"Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." Luke 24:45-47

Contents: Science vs Religion What Does The Word 'Evolution' Mean? What is a Species? Geologic Column: The Bible of Evolutionism Fossil Record & Circular Reasoning Excommunicated by the Church of Evolutionism All The Signs of a Cult

Just as we have covered other false religions of the world (e.g. Catholicism, Mormonism, Islam, etc), so too we will cover Evolutionism. Evolutionism is a religious philosophy that causes just as much damage as the other major religious idolatry around the world, and though we will cover some scientific aspects in this teaching, we need to keep in mind that we are not dealing with science when talking about evolution.

In the USA, our public school systems are teaching Evolutionism on a daily basis, either by direct doctrines or philosophical implications. Worse still is that not only is it being taught on a regular basis, but all citizens are required (through taxation) to pay for that silly religion to be passed on to the next generation, in states in which have laws that require factual accuracy in textbooks.

WISCONSIN
(See Wisconsin Administrative Code: PI 8.01(2)(h), adopted by the state of Wisconsin Oct 24, 2007, retrieved Sept 3, 2014, [www.stonebank.k12.wi.us/Portals/0/PDFdocs/Policies/361LibraryPolicies.pdf])

NOTE: The State of Indiana (where I reside) does NOT yet have a law that requires factual accuracy in textbooks.

TEXAS "Instructional materials should present the most current factual information accurately and objectively without editorial opinion or bias by the authors. Theories should be clearly distinguished from fact and presented in an objective educational manner."
-Texas State Board of Education Operating Rules, §2.9-Resolutions, (4)(A), last amended Jan 30, 2013, retrieved Sept 6, 2014, [www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=25769804094]

FLORIDA "(1) In addition to relying on statements of publishers or manufacturers of instructional materials, the commissioner may conduct or cause to be conducted an independent investigation to determine the accuracy of state-adopted instructional materials.
(3) The commissioner may remove materials from the list of state-adopted materials if he or she finds that the content is in error and the publisher refuses to correct the error when notified by the department."
(See Florida Code, Title XLVIII K-20 Education Code, Ch. 1006 Support for Learning, Part I Public K-12 Education Support for learning and Student Services (ss. 1006.02-1006.43), (F)(1)(3), 2009, retrieved Sept 6, 2014, [law.justia.com/florida/codes/2009/TitleXLVIII/chapter1006/1006_35.html])

CALIFORNIA "The state board shall adopt basic instructional materials for use in kindergarten and grades 1 to 8, inclusive, for governing boards, subject to the following provisions... (3) Are factually accurate and incorporate principles of instruction reflective of current and confirmed research."
(See Florida Code, Title XLVIII K-20 Education Code, Ch. 1006 Support for Learning, Part I Public K-12 Education Support for learning and Student Services (ss. 1006.02-1006.43), (F)(1)(3), 2009, retrieved Sept 6, 2014, [law.justia.com/florida/codes/2009/TitleXLVIII/chapter1006/1006_35.html])

Unfortunately, most states do not enforce these laws, and many Christian parents sit in ignorance, sending their children off to public schools to be brainwashed by secular religions because our public schools have more become a convenient day care center than a place of learning. We will not only introduce the religious aspects of evolution, but also teach students how to logically combat the intensive propaganda they'll receive in their science classes.



.

science: systematic knowledge of the physical world gained through observation and experimentation
(See 'science', Random House Dictionary, Random House Inc, 2014; See also Collins English Dictionary, Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition, William Collins Sons & Co)

Science has to do with things we can observe, test, and demonstrate within our physical world. For example, we cannot scientifically prove that God created the heavens and the earth because God creating anything goes outside the realm of science.

