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.

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.

Often a person is accused of racism when he appears to be winning an argument with a Liberal or Progressive. A false accusation is easier to make than a factual argument.

A definition of racism is “hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.” Note that one is not a racist because one does not like particular music or movies or humor, or politics. One is not necessarily a racist because he believes forced bussing to other neighborhoods, affirmative action, welfare, and other demonstrative fiascos are a farce, a fallacy, and a failure.

Of course, everyone knows the term is often used by deceived, always desperate, and usually duplicitous people when they are confronted with the truth. However, racism is real and is common for every race and group in the world and for some to declare that only Whites can be racists is surely a joke. No sane person would take such a position since it can be disproved by watching television or reading a newspaper any day. Racists have their own television shows and racist journalists (of all hues) gather around the talking tables all over the channels.

Unpleasant, unnatural, ubiquitous racism is very real and a plague upon the world but what is the basis for racism?

The Scientific American (April 5, 2011) reported on a study that purports to prove that prejudice comes from our evolutionary past based on a study done on Cayo Santiago known as Monkey Island. Well, I’d rather blame bigotry and racism on monkeys than white men; however, the evolutionists must first support their myth of molecules-to-monkeys-to-men (or goo-to-you) evolution before trying to prove the basis of racism.

They have failed to do this.

Racism is not simply disagreeing with a person of another race or even not liking that person, after all, all groups have some unlikeable people. Can I not dislike someone without hating him or thinking he is inferior to me? If people believe that everyone is created in the image of God and is greatly loved by God, then there are no “inferior races” and can be no racism.

Some races appear to have more specific abilities than others as Asians seen to have a natural ability with math and science or could it be they usually work harder at it? Does the overwhelming preponderance of Blacks in professional sports have anything to do with natural ability? With Blacks comprising about 13% of our population, black athletes account for about 75% of players in the National Basketball Association and more than 70% of professional football players. What is the explanation?

Most of the sprinters who run less than 10 seconds are of West African descent. Moreover, it is known that people of West African descent have ACTN3 protein or “speed gene” that is almost always necessary for top level sprinting. Why don’t Whites have that gene?

Some will conclude that minorities excel in physical activities but fail when mental acumen is required. In 2007, Nobel Prize-winning geneticist James Watson ignited controversy when he suggested that Blacks were less intelligent than Whites. I am not qualified to speak on that subject in depth but Watson is not necessarily a racist because of his scientific conclusions. He might be a racist but it is not supported by his scientific deductions.

But, it does take mental ability to learn the game rules and know the plays so lack of mental ability is not reasonable. Moreover, Derek R. Smart’s Physician Characteristics and Distribution in the US 2014, a publication of the American Medical Association revealed there were more black neurologists (411) and black cardiologists (690) than Blacks playing in the NBA which was 350 in 2012. However, while that is good to know, it does not change the fact that far more Blacks than Whites hold lucrative positions in professional sports.

The numbers tell an incredible story proving that there are few Whites in the NBA according to The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport. That group reported that the NBA had 81.7% people of color (while being only 13% of our population) during the 2015-2016 season.

Is the huge disproportion in the number of Whites to Blacks in the NBA because of racism or do the minorities work harder at the game? We know it isn’t racism because basketball is a business and the basis of business demands you have the most competent players—whatever race or color. So, if the reason for the few Whites in professional sports is not racism, is it possible it is because some minorities have natural abilities not possessed by most Whites?

If Blacks have a natural ability to be very successful in physical and athletic events is it racist to suggest they have more natural ability to sing and dance?

Is it racist to ask that question?

Theologians of all kinds have taught the Fall of Man as the beginning of all the problems common to all races. Racism is normal, but abhorrent, to the human race. Psychology Today (January 19, 2018) reported that “some evolutionary psychologists” believe that to be true. While most psychologists don’t believe the biblical account, they seem to support the consequences of that account.

The results are about the same: theologians say men are fallen creatures therefore do appalling things but evolutionists and other humanists say men have inherited bad genes therefore do terrible things. Same results but different roots.

