How Evolution Flunked the Science Test - By Joe Crews

7/28/2019 How Evolution Flunked the Science Test - By Joe Crews

1/36


2/36

Copyright 2006 by

Joe Crews

All rights reserved.

Printed in the USA.

Published by:Amazing Facts, Inc.

P.O. Box 1058

Roseville, CA 95678-8058

800-538-7275

Cover design by Matthew Moores

Text design by Greg Solie Altamont Graphics


3/36

Recently I talked to a man with a fan-tastic amount of faith. Not one shadeof doubt crept into his animated de-

scription of mans origin and destiny. He wasan evolutionist I met on an airplane. Withincredible confidence he bridged the eons ofprehistoric time to explain the existence of

modern plant and animal life. His detaileddescription of human ascent from a tiny, one-celled monad was so vivid and convincingthat one could almost believe he had seen themicroscopic amoeba turn into a man.

How Evolution FlunkEd tHE

Science Test

Introduction .......................................................... 11. Spontaneous Generation ................................ 32. Chance LifeA Ridiculous Improbability .... 63. MutationsHow Big the Changes? .............. 94. Fossils Support Creationism ........................ 13

5. The Mystery of the Empty Strata ................ 176. Uniformity or the Flood? ............................. 207. Survival of the Fittest .................................... 23

JOE CREWS


4/36

How Evolution Flunked the Science Test2

What is this evolution doctrine that in-spires so much faith in its disciples? How

has it turned great scientists into dogmaticopponents of any other viewpoint? Manyevolutionary scientists have united their pro-fessional influence to forbid any classroominstruction contrary to their own views.

Does the theory of evolution merit this kindof fanatical support, which would silenceall opposing ideas? When religious peopletake such a position, they are called bigots,but scientists seem to escape that charge. In

February of 1977, nearly 200 members of thenations academic community sent letters toschool boards across the United States, urg-ing that no alternate ideas on origins be per-mitted in classrooms.

This indicates that the evolutionists arefeeling the threat of a rising revolt againstthe stereotyped, contradictory versions oftheir theory. Many students are looking forhonest answers to their questions about theorigin and purpose of life. For the first time,

the stale traditions of evolution have to goon the defensive. But lets take a look at whatthey have to defend. Then you will under-stand why these evolutionary scientists arepeople of such extraordinary faith, and why


5/36

How Evolution Flunked the Science Test 3

they are so fearful of facing competition at theschool level.

1.Spontaneous GenerationHow does the evolutionist explain the

existence of that first one-celled animal fromwhich all life forms supposedly evolved? For

many years the medieval idea of spontaneousgeneration was the accepted explanation.According to Webster, spontaneous genera-tion is the generation of living from non-living matter [it is taken] from the belief,

now abandoned, that organisms found inputrid organic matter arose spontaneouslyfrom it.

Simply stated, this means that under theproper conditions of temperature, time, place,etc., decaying matter simply turns into organ-ic life. This simplistic idea dominated scien-tific thinking until 1846, when Louis Pasteurcompletely shattered the theory by his experi-ments. He exposed the whole concept as ut-ter foolishness. Under controlled laboratory

conditions, in a semi-vacuum, no organic lifeever emerged from decaying, nonliving mat-ter. Reluctantly it was abandoned as a validscientific issue. Today no reputable scientisttries to defend it on a demonstrable basis. That


6/36


is why Webster says it is now abandoned.It never has been and never can be demon-

strated in the test tube. No present process isobserved that could support the idea of spon-taneous generation. Obviously, if spontane-ous generation actually did take place in thedistant past to produce the first spark of life, it

must be assumed that the laws that govern lifehad to be completely different from what theyare now. But wait a minute! This wont workeither, because the whole evolutionary theoryrests upon the assumption that conditions on

the earth have remained uniform throughoutthe ages.Do you begin to see the dilemma of the

evolutionists in explaining that first amoeba,or monad, or whatever formed the first cellof life? If it sprang up spontaneously from noprevious life, it contradicts a basic law of na-ture that forms the foundation of the entiretheory. Yet, without believing in spontaneousgeneration, the evolutionist would have toacknowledge something other than natural

forces at workin other words, God. How dothey get around this dilemma?

Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner ofHarvard University, states it as cryptically andhonestly as an evolutionist can:


7/36


One has only to contemplate the magni-tude of this task to concede that the spon-

taneous generation of a living organism isimpossible. Yet here we areas a result,I believe, of spontaneous generation(Scientific American, August 1954).

