Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. So a book about origins does not deal with the beginning of life!

Later Darwin suggested that life began in a warm little pond, but he never suggested where the pond came from! Most evolutionists teach that life started there also, but scientists have proved conclusively that spontaneous generation is impossible. So where did the first spark of life come from? You think maybe God was involved?

And would it be possible to remind everyone that Darwin and his followers were racists who believed that blacks were closer to the nonexistent ape men than whites? Thomas Huxley, Henry F. Osborne, Professor Edwin Conklin, and others preached white superiority – because of their evolutionary bias. The haters for a hundred years after Darwin can be tied to Darwin starting with Nietzsche (who asserted that God was dead, called for the breeding of a master race and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), followed by Hitler, Mussolini, Marx, Engels, Stalin, etc. Evolutionary teachings have resulted in soaking the soil of Europe in innocent blood. After all, evolutionists tell us that man is only a little higher than the animals rather than a little lower than the angels as the Bible teaches, so what’s a few million lives to be concerned about?

I don’t have the space to deal with numerous problems that evolutionists have such as the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, origin of the universe, beginning of life from non-living matter, the Cambrian explosion, etc.

Evolution is a guess, a speculation, a hypothesis, a theory, and a faith. Yes, evolution is a religion as I document in my book, Evolution: Fact, Fraud or Faith? And, since it is a faith, it should not be taught in public schools. At least, any thinking, honest person would agree that if it is, then scientific creationism should be taught along with it. After all, we do believe in balance and fairness, don’t we? Or do we?

Sorry, professors, evolution is NOT a fact. It is a fraud, a fake, a farce and a faith, and taxpayers should demand that the religion of evolution be kept out of public schools unless the truth of scientific creationism is taught as well.

Boys’ new book, Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? was published this week by Barbwire Books; to get your copy of Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? click here. An eBook edition is also available.

There are only four possibilities as to how the universe got here: First, it created itself, but surely no sane person believes that. Think that possibility through. How could something that doesn’t exist, create itself? A person who takes that position has not drunk long from the well of learning. In fact, he hasn’t even gargled! One main reason this first suggestion is not true is because it conflicts with the First Law of Thermodynamics. The First Law says that there is no new material or energy being created. It can be redirected but nothing can be added to the existing supply, so the first possibility is an impossibility!

The second possibility is that the universe has always been here! How about that? With that suggestion, the evolutionists wiggled around many problems with the first suggestion. The universe was not created by God or by itself. It has always been here! This second possibility is not possible because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That law, which no evolutionist argues with, says that everything is running down. The Second Law screams disease, decay, degeneration, and death. So if the universe has always been here, it would repeal the Second Law.

The third possibility is that the universe is not here! Everything is an illusion! This possibility was suggested by ancient Greeks as they sat around their saunas. (Those guys spent too much time in steam rooms and it boiled their brains.) They suggested, “Hey, maybe we are wasting our time discussing how the universe got here. Maybe it isn’t here! We only think it’s here. We only think we’re here.” Of course, that possibility is contrary to the Law of Common Sense.

The fourth and last possibility as to the origin of the universe is–God did it! That’s it. Search out the great thinkers of the present and past and you will not arrive at any other possibility as to the origin of the universe. When sane people reject the first three “possibilities,” they are left with the fourth one: God created it! And if God created the universe, He could have (and did) create man. Evolutionists scream like a stuck pig when we bring God into the discussion, but if that’s how it happened, that’s how it happened. Sorry about that guys, but you are stuck with it.

In every talk show I’ve done on the subject, evolutionists have asserted “creationism is religion and evolution is science.” Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster-plucking ceremony in Haiti–almost. Both evolution and creation are based on faith as informed, honest scientists admit; therefore students should be exposed to both. It’s incredible that Christian parents are taxed to promote a scientific teaching that is contrary to science and their religious beliefs!

It is a fact that thousands of qualified scientists don’t believe Darwin’s gradualism as taught in schools. Many others have many doubts about its validity qualifying for the moniker of, Darwin Doubters. And most evolutionists get apoplexy when we remind them of that fact! I’ll remind them since I like to see evolutionists sweat and squirm, and they don’t sweat and squirm with grace.