Science (Feb. 7, 2012) reports on a study that suggests that prejudice is programmed into our genes and that racism is essentially a holdover from ancient history “when humans lived in tribes and it made sense to view outsiders with hostility and fear.”

We are told that early in man’s history there were groups living in the same area that had to compete for limited resources so they resented other races or groups that posed a threat to their existence. After all, man’s main driving impulse is his will to survive. Evolutionary psychologist, Steven Pinker, has suggested that “chronic raiding and feuding characterize life in a state of nature.”

Some psychologists teach that early man’s genes adapted to protect their future. Of course, the theologians have a much better argument than the psychologists—man is naturally evil and will do evil things, i.e., racial hatred because he is evil. Men are not evil because they do evil things; they do evil things because they are evil. It’s a part of their nature as humans.

This is declaring that people are born defective (not by genes but by inherited sin) therefore there is a need to correct the flawed birth by a second birth. Theologians point to John 3 where Jesus said, “Yet must be born again.” He said that because the normal, first birth is always defective.

Racism, like all undesirable human characteristics, is innate to every person on earth and must be mitigated by biblical teaching such as treating others the way we want to be treated. That would eliminate all racism, all sexual aggression, and all wars.

Modern racism comes from the devotees of evolution—pseudo-scientists and fanatical religious followers of Charles Darwin—an apostate preacher with no scientific education. He failed medical school and ended up in the ministry which was the standard operating procedure for dull or unmotivated middle and upper class English males in the 19th century.

But that’s another column for another day.

The origin of racism goes back to the Garden of Eden when mankind chose to disobey God and that rebellion has been passed to every human heart. That is why redemption is required of everyone.

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.)

“But,” say some sincere Christians, “everyone knows the Earth is billions of years old.” How do we know that? Genesis surely does not indicate an old age for the Earth, and neither does science. We have been brainwashed through our education, the media, and our associates and have purchased another gold brick sold by thumb-sucking liberals.

“Well,” says another “isn’t it possible that God could have created the world over a long period of time?” Of course it is possible, and even if one admitted it was also probable, that wouldn’t make it true. God could have done it any way He wanted, but the evidence and the Bible clearly indicate a young Earth.

According to a group of mathematicians, all of whom were evolutionists, it would have taken not five billion years for man to evolve but billions of times longer! So they need even more time for their myth. Of course, the age of the Earth has been increased by scientists for many years to mold current thinking to fit their implausible story. In Darwin’s day, the Earth was only 100 million years old, but now we are told it is at least 4.5 billion years old!

The estimated ages for an ancient Earth are usually based on “clocks” that are unreliable, uncalibrated, and unknowable. A good example is the coral growth rates that were thought to require hundreds of thousands of years, but now it is believed that no coral formation need be over 3,500 years old! There are many such proofs of a young Earth, yet blind evolutionists keep demanding an old Earth.

Similar to coral formations, stalactite and stalagmite formations in caves are said to take long ages to form proving the Earth is ancient; but now we know that the evidence is specious, and such growth can form in only a few years. The cave guides can prate on and on about the “ancient” formations, but the evidence refutes their canned spiel.

A curtain of stalactites, some five feet in length, grows from the foundation ceiling beneath the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. The memorial was built in 1923, so those stalactites have been produced in less than a hundred years!

Further evidence of non-uniformitarianism relating to stalagmites is found in the Carlsbad (NM) Caverns where a bat was found encased inside a stalagmite! That is impossible if many years are necessary to form stalagmites and stalactites because the bat would have decayed or been eaten by predators in a very short period of time. Looks as if we have to discard another “clock” used by evolutionists to prove an ancient Earth.

The Great Barrier Reef is less than 4,200 years old and that date is ascertained because we know the growth rate for the last 25 years.

Geologists know that each stratum of sedimentary rock laid on top of each other show no signs of erosion as they were laid down over “millions” of years. Everyone knows that exposure of stratum over millions of years would have resulted in massive erosion. However, the record shows the opposite. That is because “millions of years” is a myth. The stratums were laid during and after the Flood so there was no time for erosion.

