Looks like you are using an old version of Internet Explorer - Please update your browser
From Check This Out
There is no demonstrable evidence for the big bang, and chemical evolution has failed to create living systems in the laboratory. In spite of billions of fossils being found, there are no unquestionable fossils that show a transition between any of the major life-forms.
Sir Arthur Keith summarizes the evolution doctrine as follows: “Evolution is unproven and unprovable. We believe it, however, because the only alternative is an act of creation by a God, and that is unthinkable.”
Some evolutionists have argued that science isn’t possible without evolution. They teach that science and technology actually require the principles of molecules-to-man evolution in order to work. Actually, evolution is anti-science and anti-knowledge.
The NCSE praises Bill Nye’s stand on the necessity of accepting evolution in order to make technological and economic progress and even to be scientifically literate. However, evolutionary dogma does not contribute to the “here-and-now” science used to probe the secrets of the present and to develop new technologies.
Evolution is often presented as a fact proven by science. If this is true, there should be mountains of evidence supporting evolution—but is there?
Instead of being an open platform where students can critically discuss the merits and flaws of a scientific model, education is overcome by evolutionary dogma.
Evolutionists have made some pretty incredible admissions about the nature of evolution, science, and evidence that actually supports the biblical account.
The timeline of evolution, far from being set in stone, is constantly adjusting to new fossils found millions of years before their evolutionary time.
The evolutionary timeline of millions of years is not compatible with the Bible or with the scientific evidence.
Do studies that use mutation rates to calibrate a “molecular clock” confirm or deny the evolutionary model? Are the assumptions in such calibrations correct?
Popular opinion routinely espouses ten arguments for evolution that are simply nothing more than myths.
Even if all the evidence supports a designer, such a hypothesis must be excluded!
Although some Christians have attacked evolution as “just a theory,” that would be raising Darwin’s idea to a level it doesn’t deserve.
There are certain arguments commonly used by evolutionists that they should avoid. These worn-out tropes should never have been made in the first place.
In the grand evolutionary paradigm, the origin of the eukaryotic cell represents one of the great mysteries and key hypothetical transitions of life.PDF Download
Research shows that bedbugs are still bedbugs. They don't demonstrate Darwinian evolution—they vary within their created kind to survive in a sin-cursed world.
Few people have actually read the works of Darwin, and if they did they might be shocked to read some of Darwin’s ideas.
Will fish out of water evolve?
What is evolutionism? Is it even a word? Dr. David Menton explores these questions and examines the worldview of evolution.
Author Roger Patterson, AiG–U.S., continues his evaluation of a public school quiz given to identify what students knew about biologists’ thoughts about evolution.
Evolutionists say birds evolved from dinosaurs with flight-ready brains.
A biomechanical study of murre—one that dives well but also flies—presumably sheds light on penguin flightlessness.
The cover art of New Scientist describes a rather unpopular view of evolution that has been periodically proposed by some evolutionary scientists.
Editorial exhorts veterinarians and physicians to embrace evolution.
National Center for Science Education weighs in on the Bill Nye story.
I reviewed both the textbooks used for life science classes at the college where I teach and those that I used in my past university course work.PDF Download
It’s time to buckle up for an exhilarating trek to some of the most extreme locations on earth with the newest issue of Answers magazine.
Are mountain mice the murine equivalent of Tibetan humans (see item #2)?
What makes evolution so persistent, ironically, is the malleability of the outcomes involved in the belief in non-teleological origins.
Creationists agree that the diversity of life changes over time, but only in thousands of years and by variation within kinds.
An article from Germany’s Der Spiegel reviews this latest evolutionism-based form of entertainment, called Spore, and authored by the “inventor” (as the article describes him) of such well-known games as SimCity and The Sims.
Question: If your brand new car breaks down and you take parts from an older car to fix it, is your new car closer to becoming a Model-T?
This essay examines two questions: “Can an evolutionist celebrate Earth Day?” and “Can a creationist celebrate Earth Day?”
A recent article from the Washington Post had the headline: "New Analyses Bolster Central Tenets of Evolution Theory."
It’s amazing how many assumptions lie behind evolutionists’ efforts to reconstruct the past based on skimpy evidence that exists only in the present.
“The subject of evolution occupies a special, and paradoxical, place within biology as a whole.”
The theory of biological evolution is not a modern idea. Organic evolution was first taught by the Greeks at least as early as the 7th century BC.
One is bombarded with claims that all scientists believe in evolution; that science has demonstrated it; that evolution is based on empirical science.
As has often been pointed out, however, a theory which is so flexible that it can be used to 'explain' almost any outcome, in reality explains nothing.
There is a lot of discussion going on about evolution and its place in public education.
For every postulated evolutionary advance, that is, for the acquisition of every new system, an increase of information is required.