Dr. Soren Lovetrup, scientist from Sweden, said, “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.” He added that evolution is “anti-science,” and is “false.” Scientists, who don’t know Lovetrup, should be driving trucks, not defending the farce, fakery, foolishness, and fraud of evolution.

World famous astronomer Fred Hoyle said, “The speculations of the Origin of Species turned out to be wrong,” The most respected French scientist Pierre Grasse called Darwinian evolution, “a pseudo-science.” A. E. Wilder-Smith, with three earned doctorates in science, said evolution is “impossible.” Almost all of the great scientists of the past were creationists.

Dr. H.S. Lipson, an agnostic physicist, admitted, “I think…the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” He further added, “To my mind, the theory [evolution] does not stand up at all.” No, but it’s being propped up at every secular university in America–with taxpayers’ money!

Fossil expert, Stephen Gould wrote: “The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change.” Darwin even agreed with that! No informed evolutionist appeals to the fossil record to support his philosophy of origins. When he does so, he places himself in the category of flat-earthers, phrenologists, astrologers, and snake handlers.

After evolutionists admit they made fools of themselves with the fossil record, they should admit they cannot explain: the answers to the beginning of life; the Cambrian explosion; design of the universe; the absence of transitional fossils; the anomalies in the geologic column; why evolution suddenly stopped; how males and females evolved at the same location and time in history; where the scientific laws came from (how does a “law” evolve?) and did they come before or after the “big bang”? Furthermore, what was the catalyst for the big bang? And where did the cosmic egg (that allegedly exploded) come from? Maybe the cosmic chicken laid it?

After those answers we’ll discuss how evolution can be true, being in conflict with the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and various other scientific laws. We’ll also discuss frauds perpetrated by scientists to prop up their cockamamie theory.

It is a fact that Chuck Darwin, not a trained scientist, but an apostate preacher, fired a blank when he fired a shot heard around the world, and evolutionists are still cocking and firing that same gun.

Evolutionists are like a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black cat that isn’t there! So sad. No student is educated if he doesn’t know both sides of the issue.

It’s also a fact that my critics always refuse to deal with these facts.

(Boys’ new book, Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? was published this week by Barbwire Books; to get your copy of Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? click here. An eBook edition is also available.)

The article continued to relate that the appendix harbors “good” bacteria and when the intestines are emptied during a bout of diarrhea, the appendix “reseeds” the intestines with “good” bacteria and restores the body back to good digestive health.

Creationists have known the benefit of the appendix and tonsils for decades! I wrote in the 1994 edition of Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? (new, expanded edition to be published this month by Barbwire Books) the following:

“Another major error made by evolutionists is that of allegedly useless organs in man that are supposed to be withered memorials of man’s past evolution. As late as the 1960s, evolutionary textbooks listed over 200 ‘useless’ organs, but later information has proved that almost all ‘vestigial organs’ have some function during our lifetime. The tonsils, appendix, and thymus gland are known to protect us against infections, especially during our younger years, but until recent years, they were thought to be unnecessary.”

So there! That qualifies as an “I told you so” event.

Atheist David Mills asserted that the human appendix is harmful to our well-being! However, he is wrong because scientists have finally discovered that the appendix serves an important function in the human immune system. If evolutionists had declared these organs as having an “unknown purpose” rather than being unnecessary (there is a difference, you know) I would have agreed; however, now we know that those organs are necessary for proper functioning of the immune system, etc.

Because of their ignorance, for a hundred years doctors took out those “unnecessary” healthy organs to the detriment of their patients. If those scientists had not been controlled by an atheistic worldview, they could have done an enormous amount of research, but since they did not believe God designed those organs with a purpose in mind, the “experts” perpetrated crimes upon children and adults and furthered their crimes by not researching those organs for a hundred years.

