f a i t h f u l . w i t n e s s . m i n i s t r i e s

PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!

Can Christians Believe

In Darwin & Evolution

Is Earth merely a speck of dust lost without significance in the universe?
Or, is our planet the product of intelligent and purposeful design?

Is life on Earth the product of purely undirected processes like time, chance and natural selection?
Or, can the origin and diversity of living organisms be traced to an intelligent cause?

For more than a century, Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection has defined biology.
Yet, today, a rapidly growing number of scientists seriously question evolution's
ability to account for the origin of life on earth.

Presenting an anti "MACRO" evolution position, not a Scientific Creationism position.

 "One of the peculiar sins of this century which we've developed to a very high level is the sin of credulity (gullibility).
It has been said that when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing.
The truth is much worse: they believe in ANYTHING!"
Malcolm Muggeridge


The Modern "RELIGION" Called

The "Origin Of Species",
imagined or speculated to be the result of evolution.
(aka: "MACRO" Evolution)

 The primary proof...
that mankind (humans) did NOT! "Evolve" from apes is that in-breeding (inter-breeding) is only possible when different species both have a common ancestor somewhere in their distant past (up to millions and millions of years ago).

Without a common ancestor, cross-species inter-breeding is genetically impossible.

So since it is a fact that apes and mankind (humans) cannot inter-breed,
because they have NO common ancestor,
this fact is the strongest proof that mankind (humans) did NOT! "Evolve" from apes.

Too bad, Darwin!

.... you must distinguish between "MICRO" evolution and "MACRO" evolution.

Attempting discussion of this matter without that distinction is entirely BOGUS! and tends toward confusion, since the stand-alone term "evolution" is vague at best.

Employing the word "evolution" as a stand-alone term is generally considered an exercise in purposeful obfuscation meant to bewilder or stupefy any religionist opposition, obscuring people's understanding, leaving them baffled, without concrete descriptive terminology. Duping them into appearing pathetically clueless, as bozos & buffoons, absent a firm grip on the concept of what is actually a blatant misnomer.


"Evolution" as a stand-alone descriptive term is thoroughly undescriptive.

A lack of distinction between "MICRO" and "MACRO" evolution is the main stumbling-block in discussion of the issue.


"MICRO" evolution is an applied science.

"MICRO" evolution explains how existing species, including a few lucky or opportunistic mutants, adapt, evolve and even prosper through natural selection, and is supported both by observation and in the fossil record.

"MICRO" evolution occurs within species, producing varied or different forms of that same species.

The teaching of applied "MICRO" evolution should not be problematic for even zealous religionists, would that it were clearly differentiated from theoretical and unproven "MACRO" evolution.

But, here, the various religionists hold the high ground due to the inconvenient, troublesome, awkward fact that today's field of astro-physics, as currently taught throughout academia, fully conforms to the exact order of the first ten (10) creation events delineated in the Bible's Book of Genesis. Oddly enough, they are in splendidly remarkable agreement.

And despite the fact that today's astro-physicists developed their considered opinions on the origin of the universe (and formation of the earth) sans scriptura, the Bible's Book of Genesis predates modern astro-physics texts by not a few millennia.


"MACRO" evolution is unproven speculation.

Whereas "MACRO" evolution was (and is) a theoretical attempt to explain the origin (creation) of species through natural selection, and is not supported in the fossil record. Among the fossils, no observations have ever been made concerning any species evolving into a completely new, different or unique species.

Anyone who claims there is verifiable scientific evidence for "MACRO" evolution is a propagandist, to put it politely.

The term "Natural Selection" is a misnomer when used in reference to the origin (creation) of species. Nature can only select from life-forms which exist, nature cannot select (from nothing) a non-existent life-form ("life form" = The characteristic morphology of a mature, existing organism). A species genome already contains the extant genetic variations available for nature to select from, rather like an artist's palette of basic colors offers myriad choices, mixtures and combinations - millions of hues, tints and shades - while not offering any possibility of entirely new basic colors.

The process of Natural Selection favors and protects the biological systems which ALREADY exist. No NEW genetic or biological information is produced or created by Natural Selection. Natural Selection prevents MACRO-evolution, preventing NEW phyla-level species, while permitting those species which ALREADY exist to MICRO-evolve with small changes within existing species.

Species must first exist in order to be "Naturally Selected" - otherwise you are simply talking about the same unexplainable "Magic" attributed to super-natural creation by the God of Abraham. So, if someone is willing to believe-in nature accomplishing pure magic in creating new and unique species from out of nothing, that believer in "Miracles" should also be able to accept similar magic accomplished by a creator-God who truly rules.

