My quarrel is not with true science - but with a theory- (which in reality is little more than a hypothesis) that is passed off as scientific, when in fact it cannot even meet the first and foremost test of what it is that makes an idea scientific. Eldredge states in part that for an idea to be scientific, it must be an explanation of some phenomenon which is "testable solely by the criteria of our five senses." # 1 I do not disagree with this statement. However, by its very nature the theory of evolution is totally unscientific because it is impossible to test any hypothesis which, by its own definition, requires 4 billion years to work. Yet evolutionists maintain that evolution is as scientific as the study of quantum mechanics. #2 

A prime example of such incongruous logic is furnished by Eldredge himself. In his book, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, he passes along the hypothesis that a possible explanation for the development of oxygen in the atmosphere at a level high enough to support complex life came about as the by-product of photosynthesis in algae over a period of several "billions" of years. He then states that "such a hypothesis is difficult to test.", but appears to accept it himself because he offers no alternative to it, and merely continues on with his discussion. #3 

Eldredge appears to accept as part of his "science" an idea which is not only difficult to test, but is downright impossible to test by the criteria of our five senses. But then Eldredge is certainly not alone in his inability to provide truly scientific explanations to such foundational questions. The best that Rick Gore, assistant editor of National Geographic could do was say ‚that "...certain bacterial members of the primordial slime invented the kind of photosynthesis that releases oxygen as a waste product." (emphasis added) #4 The acceptance or willingness to accept as "scientific", an idea which violates the very rule of what it is that makes an idea scientific must raise some question in the reader's mind as to exactly how "scientific" evolution really is. 

The simple fact that evolutionists call their study scientific does not make it so, even if they have been doing it for a hundred years and insist that it be treated as such in our children's textbooks. The fact that Eldredge states that "all reputable biological scientists see evolution as the only naturalistic scientific explanation of the order we see in the biological side of nature" should not defame the character of any biologist who accepts the Genesis account of creation, although the inference is clearly made. #5 

What then can we expect the psudoscience of evolution to tells us? Dr. Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University provided us with part of the answer to that question in a speech he gave before a group of evolutionists at Hobart College wherein he stated that, "...if it doesn't agree with your idea you don't talk about it." #6 (By the way, Dr. Gould is not a creationist. In fact, he is coauthor along with Niles Eldredge of the currently popular "punctuated equilibria" theory which is used by evolutionists to explain why it is that the fossil record in reality does NOT show gradual evolution.) Now, while there are other things we can expect from evolutionists, let us first take a look at the points which do not appear in school textbooks and which definitely do not support the theory of evolution. 

The fossil record is at the very heart of the theory of evolution, and it is there that I would like to begin this part of our study. Darwin believed that the different species developed one from another, either by direct descent or through a common ancestor. Complex life forms developed gradually over millions of years from simpler forms. This basic definition of what evolution is is still found in student texts such as Webster's New World Dictionary with Student Handbook 1978 edition which says that evolution is "the gradual changes that take place as something develops into its final form" ‚(emphasis added) However, Darwin himself noted, "Geology assuredly does not reveal such finely graduated organic chains... the explanation lies, I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." #7 That record is no longer "imperfect" in that there are currently more than 100 million categorized fossils in the world's museums, and no graduated chain can be found. #8 

Evolutionists accuse those who believe in the Genesis account of creation of attacking the science of Geology and the science of Paleontology whenever they point out all the inconsistencies of the evolutionist's position. That ‚is a good smoke screen because it immediately puts the Christian on the defensive. This is unfortunate because it is not the science of Geology or the science of Paleontology which is under fire. After all, Geology and Paleontology are legitimate sciences, and I know of no one who wishes to attack the study of the Earth or fossils, when such studies follow established scientific principles. What is under attack is the type of sloppy, closed minded scholarship exhibited by some geologists and paleontologists who are confirmed evolutionists and who, using Eldredge's own words; "Spoke eloquently of the ravages of time, the erosion and metamorphism that destroyed the older vestiges of the fossil record," when in fact there was no evidence to suggest that any "older vestiges" ever existed in the first place. # 10 Even Eldredge is forced to admit that many of his past colleagues were "...adventurous thinkers...(who used their) active imagination (to) invent novel explanations of how evolution takes place." (parenthesis & emphasis added) # 11 

These men made every effort to explain something which never existed; that is, the evidence of the gradual evolution of the species which Darwin assumed was there. Their preconceived notion that the fossil record had to eventually yield something they "knew" was there caused them to assure our parents, us; and if you will check your child's science book you will most likely find that they are still assuring them that it is a "scientific fact" that we slowly evolved from single-celled life forms. In fact, that is not what the fossil record shows at all. Such assertions were not scientific when they were made. In reality, they were nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of those who made them. 