Great things doeth he, which we cannot comprehend.
-Job 37:5

Because science deals with the material world, and only within the capability we have to observe it, science is a very limited process.

nature: the material world as surrounding mankind
(See 'nature', Random House Dictionary, Random House Inc, 2014; See also Collins English Dictionary, Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition, William Collins Sons & Co)

The natural world (nature) is observable, testable, and demonstrable. Though a scienific mind seeks to understand nature, it is very easy to get drawn into assumptions about what we cannot see or understand. To go beyond what we can observe, test, and demonstrate is super-nature.

supernatural: above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law; to go beyond natural forces
(See 'supernatural', Random House Dictionary, Random House Inc, 2014; See also Collins English Dictionary, Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition, William Collins Sons & Co)

When God creates man and animals from the dust of the ground, that is supernatural because it is unexplainable by natural law. This does not mean that God's creating of all living things is false, it simply means we cannot observe, test, nor demonstrate a creature being created from the dust of the ground, which makes it supernatural by definition.

Likewise, we connot observe, test, nor demonstrate a dog coming from a non-dog. We cannot observe, test, nor demonstrate man coming from monkeys, or that life can come from soup, which automatically puts it into the category of supernatural.

religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe; belief in a supernatural power
(See 'religion', Random House Dictionary, Random House Inc, 2014; See also Collins English Dictionary, Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition, William Collins Sons & Co)

In the few thousand years of mankind's recorded history, horses have produced horses. That is observable, testable, and demonstrable. That is science. There are a wide variety of horses today: Horses, Zebras, Donkeys, Hebras, Zedonks, etc. All of these are interfertile and produce after their kind. In all observations, tests, and demonstrations in horse breeding, horses have remained horses.

To say "Horses bring forth after their kind," is scientific. To say, "Horses evolved slowly over millions of years from a common ancestor, which was something non-horse," is NOT scientific. We do not, and cannot, observe, test, or demonstrate horses coming from anything but a horse.

Since we cannot observe, test, nor demonstrate horses coming from something non-horse, that idea is classified as "supernatural." It therefore goes into the category of religion. Evolution, as it is taught in the textbooks of America, and many other nations around the world, is a religious worldview by definition.

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
-1 Timothy 6:20

.

evolution:
*any process of formation or growth
*a product of development
*progressive change
*a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action
*a pattern formed by a series of movements
*extraction of a root from a quantity (mathematics)
*a movement of troops, ships, etc, for disposition in order of battle
(See 'evolution', Random House Dictionary, Random House Inc, 2014; See also Collins English Dictionary, Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition, William Collins Sons & Co)

Although dictionaries may contain a large number of different definitions and usages of the term 'evolution', when an evolutionist says "evolution," they don't necessarily use the same meanings listed out in a dictionary. When dealing with religious worldviews, it is best to go to the source of their doctrines to gain an understanding of what they mean when they say certain terms or phrases.

Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
-Matthew 16:12

In a typical religion, one would go seek out the church and find its official doctrines, but since Evolutionism doesn't claim to have an official church, we have to go to the place they teach their doctrines: the public school system and the textbooks. (i.e. the public school is the new church of Evolutionism)

In casual conversation, evolutionists quite often claim that evolution only deals with changes in living things. For example, a disgruntled evolutionist came onto our youtube channel and told me (typos included):
"You are confusing it [evolution] with cosmology."
"There you again again Chris, confusing evolution with cosmology. You do not know what you are talking about... your misinformation and blatent straw men."
This comes out of the mouths of evolutionists who have little-to-no understanding of their religion and what is being fundamentally taught in it. Some more examples include the following:

"As if evolution and evolutionary theory were not already confusing enough, many creationists complicate matters even further by promulgating the mistaken idea that evolution is the same as abiogenesis... the origin of life is certainly an interesting topic, but it is not a part of evolutionary theory." -Austin Cline, "Abiogenesis & Evolution: It's a Myth that Abiogenesis is the Same as Evolution," About.com, retrieved Sept 27, 2012, [http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionabiogenesis/a/evolution.htm] "[You] tell us that evolution is some ungodly hybrid of cosmology, abiogenesis and something about rocks. Friend, nobody thinks that." -Ciaran M., comment made on youtube video on creationliberty channel in April, 2012, retreived Sept 27, 2012, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0c543Ct844] "They [Evolution & Big Bang] have nothing whatsoever to do with one another," -Lukas Xavier, "Is the theory of evolution a part of the cosmological big bang theory?" Yahoo! Answers, retrieved Sept 27, 2012, [http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120925134609AAjxHzi]