There are no "Laws Of Nature" or "Natural Laws" - There are only "God's Laws".
And, along with the entire universe, nature obeys God's Laws.

The concept of "MACRO" evolution as the origin (creation) of species is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy. The idea that random functionality can create intricate complex order has never been observed anywhere in the entire universe, much less on earth.

The current academic expression of theoretical "MACRO" evolution posits that the earliest, most primitive life-forms in our far distant past somehow "evolved" from amino and nucleic acids which developed from chemicals leeched out of Pre-Cambrian ROCKS by rains of unknown constituents and uncertain composition, generating a "primeval soup" of pre-biotic carbon compounds and pyrophosphite enzymatic catalysts to produce the basic building blocks of life-forms (nucleobases, necessary ingredients in the creation of DNA), facilitating development of the first replicating molecules, yielding cells with unlimited God-like flexibility, and leading to self-replicating organisms.


Scientists and academics believe (imagine) that ROCKS
furnished the chemical ingredients thought to be essential for life.

Does this indicate that today's scientific position on theoretical "MACRO" evolution instructs...

.... we are evolved from ROCKS?

See: "NOVA: Life's Rocky Start"
How did life begin?
Are rocks the spark-of-life?
What is the secret link between rocks and minerals, and every living thing on Earth?
Rocks were essential to advancing life on Earth billions of years ago.
Yes!   We are evolved from ROCKS!
Season 43; Episode 2 - First Aired: January 13, 2016
At: PBS - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/life-rocky-start.html
At: IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5341406/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Or should we, instead, faithfully believe what the Bible says about Adam being cobbled-together from 200 pounds of clay?
Or, maybe, Adam was cobbled-together from dirt which eroded from those same Pre-Cambrian rocks?

However, extant fossil evidence DOES show a, later, Cambrian-era explosion in the number of species. Fossil evidence DOES show a rapid appearance of phylum-level differences in a sudden period of time (a few million years), instead of a long history of gradual divergence from a common ancestor (billions and billions of years). Darwin’s conception of a fictional "Tree Of Life" is not supported by fossil records. The compact time-frame of the Cambrian explosion has uprooted Darwin’s conceptual tree. An overwhelming collection of Cambrian-era fossil records shows this rapid appearance of phylum-level differences in a very short period of time to be true and provable.

Complex life appeared suddenly and abundantly all across the earth during the Cambrian period. Modern science explains this Cambrian Explosion of phylum-level life forms in a way that is remarkably similar to the fifth (5th) day of creation found in Genesis 1:20-23.

Darwin's Dilemma:
Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record

"Nothing distressed Darwin more than the Cambrian Fossil Record."
Stephen Jay Gould

The most powerful refutation of Darwinian evolution is the Cambrian fossil record.

The Cambrian explosion is the most spectacular event in the history of life, for in an instant of geological time [The Cambrian Period] complex animals first appeared on earth fully formed, without evidence of any evolutionary ancestors called precursors. The Cambrian is the first geological period of the Paleozoic era, lasting from 542 million years ago to 488.3 million years ago.

Nothing disturbed Darwin more than the Cambrian explosion, for Darwin wanted to advance the hypothesis of common ancestry (the "Tree-Of-Life" concept, slow modification through natural selection). Darwin's problem was that during the Cambrian explosion fossils of complex animals appeared suddenly, without precursors in the older rock strata, leading Darwin to surmise that the fossil record was somehow incomplete. And leading him to speculate that the Cambrian explosion was illusory, which was his method of intellectually dismissing the geologic evidence of the Cambrian explosion.

All of this amounts to academic fraud because almost all of the different body plans of the several dozen phyla seen today were present during the Cambrian period, but not before. Darwin realized that the fossil evidence did not support his theory of gradual, step-by-step evolutionary development. He hoped that future generations of scientists would make the discoveries necessary to validate his ideas.

Today, after more than 150 years of exploration, fossil evidence of slow, incremental, biological change has yet to be found or excavated. Instead, we find a picture of the rapid appearance of fully developed, complex organisms during the outset of the Cambrian geological era. Organisms that embody almost all of the major animal body plans that exist today.

This remarkable explosion of life is best explained by the existence of a transcendent intelligence (A Creator-God).

As early as 1831...