Every single major invertebrate form of life is found in the rock strata known as "Cambrian", and yet not a single, indisputable, multicellular fossil animal has ever been found in pre-Cambrian rock. The sudden appearance of all those life forms in Cambrian rock is even acknowledged by Eldredge to be, "perhaps the greatest of all events in life's history," yet its explanation is, according to him, "a mystery" (emphasis added) # 11 The very foundation of organic evolution is categorized as a mystery because no evidence exists to fit the evolutionist's preconceived theory of evolution. 

In a feeble attempt to explain this mystery, modern evolutionists, like their predecessors also rely upon their active imaginations. Time magazine science writer J. Madeleine Nash admitted that when trying to explain the abrupt appearance of Cambrian fossils "… scientists delicately slide across data thin ice, suggesting scenarios that are based on intuition rather than solid evidence." #12 

To me however, the astounding thing is that evolutionists refer to the sudden appearance of every major invertebrate form of life as "evolutionary" when not one shred of fossil evidence exists to suggest (let alone prove) that any type of gradual development took place from the less complex to the more complex multicellular forms of life which are indisputably present in the Cambrian rock formation. In an attempt to explain the lack of pre- Cambrian multicellular fossils Eldredge says, "...the intermediates had to have been soft bodied, and thus extremely unlikely to become fossilized." # 13 That sounds logical, and were it not for some other seldom discussed points, many of us would believe it. 

But that explanation ignores the fact that fossils of worms and caterpillars have been found by L.S.B. Leakey in other strata; # 14 Hair, feathers, and stomach contents along with other soft body tissues have been found in the fossil beds of central Germany. # 15 Just as interestingly though, is the fact that such an explanation ignores the fossils of seven foot long jellyfish, worms, and sponges found in the Cambrian rock itself, and you can't get much more soft-bodied than that. But the most intriguing thing of all is that fossils of flowering plants and fish have also been found in Cambrian rock, and they weren't supposed to have evolved at the time that Cambrian rock was being formed. # 16

At this point in our study however, the most important thing to remember is that there is no evidence in any rock strata of the gradualness Darwin demanded, and this fact is not contained in our children's high school textbooks. 

Student textbooks still contain statements such as this one by William H. Matthews III, "Fossils provide one of the strongest lines of evidence to support the theory of organic evolution." #17 Note also this one by Twenhofel and Shriek, "No line of evidence more forcefully and clearly supports the fundamental principle of evolution - descent with accumulative modification - than that furnished by the fossils." # 18 Even more detailed reference books, (such as major encyclopedias) tell us that fossils present "evidence to support the theory of evolution" which is itself defined as a "process of gradual change" that explains how "organisms gradually developed specialized characteristics that helped them adapt to their environment." # 19 All of these statements remember, are made in spite of the fact that at the very first level in which multicellular fossils are found, (Cambrian rock) there is absolutely no evidence of "accumulative modification." It is also clear from other observations that while "transitions" at the subspecies level are observable, they are only inferable at the species level and totally absent between higher categories. # 20 

This absence of higher life form transitions was first mentioned by Professor Richard Goldschmidt of the University of California at Berkley in 1940. He specifically noted that "... transitions between higher categories are missing." # 21 In fact, this lack of transitions is so obvious that Professor George Gaylord Simpson, a vertebrate paleontologist at Harvard University, stated that "... higher transitions are not recorded because they did not exist.." # 22 Dr. Austin Clark, a biologist with the Smithsonian Institute, stated that "since we have not the slightest evidence among the living or fossil animals of any integrating types following between major groups it is a fair supposition that there never have been, any such integrating types." # 23 It would seem that this complete absence of transition fossils has been noted everywhere except in our children's textbooks. 