That statement by Dr. Wald demon-strates a much greater faith than a religiouscreationist can muster. Notice that the greatevolutionary scientist says it could not havehappened. Itwas impossible. Yet he believesit did happen. What can we say to that kindof faith? At least the creationist believes thatGod was able to speak life into existence. Hisis not a blind faith in something that he con-cedes to be impossible.

So here we are, face to face with the firstcontradiction of evolution with a basic lawof science. In order to sustain his humanis-tic explanation of the origin of life, he mustaccept the exploded, unscientific theory ofspontaneous generation. And the big ques-

tion is this: Why is he so violently opposedto the spontaneous generation spoken of inthe Bible? A miracle of creation is requiredin either case. Either God did it by divinefiat, or blind, unintelligent nature produced


8/36


Walds impossible act. Let any reasonablemind contemplate the alternatives for a

moment. Doesnt it take more faith to be-lieve that chance could produce life than itdoes to believe infinite intelligence couldproduce it?

Why did Dr. Wald say that it was im-

possible for life to result from spontaneousgeneration? That was not an easy concessionfor a confirmed evolutionist to make. Hisexhaustive search for a scientific explanationended in failure, as it has for all other evolu-

tionary scientists, and he had the courage toadmit it. But he also had an incredible faithto believe in it even though it was a scientificimpossibility. A Christian who confessed tosuch a faith would be labeled as nave andgullible. What a difference the cloak of highereducation makes upon our easily impressedminds! How much simpler and sweeter thefaith that accepts the inspired account: Inthe beginning God created the heaven andthe earth (Genesis 1:1).

2.Chance LifeA Ridiculous ImprobabilityWhat would be involved in the acciden-

tal development of a single living cell? Thefact is that the most elementary form of life is


9/36


more complicated than any man-made thingon earth. The entire complex of New York

City is less complicated than the makeupof the simplest microscopic cell. It is morethan ridiculous to talk about its chance pro-duction. Scientists themselves assure us thatthe structure of a single cell is unbelievably

intricate. The chance for a proper combina-tion of molecules into amino acids, and theninto proteins with the properties of life isentirely unrealistic.American Scientistmaga-zine made this admission in January of 1955:

From the probability standpoint, the or-dering of the present environment into asingle amino acid molecule would be ut-terly improbable in all the time and spaceavailable for the origin of terrestrial life.

A Swiss mathematician, Charles EugeneGuye, actually computes the odds againstsuch an occurrence at only one chance in10(160). That means 10 multiplied by itself

160 times, a number too large even to articu-late. Another scientist expressed it this way:

The amount of matter to be shaken to-gether to produce a single molecule of


10/36


protein would be millions of times great-er than that in the whole universe. For

it to occur on earth alone would requiremany, almost endless, billions of years(The Evidence of God in an ExpandingUniverse, p. 23).

How can we explain the nave insistenceof evolutionists to believe something so ex-tremely out of character for their scientificbackground? And how can we harmonizethe normally broad-minded tolerance of the

educated, with the narrow bigotry exhibitedby many evolutionary scientists in trying tosuppress opposing points of view? The obvi-ous explanation would seem to be rooted inthe desperation of such evolutionists to re-tain their reputation as the sole dispensers ofdogmatic truth. To acknowledge a superiorwisdom has been too long cultivated by theevolutionist community. They have repeatedtheir assumptions for so long in support oftheir theories that they have started accept-

ing them as facts. No one objects to their as-suming whatever they want to assume, butto assume happenings that go contrary to allscientific evidence and still call it science isbeing dishonest.


11/36


3.MutationsHow Big the Changes?Now lets look at a second basic evolu-

tionary teaching which is contrary to scien-tific law. One of the most necessary parts ofevolution, which is supposed to provide thepower for changing the amoeba into a man, ismutation. This refers to abnormal changes in

the organism that are assumed to be causedby chemical changes in the genes themselves.The genes are the hereditary factors withinthe chromosomes of each species. Every spe-cies has its own particular number of chro-

mosomes that contain the genes. Within ev-ery human being are 46 chromosomes con-taining an estimated 100,000 genes, each oneof which is able to affect in some way the size,color, texture, or quality of the individual.The assumption is that these genes, whichprovide the inherited characteristics we getfrom our ancestors, occasionally become af-fected by unusual pairing, chemical damage,or other influences, causing them to producean unusual change in one of the offspring.

