Because of the limited knowledge of science in 1859, the complexity of the microscopic world was undreamed of. Even a rudimentary knowledge of the vast complexity of atomic and nuclear structure was still 50 years in the future. The molecular world was just beginning to reveal its secrets to the chemist. And the cell was thought to be very simple in its structure. It was at this time of the infancy of modern science that Charles Darwin published his book Origen of Species.

It is doubtful that any other theory has so deeply affected man's view of himself and the world. The reason for this is simple. The sciences had developed to the point where many scientists thought that almost all that could be known was already known. Science had conquered the macroscopic world and had tamed its laws. Scientists were intoxicated by their successes. But it knew almost nothing of the microscopic world and failed to recognize the staggering complexities that were hidden from view.

It was at this time and under these circumstances that Darwin gave to the scientific world an opportunity to reject their Creator and replace Him with an atheistical view of the origin of the universe. Thus, although there have always been atheists, most people and most scientists believed in the Genesis account of creation. Since the introduction of the theory of evolution the bulk of the scientific community has wholeheartedly embraced this atheistical view even though it lacks even a modicum of real scientific proof.

It is my sincere desire that this little treatise will help men and women of all walks of life to see the truth about this subject. The theory of evolution is a hoax that has been foisted off onto an unsuspecting society with devastating moral results.

Below is a list of books from which I have borrowed so freely that I have not attempted to footnote every place where I used them. If the authors have said it better than I could, I have freely used what they said with only a few changes. I lay no claim to originality. My only desire is that the truth be made manifest. I strongly suggest that the reader read the books listed because they provide a more thorough presentation than I can give in these few pages. May the God of my life open the eyes of the blind.

Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe, The Free Press, 1996.

Bones of Contention, Marvin L. Lubenow, Baker Books, 1994.

The Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory, A. E. Wilder-Smith, The Word for Today Publishers, 1987.

Evolution, A Theory In Crisis, Michael Denton, Burnett Books, 1985.

The Collapse of Evolution, Scott M. Huse. Baker Books, 1996.


Scientists may speculate about the past, but they can only actually observe and make measurements in the present. Since observation and measurement is the foundation of science, obviously, then, the widespread assumption that evolution is an established fact of science is absolutely false. Thus, the Theory of Evolution can only be correctly labeled as a belief or a subjective philosophy of origins, or perhaps the religion of many scientists. Despite this fact, many of today's scientists and teachers still insist that evolution is an established fact of science. To no small degree this is because very few scientists and teachers have actually studied the foundations of evolution in order to verify for themselves its truthfulness or falsity. They merely accept the pronouncements of others on faith. As a matter of fact, scientists have demonstrated an incredible faith and trust in the work of their fellow scientists, a faith much like that which a fundamentalist Christian has in the Bible.

Let us examine some of the statements made by men of some renown. These statements are typical of the majority of scientists in the world today. It is on the basis of these kinds of statements that the world at large accepts evolution as a scientific fact. It is also why teachers teach that evolution is a fact when in reality they know nothing about it and have never so much as taken just a little time to read anything against it.

Sir Julian Huxley (grandson of Thomas Henry Huxley, a champion of Charles Darwin) pronounced in 1959:

"The first point to make about Darwin's theory of evolution is that it is no longer a theory, but a fact. No serious scientist would deny the fact that evolution has occurred, just as he would not deny the fact that the Earth goes around the Sun."

M. J. Kenny has stated:

"Of the fact of organic evolution there can at the present day be no reasonable doubt; the evidences for it are so overwhelming that those who reject it can only be the victims of ignorance or of prejudice."

Professor George Gaylord Simpson assures us:

"Darwin finally and definitely established evolution as a fact."

Quoting from a standard geology textbook, Essentials of Earth History:

"The fossil record furnishes irrefutable proof that life on earth has changed through the ages... The systematic study of fossil remains cast an entirely new light on the past history of the earth and did away with the old-fashioned and superstitious notions on the subject that had prevailed for thousands of years...fossils prove not only that life has changed but also that it has progressed from simplicity to complexity with the passage of time. These are the facts. To those who take an unbiased view of the matter, there is only one conclusion--that all past and present life has descended from simple beginnings."

A spokesman for the American Association for the Advancement of Science recently stated:

"One hundred million fossils identified and dated in the world's museums constitute one hundred million facts that prove evolution beyond any doubt whatsoever..."

This kind of propaganda is pumped out of the scientific world and blithely accepted without question by millions of scientifically uneducated people around the world because they have been con-vinced by that same scientific world that scientists are omniscient.

But what is even more startling is that even the scientists are bamboozled to believe their own propaganda. Few scientists today have ever truly questioned and examined this theory to see if it is indeed true. Now let us look at what one honest Nobel laureate had to say about the matter.

As George Wald, winner of the 1967 Nobel Prize in Science, has written:

"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds, therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance."

Finally, let us see what British biologist L. Harrison Matthews says in his honest forward to the 1971 edition of Darwin's Origin of Species:

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory--is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation--both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."

Thus, according to these last two quoted scientist, we find that evolution is generally accepted to be a fact of science, not because it can be proven by scientific evidence, but because the only alternative, special creation, is totally unacceptable to many of the scientists. In other words, they refuse to believe in a God that created everything. So this brings us to a very important question. Is the theory of evolution science or religion? Let us take a few moments to examine the basic foundations of science.

I. WHAT IS SCIENCE? It is a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws. Or, alternately, it is a branch of study that uses the scientific method in order to extend its knowledge of the laws governing that branch.

II. WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD? The scientific method goes something like this: from empirically derived axioms one proposes a theory, the theory predicts certain behavior, and it is tested in the laboratory to see if the predicted results occur.