However, despite what these atheist/evolutionist scoffers want to believe, Harvard University teaches the exact opposite:

(Photo: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, retrieved Feb 14, 2015, [cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html])
"Current Teaching -- The following is the syllabus of the course that I am teaching at Harvard during the 2014-15 academic year (spring term): Astro E-8 COSMIC EVOLUTION: Origins of Matter and Life -- Instructor: Dr. Eric J. Chaisson, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics -- Course Abstract: Evolution of the Universe, from its beginning in a cosmic expansion to the emergence of life on Earth and possibly other planets. Big-bang cosmology, origin and evolution of galaxies, stars, planets, life, and society."
-Dr. Eric J. Chaisson, Syllabus for 2014-15 teaching year, Harvard College Observatory, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, retrieved Feb 14, 2015, [cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/current_teaching.pdf]

When we go to the public school teachings of Evolutionism in the textbooks, we find the same thing.

"Does it surprise you that the title of this section is called The Evolution of Stars? If you are like most people, you may think of evolution as something that deals with changes in living things. The definition of evolution, however, can be thought of in simple terms as change over time. Using that definition, many things can be considered to evolve."
-Prentice Hall: Exploring the Universe, Prentice-Hall Inc, 1993, p. 42, ISBN: 0-13-977331-2

Despite what an evolutionist might claim about what they believe, the fact is that their religion teaches students that evolution goes beyond just changes in living things. Eugenie Scott, president of the National Center for Science Education (an organization dedicated to the indoctrination of students with Evolutionism in public schools), said the following about her religious beliefs in Evolutionism:

"To the question 'What does evolution mean?' most people will answer, 'Man evolved from monkeys' or 'molecules to man'... both definitions are much too narrow. Evolution involves far more than just human beings and, for that matter, far more than just living things. The broad definition of evolution is 'a cumulative change through time,' and refers to the fact that the universe has had a history--that if we were able to go back into time, we would find different stars, galaxies, planets and different forms of life on Earth...

There is astronomical evolution, geological evolution, and biological evolution... it is relevant to physics and chemistry as well."
-Eugenie C. Scott (Atheist/Evolutionist), Evolution Vs. Creationism: An Introduction, University of California Press, 2004, p. 23, ISBN: 9780520246508

"The term is used as it is in physics -- evolution is change over time in a system according to a set of transformation rules."
-William F. Harms, Information and Meaning in Evolutionary Processes, Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 73, ISBN: 9781139451628

That means anything that changes can be considered to "evolve" according to the evolutionist doctrines in public schools and college classrooms. What one person or another wants to believe about their religion is irrelevant to me; what is being taught to the next generation speaks volumes more about the true religious beliefs of a particular cult, and the students are being taught six general aspects of Evolutionism:

The First Five (of Six) Defintions of Evolution Taught in Public Schools #1 - Cosmic Evolution: Origin of Time, Space, and Matter "Most astronomers believe that about 18 to 20 billion years ago all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page. For some unknown reason, this region exploded. This explosion is called the big bang." -Dean Hurd, Prentice-Hall General Science: A Voyage of Discovery, Prentice-Hall, 1986, p. 61, ISBN: 9780136975090 Some say 14, 15, 16, 18, or 20 billion years, depending on who you talk to, but the fact of the matter is that this is taught as part of the evolutionary process in public school textbooks. (We'll see more specific examples of it later.) The author must resort to a majority opinion argument (e.g. "Most astronomers believe") because it is a religious belief that invokes logical fallacies (ad populem) as supposed "evidence" for its ideaology. (To learn more about the Big Bang, read "The Big Dud Theory" here at creationliberty.com for more details.) #2 - Stellar Evolution: Origin of Stars As we witnessed earlier, the textbooks teach the evolution of stars, but the concept itself is completely based on imagination. No one has ever proven the formation of a star. When any astronomer looks into space, all they see are dots of light, which means it is ASSUMED that a star is like the sun, or that the sun like a star. (It's possible, but we don't know for sure.) When looking into a dark place in space, an evolutionist might see a dark spot get brighter, and immediately claim a star is forming, but he does not know that at all -- it could be the dust is clearing and there was a star behind it he didn't know was there in the first place. In fact, there is not even a good theory about how a star could form on its own from random gases in space. Boyle's gas law would prevent a star from forming naturally on its own. As gas particles come together in open space, temperature would increase as the pressure increases. Kinetic energy and brownian motion would then drive the gas molecules apart, preventing the natural formation of a star. (Animated Image "Translational motion" by A. Greg) #3 - Chemical Evolution: Origin of Elements I am unaware of any evolutionist who has addressed this topic in any live debate or discussion. If evolutionists believe the Big Bang started out with some hydrogen and/or helium, how did we get all the other elements? Most evolutionists will tell you that you can fuse chemicals in stars, but there are two huge problems with this theory: Which came first? #1 All known experiments have demonstrated that fusion can't go past iron [Fe-26]; attempts past iron are not stable. #2 The stars themselves are made of the chemicals they're trying to make. So which came first? The chemicals to make the stars? Or the stars to make the chemicals? From the evolutionists' purely naturalistic explanations, fusion in stars is an unsolvable chicken-egg problem. #4 - Abiogenesis Evolution: Origin of Life "4.5 billion years ago... the Earth's surface... was so hot it was liquid. By a little less than 4 billion years ago, the surface had cooled enough for a solid crust to form. [i.e. rocks formed] Water condensed in the atmosphere and fell as rain." [i.e. it rained on the rocks for millions of years] -George Johnson & Gary Brusca, Holt Biology: Visualizing Life, "Life's building blocks can form spontaneously," Rinehart and Winston Inc, 1994, p. 200, ISBN: 0-03-053817-3 Textbooks generally teach that about four and half billion years ago, the earth cooled down and formed solid rock. It rained on the rocks for millions of years, creating a prebiotic soup from which the first living cell appeared. The evolutionists ultimately believe they come from a rock four billion years ago. Here's a textbook used in Indiana colleges that was sent to me by one of our listeners last year (2013): "Earth started out as a hot, lifeless ball of molten rock (see Chapter 16). The first rocks were formed when the planet cooled, but even then Earth looked nothing like it does today. Water filled the ocean basins, but no fish swam in it and no algae floated on it. All of the countless millions of different life-forms that would someday develop were absent in this early stage. The transition from a lifeless planet to the modern living world came in two stages. The first stage involved the appearance of the first living cell from lifeless chemical compounds--rock, water, and gases... This ongoing process of change is called evolution." -James Trefil & Robert M. Hazen, The Sciences: An Integrated Approach, Fifth Edition, John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2007, p. 509, ISBN: 9780471769927 Textbooks deceptively refer to the Miller-Urey experiment to say that life was created in the laboratory: "Miller and other scientists have been able to generate... nucleotides found in DNA... The basic building blocks of life can assemble spontaneously, requiring no force more mysterious than simple chemistry." -George Johnson & Gary Brusca, Holt Biology: Visualizing Life, "Life's building blocks can form spontaneously," Rinehart and Winston Inc, 1994, p. 200-201, ISBN: 0-03-053817-3 Evolutionists love to make it sound like the experiment was a success, when in reality, it was a complete failure and only served to prove that life cannot arise spontaneously by itself. In other words, these authors are either ignorant of the facts and should not be teaching biology, or they are purposefully lying to the students to push the evolution religion. (Read The Incredible Edible DNA - Has Life Been Created in the Laboratory? here at creationliberty.com for more details on the Miller-Urey experiment.) #5 - Macro-Evolution: Common Ancestry Macro-evolution is a belief that the boundaries of variation in different kinds of animals has no limitations. Evolutionists believe that creatures can move past their genetic boundaries; that one kind of creature can morph into a completely different kind of creature. (Read "What is a Biblical Kind?" here at creationliberty.com for more details; even Darwin used the term 'kind' in many instances throughout his books.) There are somewhere between 200-400 varieties of dogs in the world today, and I would not argue that they had a common ancestor, but that common ancestor was a dog. All the scientific studies have shown that dogs produce dogs, and nothing has demonstrated otherwise. Sometimes you get big dogs, and sometimes you get little dogs, but it's still a dog. So scientifically, we would conclude that all the dogs in the world today descended from dogs, but someone wants to believe that long ago and far way that something non-dog produced a dog, that is a supernatural religious notion; it is not science. The ultimate belief evolutionists have is that a rock 4.6 billion years ago is the great-great-great grandfather of both horses and bananas. This is not only religious, but complete nonsense. Darwin personally promoted this mysticism: "It is a truly wonderful fact-the wonder of which we are apt to overlook from familiarity-that all animals and all plants throughout all time and space should be related to each other..." -Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, 1859, p. 109

