Refuting Evolution

Dr. Sarfati shows the twisting of evidences and the distortion of facts by scientists that are made to fit the evolutionary model or template. One of these is the idea that whales evolved from a land animal, such as a cow or even a dog. To bring ones mind to the point where this theory of events could be possible, one must have lost sight of the evidence and substituted conjecture and hope for the evolutionary end result. And though fossil evidence for whales is scant, there is nothing that would indicate the posited idea that whales began as an earth wandering animal. The only way to get to whale "B" from cow "A” is by following the theory, but not the evidence. That one cell branched out, not only into animal life, but in vegetable life as well, puts a crushing load on one's credulity.

To believe in the idea that all life originated from one cell, and that cell and others like it took different paths to become entirely different beings requires indoctrination usually attributed to Bible thumpers. But by using that premise, one must eventually come to the idea, perhaps reluctantly, that humans once had a potato in their family tree. This is only the logical extension of what has been purported. "Me and my Uncle rutabaga" doesn't have a scientific ring to it, does it? But the more you read the writings of evolutionists, you find that this is not a chasm too wide for them to leap at all. It all depends on their starting point, or how determined they are "not to allow a Divine Foot to enter the door".. at all.

Refuting Evolution highlights the evolutionist practice of reconstruction of fossil evidence to fit the desired creature. We know from the Nebraska Man propaganda how this works. A tooth is found, a "man" is constructed, then a family, and from there an entire myth that becomes the template that separates us from a Designer/Creator. Using Nebraska "Man", the Scopes trial became the cause celebre' that ACLU types use to this day to denigrate religion and uplift evolution. In the case of whales, The NAS book, using creative reconstruction, does with whale fossils and other aquatic creatures what has been done with the single hog's tooth that became Nebraska Man.

It is one thing to "reconstruct" a creature that is known to have existed, but quite another to reconstruct a creature guided only by one's feverish hope. What evolutionists do with fossil parts could be compared with reconstructing a Southern Mansion with only the fireplace mantel and an outhouse without having seen one. When Dr. Stuart Crane said here in Indianapolis that: "I really would like to be an evolutionist, but it takes more faith than I've got." This must have been a part of his skepticism.

And with this we come full circle to the differences and similarities of Evolutionism and Creationism. Ultimately, faith is involved in both. Special creation has no live witnesses, but neither has evolution. We can see micro evolution, or adaptation within species, but we see no evidence of one species becoming another, and certainly a tall, thick stone wall of growing evidences of problems in the way of evolution theory, that seem insurmountable.

For evolutionists to demand and expect a "material explanation" to the universe is both the "intoxicating vanity' mentioned in Jurassic Park, and the refusal to consider that there is another dimension to our universe which may never be within the reach or understanding of man. For believers, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Pr. l:7). It remains our task to gently suggest this idea to evolutionists. Their destiny depends upon it.