Another indication of a young Earth are large trees (which pass through several rock layers vertically) that could not have stood upright for millions of years without rotting while they were slowly buried. These polystrate fossils were buried during the Flood.

Thick layers of “rock” bent without fracturing, indicate that the rock was soft when bent and no doubt happened following the Flood of Noah. Firm strata will break but it will not bend except in the evolutionary textbooks.

Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bones but that’s impossible. Not even the most fanatical evolutionist declares that bones can lie in strata for 65 million years and still be “fresh.” So, obviously those dinosaur bones were not millions of years old.

Moreover, evolutionists told us that it takes thousands or maybe millions of years for wood to petrify but now we know that wood can petrify in less than a hundred years!

We have been taught that oil was produced deep in the Earth about 25,000,000 years ago; however, high grade oil has been produced out of cow manure in a laboratory in twenty minutes! And there goes another one!

The Earth can’t be almost five billion years old because the rivers of the world have been constantly carrying sodium to the ocean, and if the world were 4.5 billion years old, there would be much more sodium in the ocean than there is!

Studies have been done to chart the volume and rate of sediment accumulation in the Mississippi delta, and that area could not be much older than 4,000 years! The age is found by dividing the weight of sediments deposited yearly into the total weight of the delta. If the Earth were only a few million years old, the Gulf of Mexico would be full of sediment!

The oldest living things on Earth, according to the American Forestry Association, are the bristlecone pines that grow on the White Mountains of California. They are at least 4,600 years old, no doubt having sprung up from seeds soon after the Flood. Again, an indication of a young Earth. And if the world is ancient, there should be trees much older than 5,000 years.

There is an average 7 or 8 inches of top soil that sustains all of life on the Earth, while the Earth beneath the top soil is as dead as the moon. Scientists tell us that the combination of plants, bacterial decay and erosion will produce six inches of top soil in 5,000 to 20,000 years. If the Earth had been here for 5 billion years, we should have much more top soil than the 7 or 8 inches.

Newspapers in March of 1980 reported that the sun’s diameter appears to have been decreasing by about one-tenth percent per century. That means the sun is shrinking about five feet per hour, and that’s no problem if you are a Creationist. But, you have big trouble if you are an evolutionist!

Dennis Petersen aptly addressed this problem: “If the sun existed only 100,000 years ago it would have been double its present diameter. And only twenty million years ago the surface of the sun would be touching the Earth.” (Emphasis his.) But then we know that didn’t happen, don’t we? Obviously the Earth and the universe are very young.

We are told that man has been on the Earth one million years, but the population does not reflect that age. There would not be enough room for people to stand if the population grew at the same rate as the Jewish people, a reasonable standard. The Jews started with Jacob about 3,700 years ago, and there are 14,000,000 Jews in the world today. So, assuming 2.4 children per family, and a life-span of 43 years, the world would be packed with people if man had been on the Earth only one million years. That is considering the almost perpetual malice, mistreatment and murder of Jews.

Make no mistake, evolutionists must have an ancient Earth or their house of cards comes
tumbling down, so they have influenced, inculcated, and indoctrinated many people with their “billions of years.” They made an assumption and jumped to the wrong conclusion.

Assumptions are necessary in science; however, facts must be added to support or refute an assumption. Evolution is a belief system; in fact, it is a very religious system!

While evolutionists prate on and on about the ages of the rocks, we Creationists will stand firmly on the Rock of Ages.

It’s a young world after all!

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Others praise Darwin as being “opposed to racism endemic to his culture.” Wrong again because Darwin and his Disciples were shameful, disgusting racists. The above quoted evolutionary fawner was simply espousing his religion, the religion of evolution. He knew not of what he spoke (or he lied) for all informed people know that Darwin and his early followers were unabashed, unregenerated, and unrepentant racists. And he is to be honored in the U.S. with a special day!