This is referred to as a mutation. Throughgradual changes wrought in the various spe-cies through mutation, it is assumed by theevolutionists that the amoeba turned into aninvertebrate, which became an amphibian,


12/36


then a reptile, a quadruped, an ape form,and finally a man. In other words, the spe-

cies are not fixed in the eyes of the evolu-tionists. Families are forever drifting overinto another higher form as time progresses.This means that all the fossil records of ani-mal history should reveal an utter absence of

precise family boundaries. Everything shouldbe in the process of changing into somethingelsewith literally hundreds of millions ofhalf-developed fish trying to become am-phibious, and reptiles halfway transformed

into birds, and mammals looking like half-apes or half-men.Now everybody knows that instead of

finding those billions of confused familyfossils, the scientists have found exactly theopposite. Not one single drifting, changinglife form has been studied. Everything stayswithin the well-defined limits of its own ba-sic kind and absolutely refuses to cooperatewith the demands of modern evolutionists.Most people would give up and change their

theory when faced with such a crushing, de-flating blow, but not the evolutionist! He stillsearches for that elusive missing link whichcould at least prove that he hasnt been 100percent wrong.


13/36


But lets look at the vehicle that the evo-lutionists have depended upon to provide the

possibilityof the drastic changes required bytheir theory. Sir Julian Huxley, a principalspokesman for evolution, said this:

Mutation provides the raw material of

evolution. Again he said, Mutation isthe ultimate sources of all heritable

variation (Evolution in Action, p. 38).

Professor Ernst Mayr, another leader of

the evolutionists, made this statement:

Yet it must not be forgotten that muta-tion is the ultimate source of all genetic

variation found in natural populationsand the only raw material available fornatural selection to work on (AnimalSpecies and Evolution, p. 170).

Please keep this clearly in mind:Evolutionists say that mutation is absolutely

essential to provide the inexorable upgradingof species that changed the simpler forms intomore complex forms. BUTthe scientific factis that mutation could NEVER accomplishwhat evolution demands of it, for several


14/36


reasons. As all scientists agree, mutations arevery rare. Huxley guesses that only about one

in a hundred thousand is a mutant. Secondly,when they do occur, they are almost certainto be harmful or deadly to the organism. Inother words, the vast majority of such muta-tions lead toward extinction instead of evolu-

tion; they make the organism worse insteadof better. Huxley admits: The great majorityof mutant genes are harmful in their effect onthe organism (Ibid., p. 39).

Other scientists, including Darwin himself,

conceded that most mutants are recessive anddegenerative; therefore, they would actually beeliminated by natural selection rather than ef-fect any significant improvement in the organ-ism. Professor G. G. Simpson, one of the elitespokesmen for evolution, writes about mul-tiple, simultaneous mutations and reports thatthe mathematical likelihood of getting goodevolutionary results would occur only once in274 billion years! And that would be assum-ing 100 million individuals reproducing a new

generation every day!He concludes by saying:

Obviously such a process has playedno part whatever in evolution (TheMajor Features of Evolution, p. 96).


15/36


Does this sound sort of confusing to you?They say mutation is necessary to make the

changes required by their theory, yet theyhave to confess that it is scientifically im-possible for multiple mutations to make thechanges. This is too typical of the puzzlingtwists and turns made by our evolutionist

friends in their efforts to uphold an explodedtheory. So the second point of contradictionwith true science has been established.

Mutations, of course, do effect minorchanges within the basic kinds, but those

changes are limited, never producing a newfamily. They can explain many of the variet-ies of both plant and animals but can neverexplain the creation of basic kinds as requiredby evolution.

4.Fossils Support CreationismSince we have discovered that the fossil

record gives no support to the idea of spe-cies gradually changing into other species, letus see if fossil evidence is in harmony with

the Bible. Ten times in the book of Genesiswe read Gods decree concerning the repro-duction of His creaturesafter its kind.Theword kind refers to species, or families.Each created family was to produce only its


16/36


own kind. This forever precludes the drifting,changing process required by organic evolu-

tion where one species turns into another.Take note that God did not say there

could be no changes within the family. He didnot create all the varieties of dogs, cats, hors-es, etc., in the very beginning. There was only

a male and female of each species, and manychanges have since occurred to produce awide assortment of varieties within the fam-ily. But please keep it straight in your mindthat cats have always remained cats, dogs are

still dogs, and men are still men. Mutation hasonly been responsible for producing a newvariety of the same species, but never origi-nating another new kind. Selective breedinghas also brought tremendous improvementssuch as hornless cattle, white turkeys, andseedless oranges, but all the organisms con-tinue to reproduce exactly as God decreed atCreationafter its kind.

