WHY THE “THEORY OF EVOLUTION” IS
SCIENCE FICTION, NOT SCIENCE!
A Look at the Evidence by
Gary Ray Branscome
“The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but according to their own lusts, will surround themselves with teachers who tell them what their ears itch to hear; And they will turn their ears away from the truth, and will be turned to fables.” (2Timothy 4:3-4)
The advocates of evolution claim to be following reason, they claim to have evidence for what they believe. However, nothing could be further from the truth! On the contrary, reason tells us that behind every design is a designer. That fact is so obvious that it is almost axiomatic.
To illustrate that fact, imagine that you are the lone survivor of a shipwreck. Imagine that, clinging to a bit of debris, you make it to an island that seems to be deserted. Then, as you begin to explore the island you come across something as simple as a pole with a skull on the top of it. Would you assume that natural forces placed that pole in the ground, and placed the skull on top of it? Or would you know that the skull was placed on the pole by design? Suppose that you then find a post with carvings on it, similar to a totem pole. Would you assume that natural forces placed that post in the ground, and carved shapes on it? Or would you know that the carvings were made by someone? Going further, suppose that you found a wrist watch lying on the sand. Would you assume that natural forces created that watch? Or would you know that it was designed? My point is obvious! Reason itself tells us that every design has a designer! And, reason itself tells us that the world is full of living things that appear to be designed. The design inherent in living things is obvious, not only in the complete organism, but in every detail of its construction, even down to the submicroscopic components of its cells. In fact, the evidence of design is so obvious that atheist professor, Richard Dawkins, began his book, “The Blind Watchmaker” by admitting that fact — even though the rest of that book is an attempt to explain it away. Here is the actual quote:
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” (“The Blind Watchmaker”, paragraph 2.)
Here is a similar quote by Francis Crick:
"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." (“What Mad Pursuit”, page 138.)
If living things appear to have been designed because they have been designed, then a dogmatic refusal to believe that they have been designed is a rejection of science in favor of science fiction.
The Origin of Life
The advocates of evolution also claim that life began all by itself, in a “warm little pond”. To them, that idea is perfectly reasonable. However, experimental science, as opposed to science fiction, has demonstrated time and again that life comes only from preexisting life. For example:
At one time, there were some scientists who believed that maggots would spontaneously generate in meat. In order to test that "hypothesis," Francesco Redi (in 1660) devised an experiment, consisting of jars that contained meat. Jars that were either open, closed or had a piece of cheesecloth stretched across the top. Not only did maggots only appear in the open jars, but flies were actually observed laying maggots on the cheesecloth.
Two centuries later, there were still some scientists (evolutionists included) who believed that bacteria would spontaneously generate in broth. In order to test that hypothesis, Louis Pasteur (in 1859) devised an experiment that utilized several long-necked flasks containing beef broth. After the broth was boiled, the necks on some of the flasks were left straight, while the necks of other flasks were heated and bent in an s-curve. As predicted, bacteria only infested the broth that was in flasks with straight necks. Any bacteria that entered the flasks with curved necks stuck to the side of the neck, and could not get to the broth.
Those experiments, coupled with the invention of a dust-free box at the end of the nineteenth-century, convinced the scientific community that life comes only from preexisting life. In fact the principle (that life comes only from preexisting life) is so well supported by the evidence that it is known to science as the “Law of Biogenesis”. Therefore, it should be obvious that those who refuse to accept the evidence, while continuing to insist that non-living matter can come to life, are teaching science fiction, not science. Here are some actual quotes:
“The more we look, the more water we seem to find on the planet [Mars]. This is incredibly significant because on Earth, anywhere there’s water there’s life – from the driest deserts to frozen glaciers, even inside clouds.” (From the July 2017 issue of “Astronomy” magazine, page 27.)
“Researchers propose that life originated in geothermal ponds on land instead of in the deep sea.” (From the September/October 2017 issue of “Popular Science” magazine, page 44.)
Because the scientific evidence consistently points to the fact that life comes only from preexisting life, a dogmatic insistence that once upon a time, long long ago, a tiny bit of matter did come to life, and that all other living things have evolved from it, is a rejection of science in favor of science fiction.