Darwin and his disciples were pseudo-scientists and also radical, rabid racists! Ernst Haeckel was a German biologist, and a contemporary of Darwin who faked drawings to support evolution and was found guilty in a university court trial. But he was not fired! He and others laid the foundation of racism and imperialism that resulted in Hitler’s racist regime.

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.” What a sad, shameful, and shameless historical fact.

I wonder what that “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, honor, faithfulness, and justice have no relevance and importance.

Sir Arthur Keith, a well-known evolutionist, 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 organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood.”

Furthermore, Joe Stalin became an atheist after reading Darwin’s book that he found on a shelf in a church school! Such books are as dangerous as rattlesnakes in a day care center.

The unreasonable, unbiblical, and unscientific philosophy of Darwin and his disciples laid a foundation for hundreds of years of hatred, barbarity, and unbelief reaching into the future and adversely affecting 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! Even the title of Darwin’s book is overtly racist: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Darwin labeled Blacks as one of the unfavored races! During a broadcast with an Anglican preacher, famous atheist/evolutionist Richard Dawkins revealed that he did not know the full title of Origin!

Darwin’s disciple and main defender 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 “siced” the above places not because he used the term, “Negro” but because he did not capitalize it. Darwin never repudiated him or his statements. How would “dusky cousins” be received down at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People?

However, it gets worse. Henry F. Osborne, who was professor of biology and zoology at Columbia University, declared, “The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolian, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characters, such as the teeth, the genitalia, the sense organs, but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens.” Wow! The most radical KKK nut doesn’t believe that!

It is a little unkind for me to remind everyone that Harry identified a single tooth (Nebraska Man) as evidence that humans evolved from apes! Moreover, that single tooth (did I mention that it was the famous Nebraska Man?) turned out to be a pig’s tooth! Ahh, isn’t science exciting?

Edwin Conklin, who was 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, there goes any possibility of Ed ever having an NAACP medal struck in his honor. Too bad.

The major race haters of the last 100 years have been evolutionists. Men such as Nietzsche, who often said God was dead (and I didn’t even know He was sick), 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, and those people and their philosophies and policies are 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 shallow thinkers worship at Darwin’s shrine. But not really amazing at all.

Yes, the foundation of racism and its hatred and violence in the last hundred years is based in evolutionary teaching. And a jerk from Jersey wants us to honor Darwin!

Chuck Darwin was the fountainhead of racism and evolutionists are stuck with him. Breaks my heart!

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Copyright 2014, Don Boys, Ph.D.

I often hear from evolutionists/atheists who read my book, Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? or my website, cstnews.com. Their emails are usually filled with hate, anger, bad grammar, misspelled words, and insipid thought.

One critic charged me of denying the “facts based on evidence” but did not provide any evidence. Like most evolutionists, he worships at the altar of “scholarship” although it is pseudo-scholarship. By evidence, I suppose he was thinking of all the bogus evidence evolutionists have pitched that informed people now use to mock false scientists. Like maybe the horse series, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Haeckel’s fake drawings to support the now discredited recapitulation theory, vestigial organs, the hopeful monster theory, peppered moths, etc.

I could go on and on but evolutionists/atheists do not respond to what I have provided. Many of them are probably so uninformed that they don’t even know what I referred to. If they keep searching they will find the information they need. Many evolutionists have not kept up with recent research or read anything critical of their religion, so they keep repeating worthless arguments not realizing how foolish they are.

It is time for honest scientists do what makes them as uncomfortable as a dog in hot ashes and look at the evidence and evaluate it without any presumption about the truth of the theory they are testing. One honest scientist, evolutionist R.D. Alexander, Professor of Zoology at the University of Michigan said, “No teacher should be dismayed at efforts to present creation as an alternative to evolution in biology courses; indeed, at this moment creation is the only alterative to evolution.”

What my critics don’t understand is that evolutionists and creationists seldom disagree on the “facts” but disagree on the interpretation of the facts. Moreover, everyone makes evaluations based upon his own worldview. The evolutionist has a materialist view and the creationist has a biblical worldview. We don’t deny any facts as is often charged.