III. HOW ARE SCIENTIFIC LAWS DETERMINED? All scientific laws are either empirically derived or the result of inductive reasoning and, therefore, they cannot be sacrosanct. Scientific laws are based on the fact that certain behavior is seen to be unchanging, no matter how many times the particular phenomenon is reproduced. Thus, true science must always satisfy the following principles:

  1. The most fundamental axioms and conclusions may be challenged.
  2. The prevailing hypothesis must survive confrontation with observation.
  3. Appeals to authority are not permissible.
  4. Experiments must be reproducible.

IV. WHEN IS A THEORY CONSIDERED TO BE A LAW? Generally, a theory that seems to be verified by experiment will still be called a theory for some time. If after many testings in the laboratory and observations in nature it remains valid, it will often begin to be called a principle. Only after withstanding literally millions of tests in the laboratory and in nature will it finally acquire the title of a law. Examples of laws in physics are

  1. Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation.
  2. Newton's Laws of Motion.
  3. The Laws of Thermodynamics.
  4. The Laws of Probability for stochastic processes.
  5. Lenz's Law.
  6. Faraday's Law.

And examples in chemistry are:

  1. Boyle's Law
  2. Proust's Law
  3. Dalton's Law of Multiple Proportions
  4. Lavoisier's Law of Conservation of Matter
  5. Avogadro's Law

Not all scientific statements have equal weight. A scientific statement is only as dependable and reliable as its repeatability and verifiability. On a scale of 0 to 10 where 10 is the most reliable, it is possible to assign relative values to various scientific statements based on the number of direct experiments and observations involved. The following conclusions may be drawn:

1. We must assign a value of 10 to the Laws of Thermodynamics because of the millions of confirming experiments and observations.

2. We must assign a 0 to the Theory of Evolution because there are no confirming experiments.

In fact, according to evolutionists themselves the evolutionary processes work so slowly that they are not observable over the lifetime of one individual or even over the successive lifetimes of hundreds of generations. In other words, there are no direct observations or experiments that can confirm the process of human evolution. Thus, it has a value of zero as a scientific statement.

This means is that the Theory of Evolution, more properly called the Theory of Upward Vertical Evolutive Speciation, can have zero weight as a scientific statement because it does not lend itself to the scientific method. There simply is no way to verify or falsify this theory either by laboratory experiment or by observation in nature. Thus, this theory is in reality metaphysical philosophy dressed in scientific garb. In other words, it is a religious system designed to replace the Genesis account of origins.


There is one essential fact that must always be kept in mind when thinking about the Theory of Evolution. All fields of study that have to do with origins, i.e., biological evolution and cosmology, by their very nature cannot be science because they fail to be subject to verification and falsification by repeatable experimentation. There simply is no way to know what happened in the past by scientific study. This can be explained as follows:

In the history books we read that Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants. Being a natural-born sceptic I wish to verify this claim. As a scientist I begin to question the physical possibility of elephants being able to cope with the cold temperatures and the steepness of the terrain. So I get a federal grant to make the study. After having bamboozled some senators and receiving the money, I set out for the area in question. Then I purchase several elephants of the variety that he would have used. I make a careful study into the panoply of war elephants and duplicate the situation. Finally, I set out with my elephants on the route that Hannibal was supposed to have followed. With great difficulty I manage to make the crossing. I then publish my findings in the prestigious journal that has to do with such things. I declare that I have proved that Hannibal did cross that Alps.

Now the question arises as to whether I really proved that Hannibal did cross the Alps. Of course, the answer is that I proved no such thing. What I did prove is that he could have done so because I did so. In other words, I merely showed that it is theoretically possible that he did so because I simulated such a feat. This is all that science can do when looking back into the past. It is not scientifically kosher to extrapolate from the present event back to the past as though it proves that that actually happened. In order to know what happened in the past, we must have reliable witnesses. We must have historical fact, not scientific data. Science can only prove what may have happened because I create the same type of thing in the laboratory. Witnesses prove what did happen. These two kinds of fact may agree or disagree, but there is no real connection between them.

Most scientists fail to grasp the essential difference between scientific data and historical fact. Scientific data can tell you what may have happened in the past, but no matter how well the experiment was done, it can never tell you what did happen. On the other hand, historical facts tells you what did happen in the past, provided that one can be assured that it is authentic.

The Genesis account in the Bible, for example, purports to be an historical account of how the universe came into existence and how man came onto the scene. But it can never be proved that it is factual historical data. One may be able to assemble a great deal of corroborative evidence, but in the end it must be accepted on faith.

The point is that all theories about origins are by their very nature unprovable. The past may be proved only by reliable witnesses. But there are no witnesses to the origin of the universe or the origin of biological systems on the earth. Thus, it may be stated categorically that all such theories lie in the realm of philosophy and theology. Darwin's great accomplishment was not the introduction of a scientific theory. His great achievement was to bamboozle the scientific community and the world into believing that what he proposed was science and not religion.

Clearly, what this shows is that logic does not always accompany academic intelligence. Almost all of the Nobel laureates believe and teach evolution to be a scientifically proven theory. That these men are of considerable genius is undeniable. But history has manifested one singular fact about human nature. In love, religion, and politics even the most intelligent of men often become muddled.

The purpose of this lecture is not to demonstrate how the universe came into being or how our species came into existence. As I pointed out above, that is outside of the realm of science. What I propose to do is to demonstrate from the basic laws of physics and chemistry that Upward Vertical Biological Evolutive Speciation, i.e., the spontaneous evolution of a less ordered species to a more ordered species, commonly called the Theory of Evolution, is a scientific impossibility regardless of how life originated. By doing this I will also have demonstrated that it is scientifically impossible for biological systems to have originated from inorganic matter through that mechanism.



The Second Law of Thermodynamics may be stated in three ways:

1. With the passage of time all physical systems continuously progress toward a greater degree of disorder unless acted upon by some outside agency.

