Evolution: A False Doctrine Essay, Research Paper
Evolution – A False Doctrine
by SIVAN TUMARKIN
April 1996
The Evolution Theory is a false doctrine devised by scientists lacking modern technology and
knowledge in an attempt to escape the aggressive confines of Religion, thereby forming a new
faith referred to as “natural selection”. Throughout time, evolution mechanisms have been
developed to account for many barriers facing evolutionists. From Lamarckism developed by
Jean Baptisete DeLamarck (1829) to Darwinism by Charles Darwin (1859) to The Mutation
Theory by Hugo deVries (1901) right up to the current theory of Neo-Darwinism, modifications to
this doctrine have evolved to include modern scientific principles of Biology, Anthropology,
Physics and Mathematics. The concept of “Evolution” as proposed by Charles Darwin does not
in itself present opposition to creation by a higher order of intelligence. Evolution simply implies
“gradual change through time”. Thus, a creator might have employed such means of creation
just as humans gradually design and build newer cars with an increased variety of shapes and
colors. The conflict arise when Naturalists insist that all life gradually evolved from non-living
matter by the process of natural selection which is a direct violation of The Law of Biogenesis1 .
Naturalistic evolution is considered and taught to be a fact rather than a theory by many
scientists and teachers. It is an everyday event to watch a television show such as the
Discovery Channel and constantly be reminded of how evolutionary mechanisms caused the
rise of life on Earth. Any inquiries questioning evolution are immediately suppressed or
answered with evolutionary terms such as “survival of the fittest” which is a tautology and hence
can not be disputed with out proper knowledge or deep understanding of the clauses used.
Although the theory itself offers abundant examples of “evolutionary paradoxes”, many scientists
choose to dismiss these confrontations and faithfully follow the evolution doctrine. Careful
biological examinations of various organisms prove that purely accidental evolution is definitely
unattainable and offer proof to illustrate why many built in mechanisms in animals are either fully
functional as a whole, or are rejected.
Mathematical probabilities defy all arguments presented by evolutionists and clearly disqualify
natural selection as being a credible scientific theory. Furthermore, The Evolution Theory finds
itself strangled when trying to dispute its rationale against physics laws which govern this
universe. Darwinists insult science by refusing to follow scientific regulations and forcing this
“faith” as a fact before endorsing it as a theory. It is accepted by many scientists as the only
explanation for the origin of life, consequently omitting all other theories including creation. “We
in NASA were often asked what the real reason was for the amazing string of successes we had
with our Apollo flights to the Moon. I think the only honest answer we could give was that we
tried to never overlook anything. It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse the
presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science
classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather
than happened by chance.” 2 The Evolution Theory is based on evidence gathered by “expert”
scientists to justify their claim of an evolutionary chain. In many cases, evolutionists use
strategies to shine their theory on to the public by means of media shows such as the famous
Scopes trial as well as secretly generating false “evidence” displaying skeletons of missing links
such as the Piltdown Man and refusal to claim responsibility for conclusions mistakenly made;
such as the case of Lucy. In addition, “evidence” supporting the evolutionary chain is invalid in
view of the tremendous lack of intermediate links between species as well as, all the evidence
pointing towards evolution is prominently based on the assumption that evolution has occurred.
Thus, once an assumption has become the evidence for the premeditated conclusion, it is
somewhat obvious to view that conclusion as the only logical explanation. One of the most well
known conflicts between Creation and Darwinism called the Scopes case, occurred in the
1920’s which was especially engineered to make a mockery of Creationism. The Tennessee
legislature had passed a statue prohibiting the teaching of evolution. Opponents of the law
engineered a case test in which a former substitute teacher named Scopes volunteered to be
the defendant. William Jennings Bryan, three-time Democratic presidential candidate and a
Bible believer led the prosecution. The Scope’s defense team was led by the famous criminal
lawyer Clarence Darrow. Darrow called Bryan to the stand as a Bible expert and presented him
with a tooth belonging to the Nebraska Man (prehistoric man within the evolutionary chain).
Darrow humiliated Bryan in a devastating cross-examination in which he showed that the
leading “scientific authorities” in the world confirmed the tooth belonged to a prehistoric man.