Dr. Stephen Jay Gould states that the "fossil record offered no support for gradual change ... new species ALMOST ALWAYS APPEARED SUDDENLY in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in the older rock of the same region." (emphasis added) # 24 Along the same line Eldredge makes an interesting observation concerning life cycle changes which the fossil record does show. "Such changes have not been graceful. Life has been occasionally violently disputed by major episodes of extinction that appears to have eliminated 75% or more of ALL species in some cases." (emphasis added) # 25 

The preceding five quotes were not taken from creationists, but from confirmed evolutionists, and those words tell us that the 125 years of graduated evolutionary teaching that had been, and still is being taught as "scientific fact", is simply not true. In fact, Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, has gone so far as to state that "... statements about the ancestry (of species) are not applicable in the fossil record... (but) are made up stories… not part of science." (parenthesis and emphasis added) # 26

Before we proceed any further I would like to highlight what has just been said because the consequences of these rather surprising admissions by members of the evolutionary community are indeed astounding. I am sure that we have all heard the expression "evolutionary chain" or "missing link." Now by missing link I am not referring to its more limited definition; ie. applying it only to man's supposed ancestors, but to its more general meaning as it applies to the development of every species within the animal kingdom. I am however going to limit this part of our discussion to the "higher categories" of scientific classification known as "family" as opposed to the final level of classification known as "species." 

Imagine for a moment that one representative from each extinct and living family of animals is standing before you holding a link of steel chain in its hand (or paw or foot - whichever you prefer). Each one of these ten thousand or so specimens would then take its assigned place in the so called evolutionary chain of development and begin looking around for that "ancestor" with whom it could join its link. No doubt what you would notice is that all ten thousand specimens were standing there with a blank expression on their faces. This of course results from the fact that not one of them could find anyone, either from among the living, or the extinct which directly proceeded them in this supposed chain. There is no one with whom they could link up. You see, there is not merely one "missing link", but ten thousand of them, and that is at the family level alone. If we go down to the species level of classification, the number of missing links increases by the tens of thousands because as we have just seen, even the evolutionists now admit that there is absolutely no evidence in the fossil record of graduated transitional forms. 

The question now is, "Will the evolutionists graciously accept the account of creation as set forth in Genesis?" He cannot!!! Remember, Eldredge stated at the outset that a purely evolutionistic scientist must of necessity deny the existence of a creator god. The evolutionist's absolute prejudice against a creator is best summoned up in the words of D.M.S. Watson, a frequent commentator on the BBC and himself an evolutionist. He stated that "evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur, or can be proven logically by coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." # 27 Such an attitude therefore causes the evolutionists to totally dismiss even the evidence of the very fossils they must of necessity depend upon, when those fossils do not line up with their preconceived notions that life gradually appeared over a cycle of millions of years. 

Referring to the catastrophic changes mentioned earlier, Eldredge states: "... such events ... took upwards of a million years to accomplish. But once again, such long periods show up as dramatically sudden turnovers if the rock record is taken literally." # 28 How incredible! For decades we were told that the fossil record is at the very heart of evolutionistic evidence. Now we are told that we shouldn't take it literally in this case because such a literal interpretation does not fit their preconceived notion of time which we were at one time assured the rock record supported. In one breath Eldredge chided his past colleague because they didn't take the fossil record literally and accept what any literal interpretation of Genesis chapters 1 & 2 would have told them, ie. no gradual changes. In the next breath he tells us not to take the rock record literally because if we do we won't end up with as many millions of years as the evolutionist needs in order for his theory to have even the slightest chance of working out. 

Why would Eldredge say such things? Simple, his theory of punctuated equilibria uses a literal interpretation of the fossil record to show no gradual changes, but like any other evolutionist, he still needs millions of years to increase the statistical possibilities that other portions of his theory will work out. He must therefore deny the literal interpretation of the rock record when such an interpretation would knock several million years off of his time clock. 