The Alleged Evolution of Fish
The sedimentary rocks in the earth’s crust contain many fossilized fish. There are fossilized perch, bass, sunfish, catfish, garfish, pipefish, herring, sharks, and rays to name a few. And, the reason we know that these fossilized fish are perch, bass, sunfish and so forth is because they so closely resemble their present day counterparts. In fact, whenever we discover the fossilized remains of a fish that has not become extinct, we find that there has not been any significant change in that fish species since the time that the rocks were formed. That fact is, in itself, scientific evidence that fish have not evolved and are not evolving.
However, because the advocates of evolution believe that all of the more advanced [i.e. more man-like] vertebrates have evolved from fish, they brush aside the evidence and insist that once upon a time, long long ago, some fish evolved into amphibians. Of course, it would be absurd for them to claim that fish which are not extinct evolved into amphibians, for we could simply hold a living one up and say, “It still looks like a fish to me”. No. Instead, they seize upon some extinct species of fish, and claim that that one species is not really extinct, but just evolved into amphibians. Of course there is no empirical [i.e. scientific] evidence that such a change ever happened. However, you would never learn that from listening to the evolutionists. On the contrary, they talk as if their science fiction scenarios are fact rather than fiction. In typical blowhard fashion they write articles and give speeches talking about the evolution of fish as if they saw it happen. But, time and again all of their big talk has been exposed as nothing more than hot air.
To give just one example, during the
first few decades of the twentieth century evolutionists claimed that a
fish known as the Coelacanth was the ancestor of amphibians. What sets
apart from most fish living today is that, instead of having its fins
directly to its body they are attached to little lobes that stick out
body. Evolutionists believed that those lobes were rudimentary legs. So
as fact, a made up story about Coelacanths living in swamps and
legs as they walked on their fins from one pond to another. When I was
I had a book saying just that. They even drew pictures of them walking
fins. Yet it was all a lie! And, we know it was a lie because in 1937 a
Coelacanth was caught off the coast of
Did the evolutionists learn anything from that mistake? Apparently not, for they still teach the same science fiction story. The only thing that has changed is the name of the lobe-finned fish that they claim is the ancestor of amphibians. For example, the July/August 2017 issue of “Discover” magazine contained an article claiming that a lobe-finned fish known as Eusthenopteron is the ancestor of amphibians (Page 44). And, in typical blowhard fashion, they talk about the evolution of that fish as if it were fact. The article is entitled, When We Left Water”, with the subtitle, “How our tetrapod ancestors first came ashore”. And, it begins with the words, “More than 350 million years ago, our distant fishy ancestors traded in the life aquatic for land.” Yet despite all of the big talk, there is not one scrap of empirical evidence to support their claim. On the contrary, as I previously pointed out, all of the real scientific evidence points to the fact that fish have not changed significantly since the rocks were formed.
At this point, let us consider what the evolution of a fish into an amphibian would involve. If the species that evolutionists have in mind numbered one–million at the time it began to evolve, and one of those fish had a little change in the right direction, it would have to mate with others that did not have that change. Therefore, in a few generations that change would be recessive. Then, if another fish in that population had the next change in the right direction, the same thing would happen. And, that would accomplish nothing. No. In order for evolution to take place the second change has to happen to a descendant of the fish with the first change, and so on with all subsequent changes. Each change must build on the previous change! And, that means that even though all of the other fish are not changing – as the fossil record indicates – this one hypothetical family of fish experiences change after change until the members of that fish family have been totally transformed from fish into amphibians. Not only that, but then they branch out into all of the different kinds of amphibians that exist in the world today.
However, evolutionists have to explain away the fact that once that linage has branched out, and has produced many kinds of amphibians, those amphibians stop changing. We know that because, as in the case with the fish, whenever we find a fossilized amphibian that is not extinct there is no significant difference between the fossil and its modern day counterpart. Therefore, evolutionists have the same problem with amphibians that they have with fish. In order for amphibians to change into reptiles, changes have to happen time and again in many steps to one specific amphibian linage, while all of the amphibians that have not become extinct stay the same. Nevertheless, such changes have never been observed, and there is no empirical evidence that they ever took place. The evolutionists simply assert that they happened because that is what they want to believe. And, all such assertions are science fiction, not science.