One critic refused to answer my objections to the myth of evolution because “it will not change your mind.” He declared that my answers do not require a “cited response.” But that is a ploy of a weak and feeble mind. “I don’t respond to my critics” so he does not have to respond to his critics. Such fools cannot see why they prove themselves to be fools and creationists smile at their simplicity and silly refusals.

While my critics refuse to answer me they charge me with being “evil and choose[ing] to promote dishonesty for your own selfish reasons.” I discovered that I am “morally bankrupt.” Rather than take time for such ad hominid attacks, why not correct me, make me look foolish?

Then I was charged with needing a “lesson in humility” but a fanatical evolutionist charging a Christian creationist with lack of humility is like a skunk accusing a rabbit of having bad breath!

Another critic in the Canadian Free Press charged, “You have offered NO proof that the theory of evolution is wrong.” However, he doesn’t understand that the scientists are the ones making the case for molecules, to moles, to monkeys to man and the burden of proof is upon them. After all, they are the “experts.” (That’s anyone with a briefcase, slicked down hair, a goatee, and tenure.)

He charged, “It is people like you who help to inspire hate and division between man by spewing out half truths, misleading statements, and stating faith as fact.” Well, faith is a fact if it is supported by Scripture, and my critic did not explain how being a creationist inspires hate and division. I think that reading evolutionary literature has a tendency to rot the brain.

He continued, “Why don’t you simply state what you believe and why, and explain why an [sic] proof on evolution is either wrong or misinterpreted. [sic] Just my 2.78 cents worth.” I did exactly that and challenged evolutionists to correct me if they can. As to his 2.78 cents worth, maybe with inflation, that might be what it was worth.

Another critic was critical that “all” the highly reputable scientists who are critical of evolution (as cited in one of my columns) were dead. Well, what does that have to do with anything? People do die! He mentioned that “all” were dead which is a falsehood. Many evolutionists are “truth deficient.”

Still another critic asserted, “Being willing to fight, no quarter asked or given! Accepting a challenge to WAR! Can you picture the Prince of Peace running this gamut of emotions? Amazing!” Sure can. Obviously, the critic knows little of the Scripture. There is a time to fight. Can the weak, whinny wimps see Christ made a whip then whipping the money changers out of the Temple? He did. Maybe I should add a whip to my arsenal and try to drive the evolutionists from their cushy jobs at various universities.

I was accused of not standing up for “logic”; however, my primary commitment is to Truth. Logic must have a foundation, and political correctness, popular consensus, or personal convictions don’t qualify. Nor do warm, fuzzy feelings.

He further adds, “Your STUPID statement about brain washing children is amazing. You can brain wash in your home and church at any time you please, but NOT the schools. Finally he accused me of being a hypocrite and ignorant. Well, I might be a hypocrite and ignorant but obviously, he does not know the basic pitch of modern atheists is to forbid anyone anywhere from teaching children, any children that Christ is the only Way of salvation or to teach them the reality of Hell. Whatever happened to toleration? How about religious freedom?

Another critic wrote about the statement signed by over 12,000 Christian CLERGY in the Butler College Clergy Letter that declared that the Bible and evolution can “comfortably coexist.” Would anyone like to declare that those preachers really believed the Bible to be the inerrant Word of the Living God? But then, it doesn’t really matter how many or how prestigious they are because if all the preachers in America teach a lie as the truth, it is still a lie.

The critic accused me of confusing evolution with atheism; however, can anyone name three atheists who are not evolutionists? How about one? Even Richard Dawkins admitted the connection between his atheism and his belief in evolution.

Furthermore, I was accused of confusing evolution with cosmology; but this is an old charge since evolutionists would much rather talk about Darwin’s warm, little pond (of which there is not a scintilla of evidence) rather than tell me how the universe got here. However, astute creationists will not permit them to frame the argument that way.

