1. The following statements are a small sampling showing how evolutionists view their own belief system:

"The concept of organic evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion. . . ." -- Man Real and Ideal by Edwin G. Conklin (New York, NY, Scribner's, 1943), page 147; quoted in Darwin Retried by Norman Macbeth (Ipswich, MA, Gambit, 1971), page 127.

"Darwinism [has] emerged as an agreeable religious myth." -- Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution by Gertrude Himmelfarb (New York, W.W. Norton & Co., 1962), page 398.

"There is . . . little evidence in favor of biogenesis and as yet we have no indication that it can be performed. It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that biogenesis did occur

. . ."-- Implications of Evolution by G.A.

Kerkut (New York, Pergamon Press, 1960), page 150.

"Darwinism itself has become a religion." -- Darwin Retried by Norman Macbeth (Ipswich, MA, Gambit, 1971), page 126.

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups." -- Louis Brounoure (Director, French Center for Scientific Research), quoted in Why Not Creation? by Walter E. Lammerts (Terre Haute, IN, Creation Research Society, 1970), page 328.

The paper "Study of Origins" by J.F. Henry (Chattanooga, TN Center for Creation Concepts, 1984) discusses the philosophical nature of evolutionism in greater detail.

2. A few predictions of evolution and creation are compared below. The real world corresponds to the conditions in the list which we would expect if creation had occurred:

What Would Be Expected If Evolution Had Occurred

Primitive earth improving.

Primitive man improving.

Random structures in nature.

Death a necessary and permanent part of existence ("survival of the fittest").

No human realization of God (like animals).

Number of plant and animalkinds increasing.

What Would Be Expected If Creation Had Occurred

Perfect earth decaying.

Perfect man degrading.

Design in creation to fulfill purposes of a Creator.

Feeling that death is unnatural.

Feeling that some Supreme Being exists.

Plant and animal kinds decreasing by extinction.

3. Genesis 1:11, 1:12, 1:21, 1:24, and 1:25.

4. Even Julian Huxley, an avid evolutionist, has stated that, "During the past hundred years many different species of moths have become virtually black in industrial towns, while remaining light and protectively colored in the countryside.

. . . . The light ones are better concealed from their enemies in the unblackened countryside . . . while the melanics [the dark varieties] are better able to resist the smoke and the contamination of the industrial areas. . . . The new conditions had nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of . . . melanism. There were always a few rare melanics -- much valued, incidentally, by collectors, -- and the new conditions simply provided them with their opportunity." Quoted from Evolution in Action (New York, Harper & Row, 1966), pages 39-40.

For more on the peppered moths and other alleged transitions often touted as proof of evolutionism, see the paper "Scientific Fallacies of Evolution" by J.F. Henry (Chattanooga, TN, Center for Creation Concepts, 1984).

5. Charles Darwin and subsequent believers in evolution have asserted that evolution means improvement, a development from the simple to the complex. Following is a sampling of such assertions:

"Natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, the slightest variations, rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being . . ." -- The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin (New York, Mentor, 1958; first published in 1859), page 90.

"Living things are improved during evolution . . ." -- Evolution in Action by Julian Huxley (New York, Harper & Row, 1966), page 54.

"Through a . . . series of transformations, present complexity has grown out of former simplicity." -- Time's Arrow and Evolution by Harold F. Blum (New York, Harper & Brothers, 1962), page 61.

"The theory of organic evolution holds that life on earth has developed gradually, from simple to complex . . ." -- Invertebrate Fossils by Raymond C. Moore and others (New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1952), pages 28-29.

"The evolutionary history of the world, from the 'big bang' to the present universe, is a series of gradual steps from the simple to the complicated, from the unordered to the organized . . ." -- "The Frontiers and Limits of Science" by Victor F. Weisskopf (American Scientist, Volume 65, July/August 1977), page 409.

"As soon as living things appeared . . . they exhibited a clear dual trend: toward complexity and diversity . . ." -- Evolution of Living Organisms by Pierre-P. Grasse (New York, Academic Press, 1977), page 10.

"Natural selection builds complex organs by gradually improving simple ones . . ." -- "Darwinism or 'Oriented' Evolution?" by Theodosius Dobzhansky (Evolution, Volume 29, 1974), page 377.

"Evolution . . . has proceeded from the simple to the complex." -- "Chemical Origins of Cells - 2" by Sidney W. Fox (Chemical and Engineering News, Volume 49, December 6, 1971), page 46.