The Alleged Evolution of Amphibians
The sedimentary rocks in the earth’s crust contain many fossilized amphibians. Not as many amphibians as fish, but they are there. There are fossilized frogs, salamanders, mud-puppies and so forth. And, as I have pointed out, whenever we find the fossil of an amphibian that is not extinct we find that there has not been any significant change since the rocks were formed. Nevertheless, the July/August 2017 issue of “Discover” magazine (which I previously mentioned) lines up pictures (artists’ renderings) of creatures that, according to them, represent various steps in the evolution of fish into amphibians. One, named Tiktaalik, is said to be a, “transitional fishapod”. Of another, named Acanthostega, it says, “Researchers believe it was still fully aquatic but may have ‘walked’ in the shallows” (emphasis mine). A third, named Pederpes, is said, “to have been capable of four-limbed locomotion on land”. However, there is not one scrap of evidence that these creatures were even related to each other, much less that they represent steps in evolution. The evolutionists simply assert that it is true while ignoring all of the fossil amphibians that have not evolved. And, flying in the face of evidence, all such assertions are science fiction, not science.
The ploy used by “Discover” magazine; that of lining up pictures of extinct species and asserting that one has evolved from the other, is nothing more than an exercise in deception. It may take in the gullible, but there is no proof that such evolution ever took place. If all members of the deer family, except the Moose, were extinct; then I could line up pictures of a small deer, a large deer, an elk and a Moose and claim that one evolved into the other. But, that would not make it true. And, anyone who calls such assertions science, only tells me that they cannot distinguish between science and science fiction.
The Alleged Evolution of Reptiles
Just as with fish and amphibians, the
layers contain many fossilized reptiles that are not extinct.
alligators, lizards, tuatara and a variety of turtles are all
just as with the fish and amphibians, whenever we find the fossilized
of a reptile that is not extinct there is no significant difference
and those living today. Evolutionists try to seize on minor
However, the differences between a particular fossil and its living
representatives are often less than the differences between the various
varieties. Nevertheless, because evolutionists want to believe that
evolved into birds, they insist that all of the birds living today must
evolved from some extinct species of reptile. And, the most popular
the moment is that dinosaurs have evolved into birds. I found the
statement to that effect on the website of the “
“Not all dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. Avian dinosaurs — in other words, birds — survived and flourished”.
Notice how, in typical blowhard fashion, they talk as if they were present when it happened, even though the claim that dinosaurs evolved into birds is nothing more than pure speculation. Furthermore, as I pointed out previously, one entire species could never evolve into another species, and this is the reason. If a specific dinosaur species numbered one–million at the time it began to evolve, and if one of those dinosaurs had a little change in the right direction, it would have to mate with others that did not have that change. For that reason, in a few generations the change would be recessive. Then, if another dinosaur in that population had the next change in the right direction, the same thing would happen. And, that would accomplish nothing. No. In order for evolution to take place the second change has to happen to a descendant of the dinosaur with the first change, and so on with all subsequent changes. This means that one particular reptile linage had to experience one change after another, while all of the reptiles that did not become extinct remained virtually the same. And, because there is not one scrap of evidence that dinosaurs changed into birds, the claim that they did is science fiction, not science. Worse yet, it is science fiction that flies in the face of the evidence.
Dr. Carl Werner spent years documenting the various plant divisions and animal phyla fossilized alongside the dinosaurs. In his research he discovered many types of fossil birds in the rocks with dinosaurs including ducks, loons, flamingos, albatross, owls, penguins, sandpipers, parrots, cormorants, and avocets, as well as extinct birds such as Archaeopteryx and Hesperornis. In fact, alongside the dinosaurs he found examples of all of the major plant divisions and animal phyla groups living today. Yet, of 60 natural history museums that he visited, only one displayed a bird with the dinosaurs. By leaving birds out, museum displays mislead the public. For, the fact that birds existed alongside of the dinosaurs is solid scientific evidence that dinosaurs did not evolve into birds. [A DVD in which Dr. Werner tells about his research is available.]
Even though evolutionists insist that an extinct fish evolved into an amphibian, an extinct amphibian into a reptile, and a reptile into a bird; there is no evidence that it ever happened. They just impose their interpretations on the facts the way cults impose their interpretations on Scripture. At the same time they do not even deal with the fact that amphibians have a design (a blueprint) for legs in their DNA that fish do not. They just claim that it happened, and expect us to believe it. Nevertheless, such a claim is contrary to reason, for blueprints do not just happen.
Evolutionists also want you to believe that all scientists agree with them. However, that is just another one of their lies. In order to be a member of the Creation Research Society, a scientist must believe that God created the world in six days just as the Bible says. And, to be a voting member of that organization, a scientist must have at least a master’s degree in one of the Creation related sciences. At present, over six-hundred of their members have a doctorate. To contact them go to www.creationresearch.org.