The common ancestor that evolutiondemands has never existed. There is not a

missing link. Man and monkeys are sup-posed to stem from the same animal ances-try! Even chimpanzees and many monkeygroups vary tremendously. Some are smart,others dumb. Some have short tails and some


17/36


long. Some have no tails at all. Their teethvary in number. A few have thumbs and oth-

ers do not. Their genes are different. Theirblood is different. Their chromosomes dont

jibe. Interestingly enough, apes only breedwith apes, chimpanzees with chimpanzees,and monkeys with monkeys.

But when we start comparing humanswith monkeys, we get even more impossibledifferences than those among the simiantypes. In fact, these differences constitute an-other unanswerable support for the Bible rule

of after its kind. The fact that some monkeyscan be trained to smoke a pipe, ride a scooter,or even hoist a test tube in a laboratory doesnot prove that scientists are evolved animals,or that monkeys are retarded, developinghumans.

It has already been stated that evolu-tionists expected the fossil record to supporttheir theory of species changes. Their doc-trine demanded vast numbers of scaly rep-tiles transforming their scales into feathers

and their front feet into wings. Other reptilessupposedly should be changing into fur-bear-ing quadrupeds. Did they find those thou-sands of multi-changing creatures? Not one!No matter what particular strata they sifted


18/36


through, all the fossils were easily recognizedand classified within their own families, just

as God decreed. Ifthe evolutionary doctrinewere true, the strata would be teeming withhundreds of millions of transition forms withcombination features of two or more species.Not only so, but there would have to be mil-

lions upon millions of observable living linksright now in the process of turning into ahigher form. Darwin confessed:

There are two or three million species on

earth. A sufficient field one might thinkfor observation; but it must be said todaythat in spite of all the evidence of trainedobservers, not one change of the speciesto another is on record (Life and Letters,

vol. 3, p. 25).

How interesting! Then why insist that ithad to be that way? This is one of the marvelsof those who cling to a traditional theory.

Even the most ancient fossil forms in the

lowest fossil beds have stubbornly retained thesame features of their modern counterparts,and it is amusing to listen to the exclamationsof surprise by the evolutionists. The creation-ist is not surprised at all. His Bible told him it


19/36


would be that way, and he hasnt been forcedto puzzle over contradictory evidence.

5.The Mystery of the Empty StrataAnother frustration for the poor evolu-

tionist is the strange case of the empty strata.As one digs deep into the earth, one layer or

stratum after another is revealed. Often we cansee these layers clearly exposed in the side of amountain or roadbed cut. Geologists have giv-en names to the succession of strata that pileone on top of another. Descending into Grand

Canyon for example, one moves downwardpast the Mississippi, Devonian, Cambrian,etc., as the scientists have tagged them.

Now here is the perplexity for the evolu-tionists: The Cambrian is the last stratum ofthe descending levels that has any fossils init. All the lower strata below the Cambrianhave absolutely no fossil record of life otherthan some single-celled types such as bacteriaand algae. Why not? The Cambrian layer isfull of all the major kinds of animals found

today except the vertebrates. In other words,there is nothing primitive about the structureof these most ancient fossils known to man.Essentially, they compare with the complex-ity of current living creatures. But the big


20/36


question is: Where are their ancestors?Whereare all the evolving creatures that should

have led up to these highly developed fos-sils? According to the theory of evolution,the Precambrian strata should be filled withmore primitive forms of these Cambrian fos-sils in the process of evolving upward.

Darwin confessed in his book, Origin ofthe Species:

To the question why we do not find richfossiliferous deposits belonging to these

assumed earliest periods prior to theCambrian system I can give no satisfac-tory answer the case at present mustremain inexplicable; and may be trulyurged as a valid argument against the

views here entertained (p. 309).

How amazing! Darwin admitted havingno way to defend his theory, but he still wouldnot adjust his theory to meet the unanswer-able arguments against it.

Many other evolutionary scientists haveexpressed similar disappointment and frus-tration. Dr. Daniel Axeliod of the Universityof California calls it:


21/36


One of the major unsolved problems ofgeology and evolution (Science, July 4,

1958).