"The cosmos evolves from chaos to order, developing more and more complex entities . . ." -- The Big Bang Never Happened by Eric J. Lerner (New York, Times Books, 1991), page 289.

See the paper "Study of Origins" referenced in Note 1 above.

6. Despite the claimed 600 million-year-age for trilobites, they were not primitive. In fact, trilobite vision was very complex.

Trilobites came in various shapes and in all sizes up to about twenty inches, and had large compound eyes. Clarkson and Levi-Setti of the University of Chicago have done some spectacular work on the optics of the trilobite eye lenses. [See "Trilobite Eyes and the Optics of Descartes and Huygens" by Evan N. K. Clarkson and Riccardo Levi-Setti (Nature, Volume 254), pages 663-666.] It turns out that each lens is a doublet, that is, made up of two lenses, while the shape of the boundary between the two lenses is unlike any now in use - either by animals or humans. [See "Trilobite Eyes" by L.J. Shawver (Science News, Volume 105, 1974), page 72.]

However, the lens shape and the interface curvature is nearly identical to designs published independently by Descartes and Huygens in the seventeenth century. Their designs had the purpose of avoiding spherical aberration and were known as aplanatic lenses. Levi-Setti pointed out that the second lens in the doublet of the trilobite eye was necessary in order that the lens system could work under water where the trilobites lived. Thus, these creatures used an optimal lens design that would require very sophisticated optical engineering procedures to develop today. Indeed, the intricacies of trilobites occupy an entire book by Levi-Setti, now in its second edition (Trilobites, University of Chicago Press, 1993).

The complexity of trilobites has been noted: "Trilobites are an extinct group of arthropods. . . . It is rather surprising to find that one of the most highly organized of all invertebrate phyla comprises the chief element of the oldest faunas. The variety and structural complexity of trilobites found near the base of Cambrian rocks surely indicates a very long antecedent existence of animal life [or, more straightforwardly, a special creation of animal life]. . . ." Quoted from Invertebrate Fossils by Raymond C. Moore and others (New York, McGraw- Hill Book Co., 1952), page 475.

Not only does the complexity of trilobites point to creation, but it is far from being proved that trilobites are really extinct. Trilobites "are exclusively marine," (as asserted by Moore and coauthors in Invertebrate Fossils, just cited, page 475), and as such may still exist in unexplored parts of the ocean. In fact, trilobites have rather commonly been compared with still-existing crabs:

"Nearly all groups of trilobites that lived after the Cambrian could roll up in the manner of a pill bug. . . . Modern crabs . . . are fully housed in a boxlike exoskeleton that is formed by the folding of the carapace under the body while the legs remain free for locomotion. . . ." -- Extinction by Steven M. Stanley (New York, Scientific American Library, 1987), page 67. "In many respects the remarkable horseshoe crab, or Limulus, to give it its proper name, has little real resemblance to any living creature and . . . the animals [trilobites] most closely allied to it became extinct millions of years ago and are found only as fossils." -- Wonder Creatures of the Sea by A. Hyatt Verrill (New York, D. Appleton-Century, 1940), pages 246, 248.

Other authors have also made the trilobite-crab comparison, e.g., J. L. Amos, "Fossils" (National Geographic, Volume 168, August 1985), p. 184; W. P. Davis and E. P. Solomon, The World of Biology (Philadelphia, Saunders, 1986), p. 206; and R. P. Mackal, Searching for Hidden Animals (Garden City, NY, Doubleday, 1980), p. 135.

7. "Molecular biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. . . . Molecular biology has also shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. . . . In terms of their basic biochemical design, therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth." Quoted from Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton (Bethesda, MD, Adler & Adler, 1985), page 250. Denton is an evolutionist.

8. Nowhere in the world are the fossils of the horse series found in successive strata. The series shown in museum displays generally depict an increase in size, yet the range in size of living horses from the tiny American miniature ponies to the enormous shires of England is as great as that found in the fossil record. Many evolutionists have commented on the actual non-evolution of the horse:

"The gradual emergence of the horse has been frequently cited as proof of evolutionary theory. Nearly a century ago, T.H. Huxley, `Darwin's Bulldog,' made much of the series leading from the little four-toed Hyracotherium (formerly known as Eohippus) of 55 million years ago to modern one-toed horses. But even this lineage proceeds by jumps between many branches . . ." -- Beyond Natural Selection by Robert Wesson (Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press, 1991), page 40.