Darwin was acutely aware of the fossil record which revealed the Cambrian explosion. And he was also aware that older Pre-Cambrian rock strata did not possess any transitional forms which could have been claimed to be the ancestors of the many creatures that first appeared during the Cambrian period.

These inconvenient facts are fatal to the theory of descent through slow modification by the process of natural selection. Darwin's dilemma, as he stated in "Origin", is that any rapid appearance of phylum-level biota would necessarily point toward special creation by God (by an Intelligent Designer).

Darwin's Galapagos finches...
and their differing beak variations is purported (claimed) to be a high-proof of evolution.

But, due to a very short Galapagos Islands visit, what Darwin did not observe was that (even today) all of the different Galapagos finches produce nestlings with a variety of beak styles in each nesting season on every one of the many Galapagos Islands.

In nests containing two or more young birds, there has never been a Galapagos finch nest observed where the young birds all had the same beaks. There are more birds born with the wrong beak than there are birds born with the correct beak for the particular island of their birth.

The variety of all the differing beak styles is present within the entire Galapagos finch genome, and it matters not that both parent finches have identical (and correct) beaks, each clutch of nestling finches will still have a variety of different beaks, dooming more than 50% of the young birds to failure in the fight for survival on each particular island.

Steadfast belief...
in theoretical "MACRO" evolution, as if it were actual fact, is eerily similar to how
the "BIG BANG" theory expresses the rock-ribbed "beliefs" of most scientists today; i.e...
"First, there was nothing.   Then, it exploded."
This is saying that the universe created itself,
that the universe has omniscience,
that the universe is God!

Are you quite certain you can faithfully believe-in THAT too?

Nobody has ever shown or proved the Big Bang theory to be a fact.
Scientists just "Think" it --- AS! IF! it were true.
But the Big Bang theory is nothing more than a BELIEF!
It is a Faith-Based belief that Scientists WANT! to believe.

That subjective guesswork (existing only in the imagination) is not a cogent argument,
and it is not very satisfying intellectually.
It is neither clear, concise nor comprehensive.

Belief (faith, trust) in "MACRO" evolution is pure metaphysics (the teleological doctrine of causation), a "Religion!"

"MACRO" evolution is a "Religion" eagerly conducted by grade-school teachers and college instructors earnestly following the doctrines of "MACRO" evolution theology and discipled by their clergy, the High Priests of Darwinism in white lab-coats. "MACRO" evolution has been religious dogma for so long, now many people consider it a foregone conclusion that life arose by random processes.

Due to a complete lack of factual, provable, demonstrable scientific or archaeological evidence for "MACRO" evolution, any belief in "MACRO" evolution as the origin (creation) of species is "Scientific" Creationism, purely a Faith-Based (religious-like) issue to the same extent as belief in Christ Jesus as the Saviour (Messiah) is a Faith-Based issue.

There actually is far more proof for Christ Jesus than for "MACRO" evolution. For this very reason, Charles Robert Darwin proposed "MACRO" evolution as a theory, rather like unto a wistful notion.

Evolutionists are a gushing fountainhead of erroneous scientific speculation. In academia, evolutionary speculation (conjecture) is usually dignified and exalted as THEORY. Some advocates of modern evolutionary thought have made themselves appear foolish by proposing the bogus and deceitful claim that a scientific THEORY carries the same weight as a proven LAW of science, as if THEORIES (conjecture) have now evolved into actual facts.

Check your dictionary and observe the possible usages of the word "THEORY".

theory [the·o·ry - thee-uh-ree - theer-ee] noun, plural -ries.
   from root words: thea "a view" + horan "to see" = "to see a view"
   meaning "Point of View" [PoV], mere personal opinion or belief.
1. a proposed explanation whose status is conjectural, in opposition to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact, a theory is not to be confused with actual fact(s) for they are often opposites.
2. an assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture; a suspicion; a hunch.
3. an untested [or untestable] idea or opinion; blind faith.
4. contemplation or speculation; guesses or guess-work.
5. occasionally, delusional wishful-thinking; fantasy.

With a "Theory", anything is possible... ANYTHING!
Since a "Theory" is mere conjecture (guesses, speculation), ANY fantasy (delusion) can be plugged-into it...
And the new theoretical fantasy, then, "Evolves" into a fact which has a life of its own,
producing a NEW fact from out of nothing.

There IS! evidence for evolution... fantasies do EVOLVE! into facts.