2. With the passage of time all physical systems increase in entropy unless acted upon by some outside agency.

3. With the passage of time the information level of all physical systems will deteriorate unless acted upon by some outside agency.

All three of these statements say the same thing, that is, that the nature of the universe is such that all physical systems tend toward chaos, systems naturally degenerate, systems naturally dumb down, and the only way that this process can be reversed is by the input of energy and information.

The evolution believing physicist will labor diligently to try to devise some mathematical proof that this may at times not hold at all places and at all times. Thus, he will contend that there can be local deviations from this law provided that the law holds over all. This all sounds very good and pleases the evolutionist, but one must remind oneself that this deviation is never observed in practice. The inescapable fact is that nobody has ever observed this behavior in the laboratory or in nature. Thus, it cannot be demonstrated scientifically according to the rules of the scientific method.

No physicist would give a second thought to some proposed invention that would violate the laws of thermodynamics. These laws are so basic to our understanding of the universe that only kooks propose their violation. In actual practice the greatest evolutionary physicist would be shocked if his rusty car began to spontaneously heal itself from the ravages of time. He would consider it to be insanity to expect that a pile of building materials would spontaneously rearrange themselves into a house. He knows that to bring order out of such disorder requires work that is directed by a source of information or intelligence.

So let us ask ourselves why that brilliant theoretical physicist would suddenly believe that biological systems, which are many trillions of times more complex than a house, would spontaneously rearrange the atoms and molecules of nature to form themselves. That physicist would laugh at the idea that a computer or a car engine or a building would ever spontaneously come into existence. Yet he willingly accepts the spontaneous appearance of biological systems, systems that are almost infinitely more complex than any one of the above.

Does this not say something about the mental attitude of the scientist rather than about the question of evolution? The physicist that argues so strenuously for evolution argues against the logic of his own field of study. Clearly, then, the problem is religious and not scientific, as Nobel laureate George Wald quoted above says. His abhorrence of the idea of a God who created everything causes him to abdicate his own sense of logic.


The Laws of Probability are always in effect when the processes involved are random. There is no way to get around this fact. Almost all scientists that believe in evolution ignore this fact of life. If the processes in nature are random, then all results are governed by the laws of probability. I repeat, this is an inescapable fact. And all scientists agree that all processes in the universe are random. Thus, everything that happens in the universe spontaneously must be by chance and according to the laws of probability.

In order for a biological system to upwardly evolve it must be self-replicating or else it would die off long before the next evolutionary step could occur. This means that if by some happenstance a living cell suddenly appears by some evolutionary mechanism it cannot evolve farther unless it can reproduce itself, because according to evolutionary theory all evolutionary steps occur over great periods of time. This ought to be self-evident. Thus, we must have a DNA molecule spontaneously appear in order for the evolutionary process to be able to operate since the long periods of time required by Darwin would mean that any lesser structure would disappear without upwardly evolving.

Just consider the complexity of the simplest self-replicating protein or the simplest DNA molecule. The vast amount of information stored in the simplest DNA molecule exceeds the storage capacity of anything that man has to date ever built electronically. This molecule is so complex that we are still learning its structure. The complexity is similar to that of designing a robot that if placed in a junk yard will construct a skyscraper or a Boeing 747 out of the existing materials around it.

Before we speak of the probability of a DNA molecule evolving out of inorganic materials, let us examine much simpler systems. Consider some cards on which we write a number. We want to write the numbers 1 through 20 on twenty cards. Now let us take the first two cards and shuffle them. If we lay them out on the table in sequence, what is the probability that they will be laid down in order--1, 2? Since there are only two possible ways that they could be laid out, called permutations, the chances are that in two tries we would lay them out in order at least one time. So the answer is--1 chance in 2.

Now let us add the card with the number 3 to the first two. We shuffle as before and lay them out one after the other. Again, what is the probability that we will lay them out in order--1, 2, 3? There are six possible permutations and so the chances are one in six. In other words, we can determine the probability by counting the permutations possible and this comes out for n cards to be n factorial, that is, it is the product n(n-1)(n-2)...(1).

Please examine the table of probabilities. From the table it is easy to see that with each succeeding card added the probability of laying them out in order more or less decreases inversely as the power of ten. Thus, very quickly the probability fast approaches zero. This asymptotic behavior is something that people unacquainted with probability theory fail to understand. Unfortunately, many scientists are not familiar with probability theory and do not appreciate what this means nor that it is inescapable.

Let us look at the table again. We must lay out three cards six times in order to expect that they will be laid out sequentially one time. But in order to expect that ten cards will be laid out sequentially we must lay them out 3,628,800 times. And in order to see the devastating effect of probability notice that with just one more card we must lay them out 39,916,800 times. And now comes the staggering fact that to expect to lay out all twenty cards in sequence one time, we must lay them out 2,540,000,000,000,000,000 times, a number that hardly even has a name because of its immensity.

A DNA molecule is made up of molecules, not just atoms, and this merely increases the complexity. The simplest DNA will have more than 400 molecules of various kinds, each molecule having several atoms. It has been calculated that the simplest DNA molecule of a self-replicating cell is so complex that one would need 10(power)167,000 collision events to occur in order to expect these to combine to form this simple self-replicating cell's DNA. That number of events is a 1 followed by 167,000 zeros. This number is larger than the number of atoms in the earth. And this is just for the simplest DNA molecule known.

Added to this enormous complexity is the fact that the DNA molecule is coded. This means that it contains information. DNA molecules can be synthesized but whenever they are, they carry no coded information. In other words, they come together in a purely random way, but information requires non-randomness. And to get an idea of the mind-boggling amount of information that is contained in one DNA molecule, we must consider that all of the information necessary to replicate a human being is contained in it. The structure of the brain, eye, heart, pancreas, liver, intestinal tract, lungs, blood cells, white corpuscles, etc, etc, etc, are all there. But the human body is not just a bunch of organs stuffed inside a skin bag. It is a holistic entity that is in reality a highly complex metabolic machine. So the complexity of DNA dazzles the brain and defies our ability to calculate.