Since the rock record does not show the gradual changes formerly insisted upon by evolutionists, the inevitable has finally happened. As Eldredge and Gould now maintain "... the fossil record ... suggests to some of us that some of the specific ideas that Darwin and many of his successors right up to the present day, had on how life evolves, may be at least partially wrong." # 29 They have, as inconspicuously as possible, thrown out the first major tenet of Darwin's theory, ie. the gradual evolution over long periods of time of every species. They, and an apparent majority of the nation's leading biological evolutionists who attended a conference in October 1980 at the Field Museum of Natural history in Chicago, now accept what is known as "punctuated equilibria." 

Translated into common English this means that the species are, were, and will most likely remain, separated from each other by a division of some type. # 30 In short, no gradual changes from one species to another. While there may be gradual changes WITHIN species, such as men of the 20th century being taller than men of the 15^th century, there had to be sudden, numerous, major organic changes within a short span of time to explain the sudden appearance of different species. They say it happened over thousands of years, as opposed to the previously alleged "fact" that it took millions of years, but as far as the fossil record is concerned, it could just as easily have happened over one generation - but they will not admit that. 

However, as was the case with Darwin's gradualism, there is absolutely no fossil evidence to prove the punctuated equilibria hypothesis (still no fossilized transitions). In an attempt to explain this problem, evolutionists who hold to this notion maintain that these changes affected relatively few animals. In short, greater changes affecting fewer animals over a shorter period of time meant that fewer specimens were available to even have a chance to become fossilized. In any case, the sudden changes that they now assure us happened, fly directly in the face of Charles Darwin's own statement which was, "... if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ exists which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" (emphasis added) # 31 

Eldredge and Gould are on the leading edge of the currently popular evolutionary thought process which maintains that that is exactly what happened, but they still refuse to accept what Darwin himself said would be the only possible consequence of such a finding; namely, "...my theory would absolutely break down." If that isn't bad enough, look at what they offer up as a "scientific" replacement for Darwin's gradualism - punctuated equilibria. A hypothesis which even Eldredge admits "...isn't particularly neat, elegant, all-embracing, completely testable, or even as yettotally thought through." # 32 Nevertheless, we are supposed to accept this nontestable idea as scientific, even though it violates the very rule which Eldredge himself said must be complied with before an idea can be considered scientific. 

This is not the end of the problems which the fossil record presents to the evolutionist. Among others would be fossilized trees - some right side up and some upside down - penetrating several different strata of rock. Obviously, this is something which could not have happened unless both the tree and the different strata were laid down at the same time. # 33 There are also numerous areas, such as the Cumberland Bone Cave in Maryland, where fossils of mammals, birds, and reptiles from different types of climates have been found mixed together. There are also fossil beds so huge that nothing short of some world wide cataclysm could possibly explain. Examples of these would be the Karron formation in South Africa, containing an estimated 800 billion vertebrate skeletons, and the hippopotamus beds of Sicily which are extensive enough that they have been mined commercially for charcoal. The thousands of frozen mammoths found in Siberia should also be included in this group. 

The final problem presented by the fossil record which I will mention, deals with where the fossils themselves are located. According to traditional evolutionistic thought, the oldest fossils are the least complex and should be found in the lowest rock strata while the newer, more complex fossils will appear only in the upper strata. (While this is generally found to be true, evolutionists ignore the fact that this could just as well be explained by the Biblical great flood. In such a situation the more able-bodied complex life forms would have sought higher ground and would be the last to die, and therefore, the last to have become buried under the sediment produced by the flood. Note also that the sediment itself would have been deposited in layers as the flood waters receded from the earth.) What are normally not discussed in high school textbooks are the glaring exceptions to the evolutionist's traditional position. 

In fact, these exceptions are so numerous that some geologists who are themselves strongly committed to the evolutionists overall viewpoint, now admit that the 'simple to complex' premise held by many of their colleagues is simply not supported by the fossil record. They point out that while it is indeed true that the fossil remains of 'simple' organisms are found in lower rock strata and the fossil remains of 'complex' animals are found in higher strata, this fact alone does not establish an evolutionary chain. David M. Raup of the University of Chicago correctly notes that within the fossil record "there is no recognizable trend toward increased complexity that is clear enough to use for dating purposes... Even where the fossil record of a coherent group of organisms can be traced ... increasing complexity through time is elusive at best." (emphasis added) # 34 Besides, to compare the 'complexity' of an insect with the 'simplicity' of a starfish is to compare apples to oranges. 