Dr. Austin Clark of the U.S. NationalMuseum wrote concerning the Cambrianfossils:

Strange as it may seem mollusks weremollusks just as unmistakably as they arenow (The New Evolution: Zoogenesis,p. 101).

Drs. Marshall Kay and Edwin Colbert ofColumbia University marveled over the prob-lem in these words:

Why should such complex organic formsbe in rocks about 600 million years oldand be absent or unrecognized in the re-cords of the preceding two billion years? If there has been evolution of life, theabsence of the requisite fossils in the

rocks older than Cambrian is puzzling(Stratigraphy and Life History, p. 102).

George Gaylord Simpson, the CrownPrince of Evolution, summarized it:


22/36


The sudden appearance of life is notonly the most puzzling feature of the

whole fossil record but also its greatestapparent inadequacy (The Evolution ofLife, p. 144).

In the face of these forced admissions of

failure to find supporting scientific evidence,how can these men of science continue topress so dogmatically for their shaky views?No wonder they fight to keep students fromhearing the opposing arguments. Their posi-

tions would crumble under the impartial in-vestigation of honest research.The absence of Precambrian fossils

points to one great fact, unacceptable to theevolutionistsa sudden creative act of Godthat brought all the major creatures into ex-istence at the same time. Their claims thatcreationism is unscientific are made only tocamouflage their own lack of true evidence.The preponderance of physical scientific datais on the side of creation, not evolution.

6.Uniformity or the Flood?The subject of strata beds leads into

the interesting question of how these layerswere formed, and why the evolutionists have


23/36


guesstimated their age in the billions of years.The dating of those layers has been done on the

basis of the theory of uniformity. This theoryassumes that all the natural processes at workin the past have operated exactly as they do to-day. In other words, the creation of those stra-ta can only be explained on the basis of what

we see happening in the world now. Scientistsmust calculate how long it takes for sedimen-tation to build a foot-deep stratum. Then thatage is assigned to any 12-inch layer, no matterhow deeply located within the earth.

Is that a valid assumption to make? Haveall the natural forces of the past been just whatwe can demonstrate and understand today?How nave and conceited to compel ages pastto conform to our limited observation and ex-perience! We can assume what we please, butit proves absolutely nothing except our owngullibility. The Bible explains very graphicallyabout a Flood that ravaged the face of this earth,covering the highest mountains and complete-ly destroying all plant and animal life outside

the ark. The destructive action of the Deluge isexpressed by these words in the Bible:

The same day were all the fountainsof the great deep broken up, and the


24/36


windows of heaven were opened. Andthe rain was upon the earth forty days

and forty nights (Genesis 7:11, 12).

The existence of those strata can be sci-entifically accounted for in perfect harmonywith the Bible record. The universal Flood

of Genesis provides a much more reason-able explanation of the strata than evolutionsspeculations. As the waters receded from theearth, powerful tides and currents carved outthe great canyons in a short time. Layers of

debris, according to the specific weight, werelaid down, compressing plant and animal lifeinto a compact seam or stratum. Only thuscan we explain the vast oil reserves and coalbeds around the world. These are the resultof vegetation and animal bodies being buriedunder extreme heat and pressure. No suchprocess of fossilization is taking place today.No oil or coal is forming by present naturalforces at work. Uniformity fails here.

The fact is, there had to be a gigantic cat-

aclysmic overturn of nature, killing and bury-ing millions of tons of plant and animal life.The position of some fossils standing uprightthrough one or more strata indicates that theprocess was not slow or age long. The material


25/36


had to be deposited quickly around the bodyof the animal, or it could not have remained

in its erect position. The flood buried millionsof fish, many of them contorted as thoughsuddenly overtaken by a phenomenal force.Marine fossils have been recovered from thehighest mountain ranges, and a checklist on

other scientific evidences points to a univer-sal deluge over the entire planet.

7.Survival of the FittestNatural selection is a coined phrase of

the evolutionist to describe the survival of thefittest. Simply stated, it is the natural processthat enables the strongest of each generationto survive and the weaker, more poorly ad-

justed ones to die out. The assumption of evo-lution is that since only the strongest surviveto father the next generation, the species willgradually improve, even advancing into othermore highly developed states on the evolu-tionary scale.