If this is not enough to convince a person of the folly of believing in the theory of evolution, let us consider one more fact of probability theory. According to the Darwinist all natural processes are random, but given enough time, energy, and the proper conditions biological systems will spontaneously emerge. Now if natural events are indeed random, this means that evolution by mutations and natural selection would be equally downward as well as upward since there is no mechanism in a truly random system to make the change occur in one direction only. This, after all, is what the word random means. Let us look at a simple example.

No. Of Cards One Chance in n Tries Prob. Of Occurrence
1 1 1
2 2 .5
3 6 0.167
4 24 4.17x10-2
5 120 8.34x10-3
6 720 1.39x10-3
7 5.04x103 1.98x10-4
8 4.03x104 2.48x10-5
9 3.63x105 2.76x10-6
10 3.63x106 2.75x10-7
11 3.99x107 2.51x10-8
12 4.79x108 2.09x10-9
13 6.23x109 1.61x10-10
14 8.72x1010 1.15x10-11
15 1.31x1012 7.65x10-13
16 2.09x1013 4.78x10-14
17 3.56x1014 2.81x10-15
18 6.40x1015 1.56x10-16
19 1.27 x1017 7.87x10-18
20 2.54 x1018 3.94x10-19


Examples of powers of 10.

Positive powers move decimal to the right that many places.

6.23x109 = 6,230,000,000 or 2.09x1013 = 20,900,000,000,000

Negative powers move decimal to the left that many places.

1.61x10-10 = 0.000000000161 or 4.78 x10-14 = 0.0000000000000478

I wish to leave home and walk to the grocery store. The store is just about a mile distant from my home. But I have a disease that has a strange effect on me. I can not direct my steps at all. All of my steps are purely random. If I could direct my steps, it would require about 3000 steps to go from my door to the store. Since I cannot do other than take steps in a purely random way, where would I expect to be after 3000 steps? The answer is, "Right at my door step."

In other words, the word random means that for every step toward the store there is an equal probability that I will take a step back toward my home. This cannot be avoided. That is what random means. The Laws of Probability reveal the impossibility of a complex molecule coming into existence by purely random events.

Since all events in nature are random and reversible and if we start with a system in total chaos, as it would be after a "big bang," the laws of probability tell us that after a great length of time and with a lot of energy available and under ideal conditions we will end up with a system that is still in total chaos. Randomness simply cannot produce order, even if you allow yourself six hundred trillion years and as much energy as is in the sun. As a matter of fact, the Third Law of Thermodynamics assures us that an increase in available energy increases the entropy or disorder of the system, only compounding the problem.



I want to discuss two aspects of modern chemistry that throw clear light on this most important question of origins. The first point is concerned with the experimental findings of biochemistry. I refer the reader to the book Darwin's Black Box by Dr. Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University. Dr. Behe describes in great detail the staggering complexity of the cell and the impossibility of arriving at certain components of the cell by a gradual, infinitesimal step by step Darwinian process because these components are what he calls irreducibly complex. In other words, you either have the thing in its complete form or you don't have it at all.

Although he fails to properly appreciate the probabilistic impossibility of arriving at such a high order of complexity by purely random physical processes, he does cogently explain why it is impossible to arrive at a simple irreducibly complex machine by the Darwinian mechanism. The fact that the machine cannot work unless it is complete means that there simply is no Darwinian route that the chance mutations could follow to bring it into existence. Then when one considers that the cell cannot function without these little molecular machines, this says that the cell itself cannot come into existence spontaneously.

Dr. Behe shows other biochemical processes that defy a Darwinian approach. For instance, he demonstrates the impossibility for the amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins, to be formed spontaneously. The molecule called AMP which is used to form a protein can only come about by the presence of those little molecular machines performing the tasks necessary for its formation. In the synthesis of AMP from a base molecule there are 12 steps necessary and each step requires a special irreducibly complex molecular machine. AMP cannot be synthesized in nature. The synthesizing cell must already exist in order for the process to occur.


The second aspect of chemistry that I wish to address is in the realm of organic chemistry. I wish to direct the interested reader to the book by Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith titled The Scientific Alternative to the Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory. He gives a very good discussion of the Von Neumann machine which John Von Neumann describes by way of the application of Information Theory to complex machine systems. He shows that a cell is just a machine that is self-replicating, self-diagnosing, and self-repairing. Von Neumann (arguably the greatest mathematical genius of the 20th century) demonstrated that this machine cannot spontaneously emerge out of random processes. It requires the injection of information from outside of the laws of nature.

In short, as Von Neumann demonstrates, machines do not and cannot just happen. A machine requires that information be contained in it. And information cannot occur through random processes. It is simply impossible for information to spontaneously emerge from chaos. Purpose implies design and design implies information and information implies thought and thought implies a thinker or designer.

One chapter of Dr. Wilder-Smith's book is concerned with the theory of Darwinian abiogenesis, that is, biological systems evolving out of inorganic matter. Basically the Darwinian theory says that biogenesis out of inorganic matter can occur by natural law given enough time, available energy, and the random processes of nature. But Dr. Wilder-Smith points out that biologically active proteins contain solely asymmetrical carbon atoms which are optically levorotary (left-handed) and this levo rotation is 100% optically pure. (Levorotary means that when polarized light passes through the substance it is rotated counter-clockwise.) Such proteins must be 100% optically pure in order to function in biological organisms at all. Biological proteins contain no mixtures of left-handed and right-handed centers. Otherwise, the shape of the molecule would not fit on to the receptor sites of the living organism.