Then I was charged with confusing evolution with the origin of life. Again, similar to the above. Confused evolutionists want to assume that life got here somehow, someway, then move on to discussing the alleged evolution over a few million years from man to moles to monkeys to man. Let’s use arguments not assumptions.

Still another critic asserted that DNA is not code, but that is so silly it does not require an answer but I don’t want to let that ride since that’s what evolutionists do. I challenge him to provide one qualified scientist who agrees with his statement. Another critic disagreed with the previous critic declaring, “The fact that DNA contains encoded information is evidence that supports evolution, not the other way around.”

One critic suggested that I “stick to peer reviewed articles from reputable journals.” Evidently, he does not know that articles by qualified creationist scientists are refused since one cannot discuss whether evolution took place, only how it happened.

A critic admitted, “The most thrilling thing to me about science is that I know 50 years from now everything I hold true today could quite possibly be completely wrong. The beauty of science is the constant desire to seek the truth through observation. You’re missing out on a wonderful world of science education.” That is thrilling! I am thrilled to know that my decisions, beliefs, and aspirations are based upon the Word of the Living God that never changes!

Moreover, he is missing out on a wonderful life here and an eternal life in Heaven. I think I’ll stand by my position.

Copyright 2013, Don Boys, Ph.D.

A column in the news this week quoted a critic of Creationism asserting that Darwin “was an enlightened fellow for his time who opposed the racism endemic to his culture.” That critic was simply espousing his religion, the religion of evolution. He knew not of what he spoke (or he lied) for all informed people know that Darwin and his early followers were unabashed, unregenerated, and unrepentant racists.

Darwin and his disciples were not only pseudo-scientists, (Darwin was an apostate preacher) but they were also radical, rabid racists! Ernst Haeckel was a German biologist, and a contemporary of Darwin, who faked drawings to support evolution (and was found guilty in a university court). He and others laid the foundation of racism and imperialism that resulted in Hitler’s racist regime.

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.”

I wonder what the “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, and justice have no relevance and importance.

Sir Arthur Keith, a well-known evolutionist, 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 organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood.”

Furthermore, Joe Stalin became an atheist after reading Darwin’s book that he found on a shelf in a church school! Such books are as dangerous as rattlesnakes in a day care center.

The unreasonable, unbiblical, and unscientific philosophy of Darwin and his disciples laid a foundation for hundreds of years of hatred, barbarity, and unbelief reaching into the future and adversely affecting 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!
Even the title of Darwin’s book is overtly racist: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Whom do you suppose Darwin tagged the “Unfavored Races?”

Darwin’s disciple and main defender, 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 “siced” the above places not because he used the term, “Negro” but because it did not capitalize it.) Darwin never repudiated him or his statements. How would “dusky cousins” be received down at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People?

However, it gets worse. Henry Osborne, who was professor of biology and zoology at Columbia University, declared, “The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolian, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characters. such as the teeth, the genitalia, the sense organs, but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens.” Wow! The most radical KKK nut doesn’t believe that!

Edwin Conklin, was 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, there goes any possibility of Ed ever having an NAACP medal struck in his honor. Too bad.

The major haters of the last 100 years have been evolutionists. Men such as Nietzsche who often said God was dead (and I didn’t even know He was sick) 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, and those people and their theories and policies 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.

Yes, the foundation of racism, hatred, and violence in the last hundred years is based in evolutionary teaching. Chuck Darwin was the fountainhead of racism and evolutionists are stuck with him. Breaks my heart!

A major storm of protest against the myth of evolution has been building for many years, as proved by almost a thousand major scientists, all with doctorates who have signed on to the following statement as of 2010: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

Those scientists threw down the gauntlet to evolutionists by publishing a two-page ad in a national magazine with the heading, “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.” Fevered, fanatical, and foolish evolutionists will charge that those dissenting scientists were backwoods yokels (maybe even a few snake handlers and flat earthers mixed in) dug up by pushy creationists to promote their cause. Not so, I have gone over the list and if certification and accreditation are so important, impressive, and indispensable, then those people will give evolutionists a perpetual heartburn. Major scientists around the world agree with them and many of them have not yet signed on to the dissent although they have gone on record that mutations and natural selection did not produce evolution. Other major scientists critical of evolution have died in the last 25 years.