"But perhaps the most serious weakness of Darwinism is the failure of paleontologists to find convincing phylogenies or sequences of organisms demonstrating major evolutionary change. . . . The horse is often cited as the only fully worked-out example. But the fact is that the line from Eohippus to Equus [the so-called "modern" horse] is very erratic.It is alleged to show a continual increase in size, but the truth is that some of the variants were smaller than Eohippus, not larger. Specimens from different sources can be brought together in a convincing-looking sequence, but there is no evidence that they were actually ranged in this order in time." -- The Great Evolution Mystery by Gordon Rattray Taylor (New York, Harper & Row, 1983), page 230.

"There was a time when the existing fossils of the horses seemed to indicate a straight-line evolution from small to large . . . As more fossils were uncovered . . . it was all too apparent that evolution had not been in a straight line at all . . . Unfortunately, before the picture was completely clear, an exhibit of horses . . . had been set up at the American Museum of Natural History, photographed, and much reproduced in elementary textbooks (where it is still being reprinted today)." -- Nature and Man's Fate by Garret Hardin (New York, Mentor, 1961), pages 225-226.

"I admit that an awful lot of [fantasy] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [at the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook." -- Niles Eldridge, quoted in Darwin's Enigma by Luther D. Sunderland (Santee, CA, Master Books, 1988), page 78.

"It would not be fitting in discussing the implications of Evolution to leave the evolution of the horse out of the discussion. The evolution of the horse provides one of the keystones in the teaching of evolutionary doctrine, though the actual story depends to a large extent upon who is telling it and when the story is being told. In fact one could easily discuss the evolution of the story of the evolution of the horse." -- Implications of Evolution by G.A. Kerkut (New York, Pergamon Press, 1960), pages 144-145. "The single line of gradual transformation from Eohippus to Equus presented in most recent texts of evolutionary biology is largely apocryphal." -- Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton (Bethesda, MD, Alder & Alder, 1985), page 182.

9. Evolutionists have commented on the discredited "gill slit" idea: "In the latter part of the nineteenth century and the early decades of the twentieth, there was a theory, still occasionally repeated by people who have not kept up with the progress of science, that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, meaning that in the course of its development an embryo recapitulates the evolutionary history of its species. This idea was fathered by Ernst Haeckel, a German biologist who was so convinced that he had solved the riddle of life's unfolding that he doctored and faked his drawings of embryonic stages to prove his point. . . . It has been known for almost a century that at no stage of its development does the human embryo have gill slits." -- The Bone Peddlers by Wm. R. Fix (New York, Macmillan, 1984), page 285.

"Fetoscopy makes it possible to observe directly the unborn child through a tiny telescope inserted through the uterine wall. . . . The development of the child -- from the union of the partners' cells to birth -- has been studied extensively. As a result, long-held beliefs have been put to rest. We now know, for instance, that man, in his prenatal stages, does not go through the complete evolution of life -- from a primitive single cell to a fishlike creature to man. Today it is known that every step in the fetal developmental process is specifically human." -- "Life Before Birth" by Sabine Schwabenthan (Parents, October 1979), page 50.

Despite the fact that the human embryo never has gill slits, the idea is still widely believed and even appears in biology textbooks from the pens of scientists who presumably know better. For example, as a recent biology text claims, "The similarities among embryos themselves provide the most startling evidence of evolutionary relationships. . . . All vertebrate embryos, including the embryos of humans and other air-breathing mammals, develop embryonic gill slits or pouches. . . . Gill pouches [are] vestiges of our primitive ancestry . . ." Quoted from Biology by Gil D. Brum and Larry K. McKane (New York, Wiley, 1989), page 414. One is tempted to suppose that myths like this one are perpetuated out of desperation because real evidence for evolution is lacking, and true believers in evolutionism feel no prospect of finding any!

10. "Mutations and mutation rates have been studied in a wide variety of experimental plants and animals, and in man. There is one general result that clearly emerges: almost all mutations are harmful. The degree of harm ranges from mutant genes that kill the carrier, to those that cause only minor impairment. Even if we didn't have a great deal of data on this point, we could still be quite sure on theoretical grounds that mutations would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it." -- "Genetic Effects of Radiation" by James F. Crow (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Volume 14, January 1958), pages 19-20.

"When genes change, they undergo what is called mutation. . . . Mutation changes can only be harmful to man's heredity." -- The Century of Science by Watson Davis (New York, Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1963), pages 172 and 174.

See the paper "Scientific Fallacies of Evolution" (referenced in Note 4 above) for a further discussion of the role of mutations in living things.