Enzymes and other active molecules in the biological organism fit into their substrates and receptor sites much as does a hand into a glove. We must remember that a left hand fits only into a left handed glove. So long protein molecules may be viewed as a collection of thousands of left hands all joined together through interlocking the thumb of one hand to the little finger of the next hand to give a line of left hands, say 10,000 hands long. These 10,000 joined-up left hands have to fit into receptors in the cells or substrate which consists of 10,000 corresponding left-hand gloves. So we are not considering just one left hand to fit one left-handed glove, but 10,000 left hands all joined-up in a row to fit into 10,000 left hand gloves also joined-up in a row, without any misfits at all. Chemical enzymatic reactions function on the basis of a perfect fit--10,000 left hands fitting perfectly into 10,000 left hand gloves. In order for the metabolic process to occur the fit must be perfect.

It has been experimentally verified for years molecules of a protein which are optically impure generally show no ability to cooperate in the metabolism of the cell. And it is also experimentally verified that almost all proteins are left-handed and optically pure, and almost all DNA molecules are right-handed and optically pure. Since stochastic chemistry cannot produce optical purity but only mixtures, these molecules cannot possibly occur spontaneously.

Biological organisms obtain their chemical optical purity because it is in the information and instructions residing on the DNA molecule. In other words, chemistry of itself and unaided cannot distinguish between optically right and left forms because there is no entropy difference between them. Thus, the chemical laws that operate in nature are incapable of sorting out left and right handed molecules without the information being already coded into the DNA. This means that unless somehow that coded information or intelligence is put into the DNA, it is impossible for biological systems to spontaneously generate, no matter how much time and energy is available! Again, the probability that a molecule made up of about 10,000 optically pure atoms would spontaneously appear by chance is zero. It would not happen if the universe were a hundred times older than the scientists think that it is.

Let me explain this in another way. Protein molecules are all 100% pure left-handed optically. DNA molecules are all 100% pure right-handed optically. They cannot function unless they are pure optically. But the laws of chemistry make no distinction between right-handed and left-handed molecules. It sees no difference in them and would create them in equal proportions and would only be able to select them randomly. Thus, by nature these optically pure molecules could not arise spontaneously--no matter how much time we have.

The reason why we do get these optically pure molecules is because their selection is pre-coded onto the DNA. The DNA gives the instructions that cause the proper handedness to be chosen. So you must have DNA in order to create the DNA molecule. Now if we must have DNA in order to produce the optical purity needed for self-replication and if optical purity cannot spontaneously occur by the Darwinian evolutionary process, how did the DNA get here in the first place? I will let the reader answer that question.


Many years ago when I was pursuing my undergraduate degree in physics, I was required to take a course in political science and another in economics. In both classes the professors spent about two whole lecture periods trying to convince us that their subjects are sciences. I found that interesting because no physics professor spent even one second trying to convince us that physics is a science. It is clear that everybody considers physics to be a science, but not everybody considers the various social studies to be sciences.

If one examines the studies of politics and economics carefully and then compares them to physics, it is at once obvious that they are not scientifically equal. The social studies try to apply the scientific method to their field and to some degree they do so. And it is only to the degree that they are able to do so that one can consider these fields to be scientific. Otherwise, they must be considered a philosophy or an art. I do not mean to demean these fields of study, but I only want to make it plain that they are not in the same league with physics as far as being a science. Thus, scientific statements made by an economist cannot have the same weight as a scientific statement made by a physicist simply because they do not have the same scientific basis.

Because our modern world places an aura of omniscience about the scientist, all practitioners of the various fields wish to be considered scientists. If they can garner to themselves this prestigious title, their pronouncements are received with reverential awe by the general public as fact. This is quite convenient to the practitioner because he does not have the same difficulty of convincing the public that he otherwise would have. And it is important to remember that all people outside of a particular field are outsiders. A physicist generally speaking knows little about organic chemistry. A biologist knows little about higher mathematics or quantum electrodynamics. This is just the way that life is in the modern scientific world.

Because few people are truly knowledgeable about more than one area of study, this means that scientists tend to accept what other scientists in a different field say. It is absolutely amazing how truly gullible scientists can be. Brilliant scientists in the fields of physics and chemistry seldom know much of anything about paleontology or anthropology and they tend to accept the statements from those fields as factual. The one single thing that influences the scientists most to believe in evolution is the product of paleontology called the fossil record.


The so-called "fossil record" is pointed to most often as being that which proves the antiquity of the earth and the upward evolution of the species. Even scientists in such fields as astronomy, physics, and chemistry often speak of the fossil record as though it is a scientifically proven fact of life. As a matter of fact, astronomers, geologists, and biologists have no direct way to determine the age of man or of the earth or the sun or the universe. Underlying all of the work in these fields on origins is the tacit assumption that the fossil record proves the antiquity of the earth and the species. In other words, astronomers, geologists, and biologists start all of their researches on the assumption that they are old and they base that assumption on this thing called the fossil record.

One of the strangest forms of behavior that one can find on the part of the practitioners of the basic sciences of physics and chemistry is the unaccountable failure on their part to demand that the paleontologist demonstrate that he uses the scientific method in order to arrive at his conclusions. If he does not, then paleontology is not, properly speaking, a science. It would be at best an art. But certainly it could lay no claims to scientific accuracy. It is this lack of consistency on the part of the physical scientist that is very puzzling. The physicist and chemist goes through rigorous training in order to follow certain procedures so that his findings will be acceptable with his colleagues. Then he turns around and accepts the conclusions of the paleontologist even though he lacks the rigorous methods and approach of the physical scientist. This is incredible!

At the beginning of this article I quoted a statement made by a spokesman of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Let us look at that statement again. "One hundred million fossils identified and dated in the world's museums constitute one hundred million facts that prove evolution beyond any doubt whatsoever..." An examination of this statement will quickly reveal that it lacks any logic whatsoever. Does placing a name tag on a fossil and placing a date on it make it so? Is this science? Where is the evidence? Would this stand up under the demands of the rules of evidence in a court of law?