Concerning the location of simple fossils vis-a-vis more complex ones, it should also be noted that in the mountainous regions of every continent, numerous examples can be found where the less complex fossils are found on top of the more complex ones. # 35 Geologists have a name for formations such as these where fossils appear to be out of sequence, they call them "overthrusts." In an overthrust the bottom layer of rock is said to have slid over on top of the neighboring newer strata. Evolutionists will tell you that this is exactly what happened with the Lewis Overthrust in Montana, assuming that is, that they mention it at all. 

Even if they do mention it, what they probably will not point out to you is that the Lewis overthrust is over six miles wide in places and ranges in length from 135 to 350 miles. Now that is one heck of a piece of rock to move by slow natural means, but that is what they want us to believe. What's more though is that they want us to believe that it moved more than 30 miles to its present location, and did so without leaving sufficient signs to demonstrate such a massive shift of the earth's surface. While it is true that the area may indeed be described as geologically disturbed, the disturbances noted cannot account for a relocation of this magnitude. Evolutionists would also ask us to believe that the Matterhorn mountain in the Swiss Alps moved at least 20 miles to its present location, and that Mythen Peak, which has what is estimated as 200 million year old rock on top of 60 million year old rock, moved from Africa to Switzerland. # 36 

This brings us to another example of the incongruous thinking which is used by the evolutionist. One of the reasons some evolutionists reject any concept of a creator is because such a concept brings into play a god who must, according to his reasoning, have acted "using laws no longer in operation," and such a possibility is "utterly beyond the purview of science." # 37 If we assume that this statement represents the overall point of view held by members of the evolutionistic community, it reveals three interesting things about their mind set. First, evolutionists have created a "god" out of their "science" in that they have defined the limits within which anything can, has, or will operate. # 38 Secondly, they believe that God does not act today as He did at the creation. This belief causes them to not only deny the first two chapters of Genesis, but the crossing of the Red Sea as described in Ex.14:21-22, Jesus' walking on the water as related in Matt.14:25, and any number of totally miraculous healings which have happened in the last few years alone, including the creation of new eye balls in previously empty sockets. Thirdly, and most importantly for purposes of this discussion, evolutionists place total confidence in a concept known as "uniformitarianism." This concept assumes that the forces of nature acting today are sufficient to account for all past geological changes. 

Charles Lyell, the father of modern evolutionistic geology, developed this concept by expanding upon the ideas of his predecessor, James Hutton. He was strongly opposed to any explanation of a geological event which even suggested catastrophe. To quote Lyell, ".. no causes whatever have from the earliest time ... to the present, ever acted, but those now acting; and they have never acted with different degrees of energy from that which they nnow exert." (emphasis added) # 39 Traditionally, evolutionists have taken the position that Lyell "dealt catastrophism the death blow." # 40 Therefore, if any evolutionist tells you that he now accepts certain types of catastrophic changes, he is again eliminating one of the major suppositions that made up the foundations of his theory. Not only that, but in the process he has actually created a major intellectual dilemma for himself. 

Eldredge points out that the geologic column (which evolutionists used to establish the earth's age) was worked out before Darwin published his Origin of the Species. This of course, is quite true. However, the idea of a geologic column does not in and of itself contain any assumption about the age of the earth, only the composition of its crust. The age of the earth which Darwin relied upon in his book was in fact based totally upon the works of Charles Lyell and James Hutton. As we have already seen, both of these men absolutely rejected catastrophic occurrences as viable explanations for the geologic formations we see around us today. # 41 As such, Darwin reasoned that any fossil found in a rock formation Lyell estimated to be half a billion years old must itself be half a billion years old. Were it not for the anti-catastrophic viewpoint held by Lyell and Hutton, Darwin would have had no basis for assuming that any formation was anywhere near as old as half a billion years. 