Lacking experimental evidence to support his theory Darwin resorted to speculative arguments while, today, the argumentation used by neo-evolutionists, containing only tendentious jargon and intellectually impoverished assertions, is limited to personal convictions (faith, belief) and simple possibilities (conjecture, speculation, fantasy, delusion), and are all presented AS IF personal faith and conjecture were valid arguments in favor of the theory, AS IF baseless beliefs and speculation were proofs supporting the theory.

Suppositions (what if) and wishful-thinking (imagine if) by idealistic dreamers has fueled theoretical speculation and conjecture which has been repeated so often, so loudly and for so long that those suppositions and delusions have morphed into common knowledge, and have evolved into facts.

"A lie becomes the truth if told often enough."
Vladimir Lenin

Predictions (guesses) originating within the field of Comparative Anatomy have produced a major tenet of "MACRO" evolution theology, the doctrine of a mythical Fossil Sequence, the Tetrapod-to-Reptile-to-Mammal sequence. Which predicted fantasy sequence does NOT! exist in nature and is NOT! derived from evidence found in the fossil record (no such evidence exists) but is imagined (predicted) to have occurred simply because some people assume it MUST! have occurred.

Some people have very strong FAITH that the mythical Fossil Sequence HAD to have occurred,
despite a lack of any evidence.

 In the REAL! world, such logic is termed DELUSIONAL and is dismissed as "Wishful Thinking".
Self-delusion was, once, solely the purview of children and fools.

Whereas in the rarefied atmosphere of scientific endeavor, and in the "Ivory Towers" of academia, delusional wishful thinking has gained enough traction, today, to have EVOLVED! into facts (truths) with no stigma of buffoonery, foolishness or idiocy attached.

Staunch faith, belief and trust in predictions, guesses, fantasies and delusions is the foundation of the scientific and academic position supporting acceptance of unproven, unprovable, theoretical "MACRO" evolution.

The molecules-to-man theory has no direct evidence to support it at all, as evolution is blind speculation supported by nothing more valid than evolutionary bias. Interpretations of empirical science are by no means free from philosophical evolutionary bias. The following is a sample of that evolutionary bias:

Richard Dawkins, a noted British ethologist, evolutionary biologist, popular science writer and atheist, stated:
     "We don't need evidence for evolution, we just need to know that evolution is true."
That is not a statement of scientific fact, that is a statement of FAITH!

Strangely enough, according to Dawkins' previous opinions...
     "Faith is belief that is not based on evidence, faith is one of the world's great evils."
and, Dawkins also declared, that...
     "Religion is a malignant influence on society."

A revealing quote by Richard Dawkins:
     "Without gradualness we are back to a miracle."

Richard Dawkins is credited with first publication of the concept of "meme" in his 1976 book The Selfish Gene.

This is the same Richard Dawkins who has stated he believes in the possibility of space aliens planting the seeds of human life on earth, showing that evolutionists ARE willing to accept the concept of an Intelligent Designer (space aliens?), while staunchly refusing to accept the God of Abraham as creator.
SEE: "Richard Dawkins" --- at Wikipedia

And, even Carl Sagan, when he was at Stanford University, in 1962, produced a controversial paper funded by a NASA research grant that concludes ancient alien intervention may have sparked human civilization.
SEE: "Carl Sagan" --- at Wikipedia

Far too many neo-evolutionary scientists are properly referred to as "Pre-Conceptual" scientists, which is similar to "Politically-Correct" scientists (PC scientists). "Pre-Conceptual" science involves reaching a conclusion BEFORE doing any research, followed only by research which is intended to confirm pre-conceived notions, and simply dismissing anything contrary to those pre-conceived notions, even when the research provides no proof for those pre-conceived notions and (most especially) when the research proves the pre-conceived notions to be entirely wrong.

"Pre-Conceptual" scientists suffer from the plague of "Confirmation Bias". Confirmation bias (myside bias) refers to a type of selective thinking whereby "Pre-Conceptual" scientists tend to notice and to look for what confirms their beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts their pre-conceived notions. It is a tendency for people to prefer information that confirms their pre-conceived notions independently of whether or not those pre-conceived notions are true.

This tendency, to give more attention and weight to data which support "Pre-Conceptual" scientists beliefs than they do to contrary data, is especially pernicious when "Pre-Conceptual" scientists beliefs are little more than prejudices.

As long as "Pre-Conceptual" scientists ignore certain archaeological facts and continue to accept Evolutionary speculation AS IF theories were facts, they can prove ANYTHING to their own satisfaction. In doing this, "Pre-Conceptual" scientists become idealistic idealists (Dreamers) living in the "Dream-World" of self-delusion.