In 1925 there was a famous case in Tennessee concerning the teaching of evolution. It is called the Scopes trial. In this trial the world's most renowned paleontologists testified that the fossil named the Nebraska Man proved beyond any shadow of doubt that man existed thousands of years ago and the he has evolved from lower order species. The legal rules of evidence were such that this could not be considered as true evidence and as a consequence Scopes and evolution lost. But the scientific community thought that they had won and that the legal system was merely incompetent to judge such things.

Is the legal system incompetent to judge according to its strict rules of evidence? Are these rules too strict for the sciences to subject themselves to? Well, apparently not because the Nebraska Man was later determined to be a fraud perpetrated on the so-called science of paleontology. Those fossils that the great experts declared under oath to be from a prehistoric man turned out to be from a pig. The same happened with the Piltdown Man and a few other cases. The unvarnished truth is that paleontology is not a science at all. It is a form of stamp collecting and cataloguing, without the stamps having names and dates on them.

The truth is that the fossil record is no record at all. A record implies stored information that is properly verified at the time of its storage. The so-called fossil record is nothing more than a scheme of cataloguing based on a preconceived belief in the antiquity of the world and the truth of evolution theory. In logic it is called circular reasoning. You assume that the earth is old and that evolution is a fact and then you prove that the earth is old and that evolution is a fact. We will look at an example given by Prof. Marvin Lubenow in his book Bones of Contention.

Picture a well dressed man walking down State Street in Chicago. People observe that he continually snaps his fingers. Then from time to time he stops and looks all around as though looking for somebody or something. Finally, somebody goes up to him and asks him why he is snapping his fingers. The man answers, "Snapping my fingers keeps elephants away from me." The man says, "Why, man, there aren't any elephants within 10,000 miles of here." The snapper smiles real big with a knowing look and exclaims, "Boy, it really works, doesn't it?" The man assumed that snapping his fingers would keep elephants away and then because there were none, he took this as a proof that the finger snapping did its job. This is called circular reasoning or begging the question.

We have all seen pictures of the impressive sequence allegedly leading from small, stooped, primitive creatures up to man. Prof. Lubenow points out that almost any series of objects made by man can be arranged to make it look as if they had evolved when in fact they were created independently by an intelligent being. In other words, the fact that objects can be arranged in an evolutionary sequence does not prove that they are related in any way at all. Let me quote an anecdote from Prof. Lubenow's book on pages 21-23.

"In a certain graduate course I took in paleontology at a state university, the professor attempted to teach us the concepts of taxonomy and the construction of those familiar evolutionary family trees. He handed each student a packet of about 150 metal objects such as nails, tacks, and paper clips. Utilizing the various rules of evolutionary taxonomy, such as small to large, simple to complex, and generalized to specialized, we were each expected to arrange these objects in evolutionary order. Starting with generalized nails, we went on to nails gradually increasing in size and then branching off into various specialized types of nails and tacks. Naturally, no two students in the class arranged their objects in exactly the same way although there was an overall similarity. When the project was finished, we all had created a beautiful series of phylogenetic trees showing the "evolution" of nails, tacks, and paper clips.

"What I found fascinating about the project was that as we played with our object lesson, no one sensed that the illustration was totally invalid; it had no relationship to reality. Each of the objects that we had arranged in such a convincing evolutionary sequence had in fact been individually created for a specific purpose by humans. There was no actual evolutionary relationship between them. We were able to arrange them into an "evolutionary" sequence even though none of them had evolved. That fact did not seem to dawn on anyone in the class, including the professor."

Prof. Lubenow clearly describes from this classroom exercise the folly of the so-called fossil record.

If one would go to an automobile junk yard, he would be able to place the old cars in an evolutionary arrangement. Cannot one see the clear evolutionary path from those primitive little cars from the late 1890's to our modern cars? Each evolutionary step is easily found. But because we know historically that these cars are totally independent one from the other, we would never think of doing such a thing.

Clearly, it is only our lack of historical knowledge about the fossils that allows the paleontologist to believe that he observes an evolutionary record. However, the reality is that he cannot even know if the bones that he finds come from the same creature. And because the bones are so old, there is no DNA to test for comparison. So when one examines the field of paleontology in an unbiased and honest way, he finds that the so-called fossil record is merely a fossil arrangement of the junk found in a biological junk yard.

The problem is that paleontology and anthropology lack all of the strict rules that one applies to a true science. The so-called fossil record cannot be a record because it does not provide either historical data or scientific reproducibility and verifiability. All the fossil record proves is that it has been devised by men and women that believe in the antiquity of the earth and evolutionary theory. It is so subjective that it has about the same scientific value as a letter of recommendation from a person's mother.


In 1991 a law professor from the University of California at Berkeley, Phillip E. Johnson, published a book titled Darwin on Trial. Mr. Johnson is not a scientist. He is a professor of law. His profession is concerned with the complex problems of determining the reliability of evidence. In his book he concludes that:

1. Evolution is grounded not on scientific fact but on philosophical belief called naturalism.

2. The belief that a large body of empirical evidence supports evolution is an illusion.

3. Evolution is itself a religion.

4. If evolution were a scientific hypothesis based upon a rigorous study of evidence, it would have been abandoned long ago.

5. Since atheism is a basic supposition in the evolutionary process, it cannot be drawn as a conclusion from it.

What Prof. Johnson is saying in a very nice way is that when one applies the jurisprudential rules of evidence to the theory of evolution it is easily shown to be a bunch of hogwash. It is just science fiction. As he says, the theory of evolution is a religion and the ape is its Adam and Eve. Its high priests are the Nobel laureates who will cast anyone that dares to question it into the martyr's fire. And the bulk of scientists and lay people will accept it as readily as most people accept the religion of their birth without really studying into it to see if it is true.