Since Lyell's calculations were not based upon Darwin's theory, what then, was his anti-catastrophic theory of uniformitarianism based upon? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING !! Nothing that is except his reasoning that since he had never seen a world wide deluge, none had ever occurred. We can now begin to see the intellectual problem facing the evolutionists. If Lyell was wrong, then there was no valid reason for Darwin to have assumed that his fossil discoveries were ancient because Darwin's concept of the age of the earth was based solely upon Lyell's now discredited theory. At this point the problem which the evolutionists have created for themselves comes into full focus. What evolutionists must now maintain is a position which goes something like this. "Both Lyell and Darwin were correct in all their ultimate conclusions, but they were right for all the wrong reasons." Putting it another way, they could say, "Both Darwin and Lyell arrived at the correct destination, but they took all the wrong roads to get there." Not only are we expected to accept this type of evolutionistic thought process as scientific, but they want us to do so in spite of the fact that two of their foundational premises have been abandoned by their most prominent spokesmen. 

Eldredge states that "geologists long ago abandoned ...(the idea)... that all changes in earth history were the product of infinitesimally minute changes gradually accumulating through time." (emphasis & parenthesis added) # 42 His contention that the anti-catastrophic portions of Lyell's theory were abandoned by geologists long ago is itself contradicted by the American Geological Society which stated in 1958 that: 

You see, they have discovered something else which seems to give them the billions of years they need for their theory. These new techniques appear to have a more scientific basis than did Lyell's hypothesis. Had it not been for the radio isotope dating methods developed in the late 1950's and early 60's, evolutionists would still be clinging tenaciously to Lyell's anticatastrophic views, even though they had no basis in fact when Lyell developed them. Recognizing the fact that Lyell's position was totally baseless, modern evolutionists have in effect acknowledged that Lyell was wrong. 

We are now faced with a situation which is similar to that which we saw in the case of Darwin's gradualism. First of all, today's crop of evolutionists are again telling us that something which we had been assured was as much a scientific fact as gravity, is not a fact at all. In reality, 'anti-catastrophic geologic uniformitarianism' is nothing more than another now thoroughly discredited evolutionistic fairy tale. Secondly, and perhaps most disturbing to me is the fact that "...the nineteenth century idea of uniformitarianism and grdaualism still exists in popular treatments of geology, some museum exhibits, and in lower level textbooks. It is even still taught in secondary school classrooms." # 45 

Again, our school children are being exposed to evolutionary myth, and then being assured that it is a scientific fact. And this is in spite of the fact that Lyell's anti-catastrophic viewpoint was not the result of a simple oversight on his behalf. In order for Lyell to arrive at his position he had to actually ignore the very evidence which should have told him he was wrong. According to at least one noted evolutionist, Lyell and other 19th century geologists had to "ignore or give very secondary importance ..." to the many examples of geologic catastrophism which they themselves discovered. # 46 

It should be noted concerning the inter-relationships which existed between Lyell's version of geology and Darwin's version of biology that Eldredge maintains that there isn't any: "Geologists on the whole don't care a fig about evolution - haven't in the past, and as far as I can tell still don't care much about it today." # 47 I believe that Eldredge has made this statement in an attempt to prove that both geologists and biologists scientifically arrived at the same conclusion that the earth is billions of years old, and that they did so independently of each other. 

However, the noted British geologist Sir Archibald Geike clearly contradicts this assertion when he stated in 1910 that "The publication of Darwin's Origin of the Species ... produced an extraordinary revolution in geological opinion. The older schools of thought rapidly died out and evolution became the recognized creed of geologists all over the world." # 48 Even today "fossils help geologists figure out the ages of rock strata..." # 49 Enough has been said for now about the age of the rocks and the fossils found in them. I will discuss that topic in greater detail a little later on. 

As we return to the concept of uniformitarianism, allow me to ask several questions. What forces of nature today are moving individual mountains from Africa to Switzerland? What forces of nature are producing fossils of the type discovered by Leakey (or any type for that matter)? When you find out please tell his son, for in regards to the soft bodied fossils he discovered prior to his death, he stated; "How did these incredible fossils occur? We simply do not know?" # 50 The incongruity of the evolutionist's thought process becomes more apparent. 