All five parts of Evolutionism listed above are completely religious (and quite foolish). The real deception comes in with the sixth definition, which is actually part of science, but evolutionists use this as a spring-board to help them get people to believe the first five.

#6 - Micro-Evolution: Variations
This one is not only scientific, but more importantly, it's Biblical.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
-Genesis 1:24

This is something we can observe; animals bringing forth offspring after their kind. A common argument evolutionists attempt is to say that some animals of the same kind are no longer interfertile, but the Bible did not say if they could mate that they were the same kind; it says if they can bring forth, which means the boundaries of different kinds could one day be discovered if effort was made to test animals with artificial insemination.
(Read "What is a Biblical Kind?" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

During the Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee, one of the scientists put on the stand (Dr. Maynard M. Metcalf -- zoologist at John Hopkins University) was asked for the definition of evolution, and this is his response in court:
"Evolution, I think, means the change; in the final analysis I think it means the change of an organism from one character into a different character, and by character I mean its structure, or its behavior, or its function, or its method of development from the egg or anything else--the change of an organism from one set characteristic which characterizes it into a different condition, characterized by a different set of characteristics either structural or functional could be properly called, I think, evolution--to be the evolution of that organism; but the term in general means the whole series of such changes which have taken place during hundreds of millions of years which have produced from lowly beginnings the nature of which is not by any means fully understood to organism of much more complex character, whose structure and functions we are still studying, because we haven't begun to learn what we need to know about them."
-Rhea County Court, Tennessee, The World's Most Famous Court Trial, Reprint Lawbook Exchange Ltd, 1997, p. 139-140, ISBN: 9781886363311; (Read "Evolution Pleads the 5th" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

It's very obvious he doesn't have a very good understanding of what he believes.

As a Christian, if you enter into a discussion with one who believe in Evolutionism, make sure you ask what they mean when they say evolution, or you can easily get taken on a wild goose chase of "bait-n-switch" fallacies. Today, the term "evolution" has become very deceptive, so make sure they define exactly what they're talking about, and then it's rather easy to address their arguments.

Agnostic David Berlinski, renown philosopher, professor, and author in mathematics and molecular biology, said the following about defining evolution:

"Let's put it this way: Before you can ask "Is Darwinian theory correct or not," you have to ask the preliminary question, "Is it clear enough so that it could be correct?" That's a very different question. One of my prevailing doctrines about Darwinian theory is man, that thing is just a mess; like looking into a room full of smoke. Nothing in the theory is precisely, clearly, carefully defined and delineated. It lacks all of the rigor one expects from mathematical physics,

and mathematical physics lacks all rigor one expects from mathematics. So we're talking about a gradual descent down a level of intelligability until we reach evolutionary biology. We don't even know what a species is for heaven's sake."
-David Berlinski, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, retrieved Aug 29, 2014, [http://youtu.be/V5EPymcWp-g?t=28m29s]



.