Irreparable harm has resulted from this teaching as hundreds of thousands of tonsils, adenoids, appendixes, etc., were removed from children and adults in the past hundred years. How much research has not been done on various “useless” organs because scientists taught other scientists that many organs and glands were useless? We should pity the distraught evolutionists who had all their “vestigial” organs removed only to discover, post-surgery, that they were all important! Not essential but important. I have been told that some of the more desperate, dogmatic, and depressed evolutionists/atheists had their brains removed, but that hasn’t been confirmed!

One’s worldview changes everything. If a person is convinced that he evolved from the animals, then it is understandable when he acts like an animal. If he thinks life is accidental, then he will face each day without purpose to life. It surprises no one that he will live a hedonistic, selfish life. Since he assumes that he and others are not made in the image of God, he has no obligation to treat others in a kind, gracious, and friendly manner.

Evolution is supposed to be an advance from the simple to the complex; however the vestigial organ argument militates against that position! After all, if many human organs were needed and worked well in the past but are now useless and unnecessary, that is not evolution! Evolution would be the appearance of new organs not the degeneration of old ones.

Only four or five organs are now believed, by some evolutionists, to be unnecessary and those are questionable. And of course, just because an organ may not be necessary does not mean that it is useless. A thumb is not really essential, but it is surely handy when you have to grasp or pick up an object.

Zoologist S. R. Scadding asserted: “The ‘vestigial organ’ argument uses as a premise the assertion that the organ in question has no function. There is no way, however, in which this negative assertion can be arrived at scientifically….I conclude that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.” That means none, zero, zilch, and nil evidence for evolution based on vestigial organs.

Those human organs may not be necessary for life, but non-thinking evolutionists are unnecessary and should be unemployed.

If evolutionists had followed their much touted scientific method, they would not have made fools of themselves so many times. An honest scientist will keep an open mind so that he will not “jump to conclusions” (often wrong conclusions) until he has made many observations with the same results. He must be very careful to base any conclusion on what he has actually seen, rather than what he wanted to see. And he must always be willing to change his mind. To the credit of most evolutionists, they have done that regarding the recapitulation theory and vestigial organs; however, there are some poorly trained scientists (or scientific fanatics) hanging to those silly, discredited theories like an insecure kid clutches a security blanket. It has been over 65 years since the Recapitulation theory was shown to be a fraud but still being taught; so, how long will it take for doctors to stop removing healthy “vestigial” organs?

No, there are no vestigial organs. God provided man with an incredible body that has the astounding ability to not only reproduce itself, but also to repair itself! But before the body can repair itself, it must review the injury (or illness), report on the problem, then resolve the problem before repair begins. What machine can do anything similar to that? Only fools would suggest that no design was involved!

While I don’t believe in vestigial organs, maybe, just maybe, the atheists/evolutionists have encased inside their skulls a vestigial organ that is shrunken and stunted from disuse for decades.

(Boys’ new book, The God Haters was published by Barbwire Books; to get your copy of The God Haters click here . An eBook edition is also available.)

However, Dawkins wrote, “Nowadays there is nothing to debate. Evolution is a fact.” Nothing to debate! What about the origin of everything? How did “nothing” create something that became everything? How did life first begin on Earth that was solid rock? What about the Cambrian Explosion? What about all the frauds perpetrated by fanatic evolutionists in the last 100 years? What about the now discredited “horse series”? What about the absence of transitional fossils? What about peppered moths? What about the scandal of radiometric dating with the vast inaccuracies and discrepancies? What about the origin of the various laws of “nature”? No, nothing to debate!

The New Atheists throw a hissy when Creationists suggest that belief in the Bible is necessary for a foundation of morality. They maintain that an atheist can be as honest, decent, kind, gracious, etc., as a Bible believing Christian. But then those atheists who are kind, gracious, and honest have been influenced by Bible teaching for a lifetime. For those interested in Dawkins’ integrity they should punch in their computers, “Dawkins stumped.” Because of his deception even fellow atheists have broken with Dawkins. My new book, The God Haters deals with that incident.

To accomplish their desired results, a world without religion, New Atheists deny, denigrate, distort, and seek to destroy anyone who believes God “did it” instead of “nothing did it.” After all, if the Bible is not true then Christians are without a story, succor, or a Savior. With the atheists’ farcical attempt, they prove they are disingenuous, deceptive, and dishonest lowlifes.