Darwin believed that natural selection

was the most important factor in the develop-ment of his theory. Many of the top teachers ofevolution today are hopelessly at odds on thequestion of how vital it is. Sir Julian Huxleybelieves in it, as this statement indicates:


26/36


So far as we know natural selection is the only effective agency of evolu-

tion (Evolution in Action, p. 36).

He is disputed on this by another one ofthe heavyweights in the field, Dr. Ernst Mayr:

Natural selection is no longer regardedas an all-or-none process but rather asa purely statistical concept (AnimalSpecies, p. 7).

G. G. Simpson, who is regarded as theleading interpreter of the theory today, rejectsthese opposite views. He said,

Search for the cause of evolution has beenabandoned. It is now clear that evolutionhas no single cause (The Geography ofEvolution, p. 17).

By the way, when you read about thegreat unity and agreement that exists among

the scientists regarding evolution, dont be-lieve a word of it. Each one is busily experi-menting with new speculative possibilities asto how the changes took place and then aban-doning them as they appear more and more


27/36


ridiculous. The one basic tenet they do agreeon is that there was no divine fiat creation as

described in the Bible.But come back a moment to the matter

of natural selection. What is the evidence thatit can actually reproduce all the changes in-

volved in the transition from amoeba to man?

Is there scientific proof that it can even makeone small change? When it comes right downto answering those questions, the spokesmenfor evolution do some of the fanciest foot-work in semantics you ever saw and make

some of the most amazing admissions. Eventhough Simpson supports natural selection asa factor, he recognizes the scarcity of evidencein these words:

It might be argued that the theory isquite unsubstantiated and has status onlyas a speculation (Major Features, pp.118, 119).

But listen to Huxleys circular reasoning

on it. He says:

On the basis of our present knowledge natural selection is bound to pro-duce genetic adaptations: and genetic


28/36


adaptations are thus presumptive evi-dence for the efficiency of natural selec-

tion (Evolution in Action,p. 48).

Did you follow that gem of logic? Hisproof for natural selection is adaptation orchange in the organism, but the change is pro-

duced by natural selection! In other words:A=B; therefore B=A. His proof provesnothing. Were the changes produced by nat-ural selection, or did he invent natural selec-tion to explain the changes? It is just as likely

that the changes produced the natural selec-tion theory. The ludicrous thing is that eventhe changes from species to species have nev-er been verified. As we have shown already,there is not one shred of fossil evidence orliving evidence that any species has changedinto another. So Huxleys proof for naturalselection are changes which never happened,and the changes which never happened areoffered as proof for natural selection. Surelythis is the most vacuous logic to be found in a

science textbook.But let us continue with Sir Julians ex-

planation about the reliability of this naturalselection process:


29/36


To sum up, natural selection convertsrandomness into direction and blind

chance into apparent purpose. It operateswith the aid of time to produce improve-ments in the machinery of living, and inthe process generates results of a morethan astronomical improbability which

could have been achieved in no otherway (Evolution in Action, pp. 54, 55).

Dont miss the force of that last sentence.The evolutionary changes wrought by natu-

ral selection are astronomically improbable,but because our friend Huxley sees no otherway for it to be done, he believes in the as-tronomically improbable. Poor man! He iswrong when he said the complex order of lifetoday could have been achieved in no otherway. God created the wonders of cell and geneand all the millions of processes that leave theNobel Prize winners baffled.

But since Sir Julian doesnt believe in adivine creation, he has to invent a miracle-

working process to explain the existenceof these complex creaturesobviously gothere somehow. To illustrate the omnipo-tence of his natural selection god, Huxleycomputed the odds against such a process.


30/36


The computations were done on the likeli-hood of every favorable evolutionary factor

being able to produce a horse. Now keep inmind that this is all a chance developmentthrough the operation of nature, time, mu-tation, and natural selection. In his book,Evolution in Action, Huxley gave the odds

this way:

The figure 1 with three million naughtsafter it: and that would take three large

volumes of about 500 pages each, just to

print! No one would bet on anythingso improbable happening; and yet it hashappened (p. 46).