Evolutionists first make the assumption that any god who created the universe must not be working today. They then state that the forces of nature at work today are sufficient to explain everything that happened in the past. Then they turn around and say that they do not know what forces of nature created the very fossils they have to depend upon as they try to prove their theory. They also ignore the overwhelming exceptions to the arbitrary rules they themselves have set up when it is pointed out to them that their rules violate the rules of true science. Needless to say, not much is said in highschool textboks about all the exceptions we have just seen. In fact, these books usually leave the impression that everything in nature follows the evolutionist's pattern. 

Here are a few other questions which need to be asked. What forces of nature at work today produced the Decean Plateau of India which is composed of over a million square miles of lava sometimes thousands of feet thick? What forces of nature at work today explain how the quarter million square mile Utah-Arizona plateau apparently rose from below sea level to a mile above sea level, as many evolutionistic geologists say it did, without disturbing the relatively even distribution of marine fossils found in the strata which comprises this plateau? What forces of nature at work today explain islands which contain fossilized land animals submerged six thousand feet below the surface of the ocean? 

Dr. K.K. Landes, Chairman of the Department of Geology at the University of Michigan asked this question of his fellow geologists, "Can we, as seekers after the truth, shut our eyes any longer to the fact that large areas of sea floor have sunk vertical distances measured in miles?" # 51 I submit that open-minded scientists who carefully follow their own rules of hypothesis and testing, and who are open to change, are not ignoring such problems. However, most evolutionists appear to have the habit of doing exactly what Stephen Gould said they do; namely, if it doesn't fit their theory, they simply do not talk about it. 

But Dr. Gould's candid statement which was quoted near the beginning of this chapter is not the only one we have to substantiate the charge that evolutionists have a habit of ignoring the facts which are overwhelmingly in conflict with their theory. Dr. Robert Jastrow, Director of NASA'S Goddard Institute for Space Studies noted that: 

Many evolutionists hold on to the uniformitarianism theory because it is one of the few concepts which gives them the billions of years they need to work with. However, if consistently applied, it presents inumerably more problems to them than it apparently solves. For example, sediment formed by microscopic marine organisms and dust blown or washed into the ocean should have blanketed the sea floor to a uniform depth of at least twelve miles, if in fact the earth is even half as old as evolutionists maintain. Yet none is found in the center of the Atlantic and only a 1/2 mile thick veneer is found along the continental shelf. # 56 Furthermore, assuming that salt is being added to the ocean today at a rate no greater than it has in the past, and even assuming that there was no salt in the oceans at their inception, the salinity of the oceans demands a date for their creation of not more than 200,000 years ago. And that is at least 3 billion years younger than, any evolutionist can accept. 

Finally, we also know from observation and testing that iron meteorites strike the earth at a given rate per year. If in fact the geologic formations on the earth were laid down over a period of several billion years, then it would be easy to find tons of iron meteorites in each layer of sediment. Whereas, if these layers were set down over a very short period (say one year or less), such as would have been the case in the Biblical flood, then few, if any, would be found in the middle or lower layers. The fact that NO iron meteorites have been found in the so called ancient geologic layers is merely one more traumatic fact which many evolutionists simply forget to mention in their writings. # 57 

The foregoing points are all ignored, glossed over, minimized as to their import, or given explanations which are totally untestable and then passed off as factual when they are, many times, in direct conflict with the "scientific" facts the evolutionists wanted us to believe only a few short years ago. Yet there are even greater examples of the evolutionist's ignoring the very laws of true science to which they supposedly subscribe. Some of them can be shown as we examine their concept of how our solar system developed. 