One of the great problems that is faced in this whole discussion is that most people are very easily duped into accepting scientific statements as truth just because everybody else does. I call this "the Emperor's New Suit Syndrome." Eventually everybody believes it because everybody else does.


Let us consider the modern myth that radioactive dating methods are an independent confirmation of the geologic time scale and the concept of human evolution. I call it a myth because, first, it is not by any stretch of the imagination an independent confirmation but depends on the a priori assumption of an old earth and, second, it is pure science fiction. It is what Prof. Lubenow calls "The Dating Game." One should read his interesting analysis of this scientific game as applied to fossils.

I am not going to follow his approach. Rather, I want to merely point out some interesting thoughts concerning the radiometric dating methods. Let us consider the potassium-argon dating method. It is based on the idea that K (potassium) is radioactive and kicks off a proton to become Ar (argon). If we know how much K and Ar were in the rock when it was formed, we can now measure these two elements and determine how old that rock is because we know the rate at which K turns into Ar. That is the general idea. But let me ask a question. "How can you know how much K and Ar were present when the rock was formed?" Answer: You can't. Then this method is simply a sophisticated guess.

These dating methods have been applied to rocks that were formed within the last 30 years from volcanic eruptions. In these cases the age of the strata were known exactly. The so-called dating methods said that these rocks were about one million years old. If they make such large errors in cases in which we are sure of the age, how can we believe their results in cases where we do not know?

My point is that without certain assumptions about the age of the earth and geological strata one simply can know nothing. There is no geological way to determine the age of rocks or strata because this requires historical data and not scientific data. We always come back to this central problem. Origins are not accessible to scientific inquiry. The geologist must base his estimate of the age of things on what he believes the fossil record demonstrates. He has no way to demonstrate the age of anything apart from historical record. Because he considers the fossil record to be a historical record, i.e., he accepts the paleontologists arrangement of the fossils, he bases his dating on that. But as I pointed out above, the fossil record is not a record but merely a picture of what the paleontologist already believes, that is, that the earth is old and that evolution is a fact.

It should be apparent at this point that all of this so-called scientific data is a wonderful example of circular reasoning. It is for this reason that a learned jurist like Prof. Johnson rejects the evolutionists arguments. He is trained to detect circular reasoning. He sees plainly that all of the so-called proofs of evolution are not proofs at all. You assume the age of the earth to be old because it must be in order for evolution to occur. Now you interpret the distribution of fossils to prove evolution. So in reality you assumed what you claim to have proved.

The same arguments can be brought forth about the age of the universe. There is no possible way that an astronomer can prove that the universe is fifteen billion years old. This age is not determined in an independent way because we simply have no way to measure stellar distances beyond the limits set by parallax. Using a base line equal to the diameter of the earth's orbit we can make direct measurements out to about 300 light years distance and no farther. There is no direct way to measure anything beyond that. Thus, all measurements beyond that are indirect and based on assumptions that cannot be proved. And these assumptions will almost always be such that it builds into the cosmological theory what the age must be.

I realize that I am belaboring this point, but it is absolutely necessary that the reader understand the kinds of dating games that scientists play. When it comes to the question of the age of the universe and of the earth, because the theory of evolution depends on it, the scientific community will hide data that indicates that the earth or the universe is perhaps young. How many of my readers, even scientists, know about the solar neutrino crisis brought about by the experiments developed by Dr. Raymond Davis of the University of Pennsylvania? The results of his experiment indicate a very young sun, perhaps no older than four to ten thousand years. Or how many have heard about the implications of the data sent back from the Hubbel telescope concerning the density of novas which also indicated a universe as young as perhaps 10,000 years?

All true scientific advancements and knowledge are based on observation and measurement in the present time reference and has nothing to do with the past. There exists no mechanism to observe the past. Without historical records we can only theorize about the past and those theories may or may not be true. In other words, there are high degrees of subjectivity in scientific interpretations of the past. In general, the interpretation tells more about the philosophy of the scientists themselves than about the reality of the past. It is the scientific communities failure to recognize the high degree of subjectivity in its interpretations of the past that is the major cause of its ready acceptance of the theory of evolution.


I have given several unanswerable reasons above to show the absolute silliness of evolution. I could expand this booklet into a large volume by including a vast array of similar examples. But the underlying reason why evolution is nothing but a science fiction story is that it violates the two basic laws of physics, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the Laws of Probability. These laws have never been observed to be violated and these laws are basic to every other field of scientific inquiry. Since evolution violates both of them, it is not necessary to deal with the questions that people often bring up to show that creation is wrong. It is not a question of the age of the universe or the world because it doesn't really matter how old it is since evolution is a physical impossibility. Let us consider a few more cases involving these two most basis laws.


In order to go from non-living matter to living matter, even if the probabilities of spontaneously producing a DNA molecule that would survive long enough to reproduce were overcome, there must be an insertion of a vast amount of information into the DNA. But the 2nd Law says that information cannot come from randomness. It is simply impossible for random processes to produce what is called specified complexity, i.e., information that can run a functional mechanical or biological system. All of the arguments in the world will not allow the violation of this law. Thus, even though horizontal evolution is permissible because it does not add information to the system, as for instance, going from a Great Dane to a Chihuahua, this law absolutely forbids going from a reptile to a bird. There simply is no way for the information to get onto the DNA by random processes.

The amount and quality of information contained on a birds DNA is far greater than what is contained on the DNA of a reptile. Thus, for a bird to evolve from a reptile the reptile's DNA must acquire a vast amount of information or intelligence. Just where is this information supposed to have come from? Random processes cannot contain information and, consequently, they cannot pass on information to the DNA.