We commented before about the faith ofevolutionists to believe in the impossible. Sincethis figure of compound probability is effectivelyzero, how can a scientific mind, in the absenceof any demonstrable evidence, be so dogmaticin defending his theory? Why did Huxley em-ploy a mathematical formula to illustrate the

impossibility of his theory working? Perhapshe used the figures to accent his personal testi-mony. Just as born-again Christians seek occa-sions to bear their personal testimony of faithin Christ, Huxley demolishes the scientific


31/36


possibilities of his theory in order to magnifythe personal faith aspect of his personal testi-

mony for the god evolution.Marshall and Sandra Hall in their book

The TruthGod or Evolution?share their re-action to Huxleys absurd faith in the chanceproduction of a horse. It will provide a fitting

climax of proof that evolution indeed flunkedthe science test.

And, let us remind you who find suchodds ridiculous (even if you are reas-

sured by Mr. Huxley), that this figure wascalculated for the evolution of a horse!How many more volumes of zeros wouldbe required by Mr. Huxley to produce ahuman being? And then you would have

just one horse and one human being and,unless the mathematician wishes to addin the probability for the evolution of allthe plants and animals that are necessaryto support a horse and a man, you wouldhave a sterile world where neither could

have survived any stage of its supposedevolution! What have we nowthe fig-ure 1 followed by a thousand volumes ofzeros? Then add another thousand vol-umes for the improbability of the earth


32/36


having all the necessary properties forlife built into it. And add another thou-

sand volumes for the improbability of thesun, and the moon, and the stars. Addother thousands for the evolution of allthe thoughts that man can have, all theobjective and subjective reality that ebbs

and flows in us like part of the pulse beatof an inscrutable cosmos!

Add them all in and you long ago stoppedtalking about rational thought, much less

scientific evidence. Yet, Simpson, Huxley,Dobzhansky, Mayr, and dozens of oth-ers continue to tell us that is the way ithad to be! They have retreated from allthe points which ever lent any semblanceof credibility to the evolutionary theory.Now they busy themselves with esotericmathematical formulations based on pop-ulation genetics, random drift, isolation,and other ploys which have a probabilityof accounting for life on earth of minus

zero! They clutter our libraries, and presson the minds of people everywhere ananimated waxen image of a theory thathas been dead for over a decade.


33/36


Evolution has no claim whatsoever tobeing a science.

It is time all this nonsense ceased. It istime to bury the corpse. It is time to shiftthe books to the humorous fiction sec-tion of the libraries (pp. 39, 40).

These examples of evolutionary folly areonly the tip of an iceberg, but they reassure usthat we have no cause to be embarrassed forour creationist faith. Millions of Christians

have been intimidated by the high-soundingtechnical language of educated evolution-ists, many of whom are vitriolic in their at-tacks on special creation. What we do needis more information on exposing the loop-holes in the evolutionary theory; its base isso riddled with unscientific inconsistencies,often concealed under the gobbledygook ofscientific jargon.

To follow our ancestry back through thesons of Adam, who was the son of God, is so

much more satisfying than to search throughdismal swamps for bleeping monad forebears.The human race has dropped, even in our life-time, several degrees deeper into moral per-

version and violent disorder. Humanists cite


34/36


our animal ancestry as an excuse for muchof this bizarre behavior. Why blame people

for action dictated by their bestial genes andchromosomes? This rationalization, like atemporary insanity plea, provides license forfurther irresponsible conduct. The true causefor evil and the true remedy for it are found

only in the Word of God. Sin has defaced theimage of God in man, and only a personal en-counter with the perfect Saviour will bring areversal of the problem of evil.


35/36

Library of Sermons

1. Armageddon

2. Can a Saved Man Choose to Be Lost?3. Does Gods Grace Blot Out the Law?

4. Hidden Eyes and Closed Ears

5. How Evolution Flunked the Science Test

6. Is It Easier to Be Saved or to Be Lost?

7. Mans Flicker or Gods Flame

8. Satan in Chains9. Satans Confusing Counterfeits

10. Spirits From Other Worlds

11. Thieves in the Church

12. Why God Said Remember

13. Why the Old Covenant Failed

14. The High Cost of the Cross15. Hell-Fire

16. Is It Possible to Live Without Sinning?

17. Blood Behind the Veil

18. Spirits of the Dead

19. The Brook Dried Up

20. Death in the Kitchen21. The Search for the True Church

22. Is It a Sin to Be Tempted?

23. Is Sunday Really Sacred?

24. Heaven ... Is It for Real?

25. Rendezvous in Space

26. Christs Human Nature27. Point of No Return

28. The Rich Man and Lazarus

For more great resources, visit us at

www.amazingfacts.org


36/36

Documents

How Evolution Flunked the Science Test - By Joe Crews