I wrote in my Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? that “a mutation is an unexpected and random change in a cell, produced by the penetration of the cell by radiation, mutagenic chemical or other disorganizing agent. Mutations produce change, but not improvements. Evolutionists believe that most mutations are harmful while others believe they are all harmful or neutral.” Evolutionists must claim that some mutations are helpful because basically, all evolution rests upon that premise.

Pierre Grasse was known as the greatest scientist in France, and he disputed the value of mutations when he wrote, “…No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.” Grasse went on to say that it “is not true” that bacteria are evolving quickly because of numerous mutations. He reminds all that “To vary and to evolve are two different things; this can never be sufficiently emphasized.” Devious, deceptive, and dishonest evolutionists now claim that change is evolution, but that is so silly it is embarrassing. Everyone admits to change, but the change is never from a simple to a more complex creature. Never.

Grasse was supported earlier by Professor N. H. Nilsson of Lund University who said, “There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher vitality than the mother species.” Nilsson added, “It is therefore, absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombinations.”

Michael Pitman, (died 2000) former chemistry professor at Cambridge, confessed, “Neither observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system or organ.”

Not only are mutations always harmful, but they produce changes in present characters, never producing new characters. Mutations are the catalyst for defects, deformity, disease, and death; yet evolutionists scream that they are the explanation for all the varieties we see in the animal and plant kingdoms. They teach that the many changes in combination with the pressure of the environment over billions of years have produced the differences between one-cell amoeba and complicated humans; however, mutations never create; they corrupt. Thus, the results of all mutations: disorder, defects, disease, deformity, and death.

The mutation theory is without any scientific foundation. In fact, Ernst Mayr, a famous evolutionist, believed mutations were the answer as to how evolution allegedly took place, but his own experiments with fruit flies proved the opposite! Mayr tried to increase and decrease the number of bristles on fruit flies that normally have 36, but he discovered that the flies died if they had more than 56 and fewer than 25. Repeated experiments of 30 generations proved the fact of limitations, and when the fruit flies were left alone, they were back to 36 bristles in five years! Of course, change takes place, but it is always limited change and never any improvement.

No fruit fly, peppered moth or any other creature has formed a new creature through mutations and natural selection, and more and more top scientists are supporting that position. The co-holder of the Nobel Prize for developing penicillin, Sir Ernest Chain, called natural selection and chance mutations a “hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts.” And the murmur continues. The 1971 winner of the Nobel Prize in science, Dr. Dennis Gabor (died 1079) said: “I just cannot believe that everything developed by random mutations…”

We creationists will continue to remind evolutionists that their lie about “change” has been exposed. Richard Dawkins wrote of evolution, “No reputable scientist” refuses to accept evolution. A similar statement has been declared by many silly, shallow scientists and the gullible continue to believe it. However, a lie is a lie if everyone (including “experts’) believes it. The above quotes from world-famous scientists prove Dawkins is a Dummy.

Moreover, as I scanned the list of dissenting scientists I was impressed with so many of various fields, all from prestigious universities who were willing to “put their names on the line” for all to see. Those courageous scientists were experts in medicine, biology, geology, anthropology, zoology, physics, genetics, etc. holding doctoral degrees from Rutgers, MIT, Baylor, Oxford, Dartmouth, Tulane, Columbia, Cornell, Princeton, Purdue, Indiana, Yale, Duke, Stanford, Cambridge, Temple, Berkeley, and many others. Even a few Christian universities such as Liberty, Cedarville, Asbury, Wheaton, etc., are represented.

I am waiting for Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, and Company to admit their lies in the advancement of atheism as they have declared that “evolution is a fact not disputed by any qualified scientists.” Obviously the atheists are wrong and have proved themselves to be fools, frauds, or fanatics. Maybe all evolutionists are in a special classification– Homo Ignoramus!