The “monkey-trial” was a triumph for Darwinism and had a powerful impact on the general
public. “However, years after the trial, the skeleton of the animal which the tooth came from was
found. As it turns out, the tooth on which the Nebraska Man was created belonged to an extinct
species of pig. The “authorities” who ridiculed Mr.Bryan for his ignorance, created an entire race
of humanity out of the tooth of a pig!”3 Such “authority figures” have been governing and
monitoring the media in an attempt to establish Evolution as a fact and not a theory. “It is
absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that
person is ignorant, stupid or insane!” 4 Nevertheless, not all scientists are limiting themselves
to one possible conclusion. There are those who openly admit flaws within this theory and try to
reasonably establish evidence to support their claims as true scientists. If they lack such
evidence, they permit criticism and act as respected scientists by drawing objective conclusions
based on their initial hypothesis and gathered observations. Such is the case with the founder
of the Theory of Evolution, Charles Darwin. “As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms
must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the
earth? The number of extinct species must have been inconceivably great!… not one change of
species into another is on record… we cannot prove that a single species has been changed!…
He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole
theory.” 5 Throughout the history of the Evolution Theory, many people have tried to help natural
selection “evidence” by engineering false proof that will in turn prove the missing link between
humans and apes. In 1912, Charles Dawson (a fossiologist) discovered some bones, teeth and
primitive implements in a gravel pit at Piltdown, Sussex, England. He took them to Dr. Author
Smith Woodward (well known and respected paleontologist) at the British Museum. The
remains were marked as being 500,000 years old. This new discovery generated mass media
coverage all over the world and “Evolution” became the primary theory for the origin of life. The
evolutionary link between man and ape was found! On October 1956, using a new method to
date bones based on fluoride absorption, the Piltdown bones were found to be fraudulent.
Further, critical investigation revealed that the jawbone actually belonged to an ape that had died
only 50 years previously. The skeleton, tested and confirmed by “expert scientific authorities”
proved to be a fake. This did not matter; the promotion of “Evolution” has been successful in
planting the idea that soon, the real missing link will be found, instead of generating an inquiry
as to the validity of this theory. “When it comes to the origin of life on the earth, there are only
two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (Evolution). There is no third way.
Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other
conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We can not accept that on philosophical grounds
(personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose
spontaneously by chance.” 6 Present day speculation about human evolution is mainly based
on a group of fossils called autralopithecines and in particular, a specimen called Lucy, a 40%
complete skeleton. During investigations conducted from 1972-1977 in a far area of Ethiopia,
D.C. Johanson discovered a skeleton later to be known as Lucy. This again, generated mass
media coverage as an evolutionary link between humans and apes was found. In a National
Geographic article (December 1976), Joahnson claimed that “the angle of the thigh bone and
the flattened surface at its knee joint end… proved she walked on two legs.” “However, evidence
regarding the actual discovery of the knee joint that was used to ‘prove’ that Lucy walked upright
was found more than 200 feet lower in the strata and more than two miles away. The knee joint
end of the femur was severely crushed; therefore, Johanson’s conclusion is pure speculation.”7
Anatomist Charles Oxnard, using a computer technique for analysis of skeletal relationships,
has concluded that the australopithecines did not walk upright (not in the same manner as
humans). Furthermore, there is evidence that people including Kanapoi hominid and
Castennedolo Man walked upright before the time of Lucy. Obviously, if people walked before
Lucy, than once again, this “evidence” is disqualified as an evolutionary ancestor. Thus, the only
scientific basis for concluding that Lucy was an evolutionary link, was the assumption that
evolution did occur. When lining evidence on the assumption that a theory is a fact, the only
possible conclusion which could be generated is that fact; “the fact of evolution” (closed circle).
“Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observations and
wholly unsupported by facts.” 8 One of the most serious blows to the Evolution Theory is the
absence of transitional forms. As Darwin was honest enough to admit the defect in his theory
regarding these intermediate links, his assumptions were credible. “The explanation lies,
however, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” 9 In 1859, this explanation
drove geologists to vigorously search for fossils of these “links”. Although it has been over 100
years since Darwin’s time, we now have fewer samples of “transitional forms” than we did back
then. Instead of heaving more samples, we actually have less because some of the old classic
examples of evolution have been recently discarded due to new information and findings, and no
new transitional forms have been found. “The fossil material is now so complete that the lack of
transitional series cannot be explained by the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real,
they will never be filled.” 10 Nevertheless, evolutionists still maintain their determination to put
their faith before the evidence. It is not with fa cts that evolutionists argue against the
theory of creation, but rather, with tentative assumptions based on faith and inability to explain
the paradoxes in nature. When confronted with questions such as “who came first, the chicken
or the egg?”, they reply with philosophical answers containing no shred of evidence. Throughout
the natural environment, organisms have been discovered and examined revealing clear
evidence of defiance to the Evolution Theory. From the ingenious design of the human eye, to
the magnificent relationship between symbiotic organisms, right to the marvelous design of body
structures and color variation in nature, the notion of “it” happening by “mere coincidence” is
completely preposterous and a ridiculous theory for science to acknowledge. In addition to the
visual beauty in nature, DNA serves as an impenetrable shield to the Creation Theory and a fatal
weapon against the Theory of Evolution. “Take the human body alone-the chance that all the
functions of the individual could just happen, is a statistical monstrosity!” 11 Evolutionists are
helpless when trying to explain the step by step evolution of the human eye. As one of the most
intriguing organs of the body, it contains automatic aiming, automatic focusing, and automatic
aperture adjustment. The human eye can function from almost complete darkness to bright
sunlight. It sees an object with a diameter of a fine hair, and makes about 100,000 separate
motions in an average day. Then, while we sleep, it carries out its own maintenance work. The
human eye is so sophisticated that scientists are still trying to understand how it functions.
When objectively questioning his own theory, Charles Darwin confirmed that “to suppose that
the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for
admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration,
could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest
possible degree… The belief that an organ as perfect as the eye could have been formed by
natural selection is more than enough to stagger anyone.” Nonetheless, evolutionists still stick
to their “faith” and a paralyzed answer, “it happened somehow, somewhere”. It is hopeless to
try and explain how the eye evolved step by step because, it is either a complete structure
(including all other organs such as brain to perceive the information and then analyze it like a
computer, as well as all other organs such as heart, blood vessels, etc.), or it is incomplete, in
which case it will be rejected by the organism. It either functions as an integrated whole or not
at all. Darwin has stated that “if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which
could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory
would absolutely break down.” However, the human eye is just the tip of the iceberg.
Evolutionists’ problems are further complicated by the fact that hundreds of different eyes exist in
different organisms. These different eyes are built with absolutely distinct designs. A squid’s
eyes are structurally different than a human’s eyes or a crab’s eyes, etc. To compare the
structures of these eyes is like comparing a radio’s design with a computer’s design. Both
receive and output signals but have completely different architectural designs. Such a case of
evolution, of many different eyes, each astonishingly designed and crafted, is surely a dilemma
an evolutionist must face. To illustrate, the Trilobite eye; unlike the lens of a human eye, which
is composed of living, organic tissues, trilobite eyes are composed of inorganic calcite. Unlike
human eyes which are composed of a single lens, trilobite eyes have a very special double lens
design with anywhere from 100 to 15,000 lenses in each eye (depending on the sub-species).
This special design allows the trilobites to see under water perfectly, without distortions.
Sufficient knowledge of Abbe’s Sine Law, Fermat’s Principle, and various other principles of
optics are fundamental in the design of these lenses. They appear to have been carefully crafted
by a very knowledgeable physicist.
Astonishing symbiotic relationships between organisms found in nature, mock the Evolution
Theory. There are many instances where organisms of different species are completely
dependent upon each other for survival. For instance, “the Pronuba moth lives in a cocoon in
the sand at the base of the Yucca plant. Pronuba moths can only hatch on certain nights of the
year, which are also the only nights that Yucca flowers bloom. When the Pronuba moth
hatches, it enters an open Yucca flower and gathers pollen12 . It then flies to a different yucca
plant, backs into the flower and lays its eggs with the Yucca’s seed cells. It pushes the pollen it
had gathered into a hole in the Yucca flower’s pistil, so the pollen will fertilize the Yucca’s seed
cells where the moth laid its eggs. The moth then dies. As the moth’s eggs incubate, the yucca
seeds ripen. When the eggs hatch, the moth larvae eat about one fifth of the Yucca seeds.
They then cut through the seed pod and spin a thread that they use to slide down to the desert