Richard Dawkins ran off the rails when he wrote, “there is no good historical evidence that he [Jesus] ever thought he was divine.” Dawkins really stepped in deep doo-doo here. He would have non-thinkers believe that highly intelligent Christian believers willingly went to the stake and to the wild beasts of the arena believing that their Leader was a mere human and remained in the grave! Nonsense! Dawkins is brilliant in his field of biology but out of his field he is dumb as a sack of hair from a barbershop floor.

Jesus said in John 14:9, “He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father.” Also, John 5:58, “Before Abraham was, I am.” In John 10 Christ declared, “I and my Father are one.” Moreover, Dawkins is so uninformed that he doesn’t know that Christ was crucified because of His profession of deity! There is no reason to pile on supporting texts in this regard.

Furthermore, only a sovereign, omnipotent God can forgive sins. The Apostle Paul surely taught Christ’s divinity in I Timothy 3:16, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” I think that settles that.

Dawkins declared that the Gospels are not reliable accounts “of what happened in the history of the real world.” He clearly asserts that they were written “long after the death of Jesus.” He tells us that they were written after Paul’s epistles. I have dealt with this elsewhere but will provide one proof that it is Bible haters who are dishonest or uninformed. Dr. John A. T. Robinson launched the “Death of God” movement (taken from Nietzsche), so he was far from being a conservative; yet, even he confessed that the complete New Testament was written before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70: “One of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and cli¬mactic event of the period–the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and with it the collapse of institutional Judaism based on the temple–is never once mentioned as a past fact.” It is impressive when a major enemy confirms the validity of your belief!

The destruction of Jerusalem and the most magnificent Temple in the world is not mentioned in the New Testament books because they were written before that world-shattering event! Dawkins and his New Atheist comrades are wrong; probably intentionally wrong.

Then Dawkins takes a hatchet to Luke’s Gospel, where he deals with the birth of Christ, claiming that there was a local census but not one decreed by Caesar Augustus for the Roman world. Therefore, the Bible is unreliable. No, it is Dawkins who is unreliable. Augustus decreed three empire censuses during his 40-year rule. Dawkins asks, “Do these people never open the book that they believe is the literal truth? Why don’t they notice those glaring contradictions?” Those “contradictions” are not glaring contradictions and Dawkins makes a fool of himself by using anti-biblical arguments that have been answered for hundreds of years.

He says “rapture Christians” yearn for nuclear war since it (“this Armageddon”) will bring on the Second Coming of Christ. In my entire ministry I have never met one per¬son who yearned for Armageddon nor have I met one who believed that that great battle will hasten Christ’s return to rapture His saints. The battle of Armageddon does not precede the Rapture of the saints but the Revelation of Christ; however, Dawkins evidently has never heard of the two aspects of Christ’s coming. Dawkins is much more reliable with bugs than with the Bible. What Dawkins knows about the Bible would fit into the navel of a flea.

I document scores of Dawkins’ and his fellow-atheists’ mistakes in my book, The God Haters: Angry Atheists, Shallow Scholars, Silly Scientists, Embattled Evolutionists, and Pagan Preachers Declare War Against Christians! It is shocking, startling, and surprising that scholars would be so careless, clueless, and crazy to make so many mistakes in their polemic against God. It seems these people who call themselves the “brights” (as opposed to us dims!) are more evangelistic in their hatred of a God “who doesn’t exist” than those of us who believe in Him with all our hearts, minds, and souls!

New Atheists would say that they are trying to set the record straight and correct everyone’s false thinking; however, they don’t believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Peter Pan, and the Tooth Fairy yet they haven’t mounted a crusade against those iconic figures. Dawkins and his buddies know the aforementioned characters don’t exist but they know God does, hence their declaration of war against Him.

Their war is a lost cause.

(Boys’ new book, The God Haters was published by Barbwire Books; to get your copy of The God Haters click here . An eBook edition is also available.)