Let us consider what the biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner, a professor of Information and Communications Theory at Johns Hopkins University, says about the effect of mutations on the information in a DNA molecule in his book Not By Chance:

"In this chapter I'll bring several examples of evolution, [i.e., instances alleged to be examples of evolution] particularly mutations, and show that information is not increased...But in all the reading I've done in the life sciences literature, I've never found a mutation that added information.

"All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it...Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business can't make money by losing it a little at a time."


We have shown the probabilistic impossibility of spontaneously evolving a protein or a DNA molecule. But let us expand our minds a bit to consider the mind-staggering complexity of even a simple cell. And as we look at the cell, let us remember that this is supposed to have come about by random chance. Let us look at an excerpt from the book Evolution: A Theory In Crisis by the non-creationist critic of Darwinian evolution:

"Perhaps in no other area of modern biology is the challenge posed by the extreme complexity and ingenuity of biological adaptations more apparent than in the fascinating new molecular world of the cell.... To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship...What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we...enter one of these openings, we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity.

"Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which--a functional protein or gene, is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artifacts appear clumsy....

"It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research...design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate."

The researches of biochemists have revealed the simple cell to be so complex that nothing that man has ever designed or devised can come near to its complexity. It is almost like a little city with factories, a food distribution system, a waste disposal system, and a lot of little molecular machines that run around fixing and repairing the system. It is absolutely incredible that any sane person would even consider it possible that such a thing could just come about by pure chance from random processes in nature. It would be more intelligent to believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus.

What it all boils down to is that no matter what kind of a scenario the evolutionist can devise to show a possible path by which a biological system would be able to move from one level of complexity to another the probabilities of such a thing occurring are such that it is impossible--no matter how much time is available. You cannot side-step the Laws of Probability and the Laws of Thermodynamics.

There is little point in worrying about what you would do in New York if you can't catch a cab to the airport. Likewise, there is little point in talking about various scenarios of the supposed evolution-ary processes if evolution is impossible from the basic laws of physics. Clearly, evolution violates the most basic laws by which our universe operates. Evolution is just science fiction.


The answer to this question is, "Yes, absolutely!" The reason why it is of paramount importance is because it is really a religious question. This means that its consequences may be eternal. The evolutionist wants you to believe that it is a scientific question, but it is religious. If everything came into existence by pure chance, then there is no such thing as right and wrong. But if everything is the result of the creative power of a God, then the question of good and evil and final judgment becomes a frightening possibility.

In order to properly consider this issue one must be aware that Darwin was an atheist and he purposely put forth this theory to remove God from our lives. Evolution is a naturalistic theory, i.e., it is a theory that says that all things come from nature and are a natural product of the physical laws that govern the universe. It denies the need of a Creator. The true evolutionist believes that the universe is eternal, that it had no beginning and will have no end. To him there is no God and no need of God. So he labors to find a means to show that this complex world in which we live is the end result of random chance and not of design and creation.

Let me quote from Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist, Marxist, and renowned neo-Darwinist. He recently wrote this revealing comment (the italics are his) in an article for The New York Review. It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation, regardless of whether or not the facts support it:

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

If you couple the above statement with that of Nobel Laureate George Wald that was quoted at the beginning of this article, you will see most plainly that these bright scientists are not interested in truth. What they want is to eliminate God from the world that He created. They are God haters. This means that if you imbibe of this theory you are partaking of atheism, even if you do not realize it.

Just think about it. If we have evolved by purely natural laws from particles-to-people, then we are not fallen creatures because we are not creatures at all since we were not created. If a holy God did not create us but we merely evolved from a mud puddle, then there is no such thing as sin or evil. Neither is there such a thing as goodness or holiness. As a matter of fact, you would be of no more value than a lump of dirt because your existence would be merely a random accident without which you might have been just a lump of dirt.

Think of the natural and undeniable consequences of this theory. Without a God who has laid down His holy laws for us, there would be no such thing as right and wrong. Every man then would be a law to himself and right would be truly determined by might. Whoever is the strongest determines what is right and wrong. Mother Teresa would be a fool because it is foolishness to give your life for someone who originated from a mud puddle. As Paul said, let us eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we shall die. There can be no afterlife to a chance mutation.

If one can realize the consequences of atheistical Darwinian evolution, it can account for the sad moral condition of our modern society. Since Marxism is the application of Darwin's ideas to the social and political world, one can understand why the atheistical political system of Marxism can never bring anything but slavery to the people. In such a world there can never be such a thing as justice or love or kindness because love and justice and kindness can never evolve out of a mud puddle. And the sacrifice on the cross of Jesus would be an insane act by an insane person. The atheistical golden rule is, "Do unto others what you would not want others to do unto you. And do it quickly before he does it."

The Bible tells us that there is a divine Light that enlightens every person that comes into the world. This is the Holy Spirit of God. One cannot escape this divine presence which witnesses to him that God is and that He is holy. One cannot escape this witness against all sin and unrighteousness. But the Bible also tells us that we may sin against this witness and harden our hearts and sear our consciences so that we can no longer hear this voice of God. Then God will feed this hardened heart a strong delusion so that he will believe a lie and be damned.

What can that Nobel Laureate say at the judgment? What excuse will he have when he admits that he rejects the only reasonable answer about our origin and chooses to believe what he knows is impossible only because he does not want God to exist? Does he think that God will not exist merely because he does not want to believe in him? What arrogance and what folly the wise of this world demonstrate.

Dear Reader:

Do not think that you can choose to believe a lie and escape damnation. Down in your heart you know the truth. There is a still small voice that tells you that there is a God and that He created you and all things. This same God shows you your sins and calls on you to turn from them in a sincere repentance and to allow the blood of Jesus Christ to cleanse you from all sin. It is only through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ that you can be made fit to enter into a holy heaven to be with the Lord. Be not deceived for God will not be mocked!