  Printer Friendly Version

1) Niles Eldredge - The Monkey Business - A Scientist Looks at Creationism, (New York: Washington Square Press, 1982) pp 82 

2) ibid p. 82 

3) ibid p. 22 

4) Rick George "Extinctions" National Geographic, Vol. 175 p. (October 1989) 676, 

5) Eldredge, op cit. p. 22 

6) Dr. D. James Kennedy - The Collapse of Evolution, (Ft Lauderdale, FL: Coral Ridge Ministries, 1981) p. 6 

7) Thomas F. Heinze - Creation vs. Evolution Handbook (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 180) pp. 22-23 

8) Kennedy, op cit. p. 3 

9) Eldrdge, op cit. p. 46 

10) Niles Eldredge - Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the theory of Punctuated Equilibria (New York: Simon and Shuster, 1985), p. 93 

11) Eldredge - Monkey Business…. pp. 46-47 

12) J. Madeleine Nash, "When Life Exploded" Time, Vol.146 # 23 (December 4, 1995) p. 73 

13) Eldredge - Monkey Business… p. 130 

14) Louis G. Leakey, "Adventures in Search of Man", National Geographic (January 1963) p. 146, 

15) Norman D. Newell, "Fifty Years at Paleontology", Journal of Paleontology, Vol. 33 (May 1959), p.488-499 

16) Dr. Walter T. Brown Jr., Radio Interview, Point of View, USA Radio Network - October 3, 1988 

17) Kennedy, op cit. p. 2 

18) Kennedy, op cit. p. 2 

19) World Book Encyclopedia 1985 ed. Vol. 7, p. 367 and Vol. 6, p. 330 

20) Heinze, op cit. p. 26 

21) Kennedy, op cit. p. 3 

22) George Gaylord Simpson - The Meaning of Evolution (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953 ) p. 231 

23) Kennedy, op cit. p. 4 

24) ibid p. 5 

25) Eldredge - Time Frames . p. 48 

26) Tom Bothell, "Agnostic Evolutionists", Harpers, Vol 270 February 1985) p. 49 

27) Douglas Dewar and L. M. Davies - Science and the BBC: The Nineteenth Century and After (April 1954), p. 167 

28) Eldredge - Monkey Business p. 48 

29) ibid pp. 47-48 

30) Kennedy, op cit. pp. 4-5 

31) Heinze, op cit. p. 86 

32) Eldredge - Times Frames p. 179 

33) John C. Witcomb & Henry M. Morris - The Genesis Flood (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1962) p. 182 

34) David M. Raupp, "Geology and Creationism", The Bulletin of the Field Museum of Natural History Vol. 54, (March 1983) , p. 21 

35) M King Hulbert, "Role of Fluid Pressure in Mechanics of Overthrust Faulting" The Bulletin of the Geological Society of America Vol 70 ( Feb. 1959), pp. 115-122 

36) Heinze, op cit. p. 32 

37) Eldredge - Monkey Business p. 82 

38) Harold Westphal - The Historian and the Believer, Vol 2, p. 280 

39) Ruth Moore - The Earth We Live On p. 170 

40) Francis A. Shaeffer -Genesis In Time and Space (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1972) p.138 Early Man, Life Nature Library (New York: Time Life Books, 1970) p. 19 

41) Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Vol 17, p. 159 and Vol. 11, p. 643 (1910); also World Book Encyclopedia, (1985 Ed.) Vol 6, p. 16d 

42) Eldredge - Monkey Business p. 96 

43) The World We Live In (New York: Time-Life, 1958), Editor: Lincoln Barnett, p. 42. 

44) World Book Encyclopedia, (1985 Ed.) Vol 6, p. 16d 

45) Raup, op cit. p. 21 

46) ibid p. 21 

47) Eldredge - Monkey Business, p. 111 

48) Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Vol. 11, p. 644 (1910) 

49) World Book Encyclopedia, 1985 ed Vol. 6, p. 16d 

50) Louis B. Leakey, op. cit. National Geographic p. 49 

51) Witcomb & Morris, op cit. p. 142 

52) Los Angeles Times, June 25, 1978, Part VI, pp. 1 & 6; also David Bender and Bruno Leons - Science and Religion: Opposing Viewpoints (St Paul ,MN: Green Haven Press, 1981), p. 50 

53) Pierre-Paul Grasse' - Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press, 1977) p.8, , also Dr. Andrew Snelling, editor - The Revised Quote Book (Brisbane, Australia: Creation Science Foundation Ltd, 1990) p. 27, 

54) Professor Whitten, Assembly Week Address, University of Melbourne, 1980, see also Snelling, op. cit. p.3 

55) S. Lovtrup - Darwinism: Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), p. 352 

56) Henize, op cit. p. 40 

57) Brown, op cit