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data.
Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories,
instead of theories to suit facts."

Arthur Conan Doyle

Science is the ultimate, systematic search for truth through hypothesis and prediction, experimentation and observation, drawing conclusions and establishing fact. But it is on us to navigate the spaces between bias and assumption, relinquishing the rhetoric of perceived certainty and mere insinuation, to come as close as possible to determining what is objective and true. If we neglect this challenge posed by scientific inquiry, we are left to indluge only in that which confirms our preconceived or unreasoned biases, which are nothing more than our preconceptions and our fantasies.

The current scientific logic is that since change HAS! taken place during the history of the earth, that very change HAS! to be as a result of (and proof of) "MACRO" evolution - with this highly flawed circular reasoning (modern Darwinian theology) allowing for no other possible explanation or competing theory - coldly dismissing an all-powerful God as super-natural creator.

To scientists and academians, The God Of Abraham does not even qualify to be a comic book Super-Hero,
at least not THEIR! Super-Hero.


in the fossil record are any transitional forms, the so-called "Missing Links", which Darwin had hoped would "turn up" or be "dug-up" over time. In his "Origin" magnum opus, Darwin frequently admits that the "imperfect" and "incomplete" fossil record (of his day) did not support the "Origin" concept of (today's) theoretical "MACRO" evolution in the slightest degree.

Darwin never claimed that "MACRO" evolution as the origin (creation) of species was true, he only hoped that the geological record would, eventually, establish his speculation as verifiable fact.

Although Darwin expressed great faith that future advances in the fledgeling science of archaeology would "uncover" the "Missing Links" (transitional forms) required to validate his theory, Darwin's own considered opinion was that "MACRO" evolution as the origin of species was pure fiction since it could not be either demonstrated or proven at that time. (ca. mid-1800s)

Nothing has changed in that model since Darwin's day. "MACRO" evolution remains unproven in the fossil record, and remains merely a faith-based theory, as "Religious" conjecture somewhat below the level of a solid hypothesis.

"MACRO" evolution is accepted by some, despite a lack of facts, purely as a matter of "Faith". It is not accepted by many others because it is highly improbable in light of established facts.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions,
but NOT their own facts.

"There is something fascinating about science.
One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such trifling investment of facts."

Mark Twain

Should one ambitiously endeavor to attain a "Well-Rounded" education, it would behoove one to read, at least, the Introduction to Darwin's "Origin", along with Chapter 6 - "Difficulties On Theory", and to peruse the various chapter summaries found throughout the entire tome. Many mysteries and much confusion about the word "Evolution", as a vague, imprecise descriptive term, could be dispelled and put to rest by having everyone who concerns their self with the "Evolution" debate expose their minds to, and become informed by, Darwin's own concerns.

Despite abundant scientific evidence for the Creation Model of Intelligent Design, evolutionists are not willing to believe or accept Intelligent Design without inclusion of the nonsense that evolutionists refer to as the Random Modification Continuum (which continuum is pure fantasy).

Instead, evolutionists invest all their "Faith" in guess-work and speculation (mere theories).

Monolithic, dogmatic, intolerant, "MACRO" evolution's inexplicable popularity cannot be successfully understood without consideration of an anti-God factor being in play. It is not possible that such a flawed, unproven theory, today's "MACRO" evolution, could dominate current scientific opinion (as theology) and prevail throughout academia (as doctrine) without allowing for the presence of significant Satanic influence behind the scene. A lie becoming a truth (a fact) is a specialty of the Satanic side of the spiritual spectrum, as the modern-day, naturalistic, atheistic neo-Darwinists continue to demonstrate.

It is purely "Religious" belief to hold that "MACRO" evolution is responsible for the creation of any species. It requires a significantly profound level of tremendously intense faith (admirable faith!) to cherish the "belief" that "MACRO" evolution had, or has, any part in the origin (creation) of species through natural (Godless) selection.

This author does NOT possess enough "Faith" to believe in "MACRO" evolution for the creation of any species.

As expressed today, "MACRO" evolution (aka: Neo-Darwinism) is inherently an atheistic, naturalistic philosophy.

The teaching of "MACRO" evolution as fact, as the origin of species, is indoctrination in a "Religion".

For it is the "Religion" of evolution which truly expresses "Scientific" Creationism.

And that "Religious" indoctrination is based on "BLIND" faith!

Because evolution is belief (faith) in the impossible!


Click On A Number - Below - Go Directly To A Frequently Asked Question