Species is a term that has been around for a long time, but to date, no one has ever come up with a good definition for it. I am fully aware that most evolutionists CLAIM it is clearly defined, but claiming something does not magically make it true. Let's take a look at a definition given by a biology (and evolution-supporting) website, run by a large group of biology majors, both researchers and teachers:

species (n): an individual belonging to a group of organisms, or the entire group itself, having common characteristics and usually are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring
(See 'species', Biology Online Dicionary, [www.biology-online.org], July 24, 2008, retrieved Aug 29, 2014)

Let's break this down slowly: "having common characteristics" The common characteristic could be hair, color, breathing oxygen, or anything else you could image. It may or may not be hair. It may or may not be color. It may or may not be breathing oxygen.
"individual... or the entire group itself" It may or may not be an individual. It may or may not be a group.
"usually capable of mating with one another" IF it's not an individual... it may or may not be capable of mating with others in the group.

We still have no idea exactly what a species is after looking at definitions from experienced biologists. During my research, I found another online biology dictionary that was surprisingly honest about this issue:

species (n): A given type of organism is treated as a species if it is assigned a binomial name. There is no general consensus among scientists concerning how to decide whether any given group of organisms should be so treated since there is no general agreement on the definition of the word species.
(See 'species', Macro Evolution Online Biological Dictionary, developed by Eugene McCarthy, evolutionary theorist and geneticist, [macroevolution.net/biology-dictionary-sasi.html], retrieved Aug 29, 2014)

I'm glad this evolutionist was honest enough to come out and admit that no biologist has any solid definition of the term 'species'. Let's look at another definition from a more standard dictionary, listed under the classification "Biology" on their website:

species (n): related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species
(See 'species', Random House Dictionary, Random House Inc, 2014; See also Collins English Dictionary, Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition, William Collins Sons & Co)

It is surprising that a reputable dictionary, like dictionary.com, uses the word "species" to define itself, or in other words, the word species is used in the definition of species. To understand this in more simple terms, if I made up a word and told you there was a 'zigish' in your house, then you asked me what a 'zigish' was, and my response was, "it's a like a big blue zigish," you would still have no idea what I was talking about because I can't use the word to define itself. Likewise, this is what the dictionary has done with the term 'species'; it's circular redundancy (i.e. not useful at all). Though errors like this are common in many dictionaries, they often refuse to be corrected when contacted about the error.

The definition of species runs into several problems when you attempt to apply its meaning to a real-life example. This is a dog, wolf, and coyote in the picture. The three animals have similar attributes (as Biology-Online stated), they can all mate and bring forth offspring, and they sometimes run in the same packs together, but all three are classified as different species. (Canis Domesticus [Dog], Canis Lupus [Wolf], Canis Latrans [Coyote]) As you can see fromt he example in the picture, we have no clear understanding of what a species is, we just tend to accept it when some biologist comes along and makes a new classification for whatever reasons he/she deems it necessary. (And it's completely unnecessary.)

If anyone should know the definition of a species, it would be 35-year veteran professor of biology, Dr. William Moore. In a live debate, Dr. Moore was asked to define the term "species," and here was his response: "This is my area of research, and to be honest with you, I don't know." -Dr. William Moore, 35-year tenured evolutionary biology professor at Wayne State University, creation/evolution debate at Wayne State University, Sept 24, 1998

I very much appreciate Dr. Moore's honesty, but in casual discussion on Evolutionism, the typical evolutionist will NOT admit they have no clear understanding of the term "species," but many of them are quick to accuse the Bible of being wrong when it says Noah had two of each kind and seven of some kinds all on one boat. At least the Bible can define the terms it uses, but most evolutionists I have spoken with have been unwilling to be honest and up-front about their lack of understanding of the terms they use.

Evolutionists have no clear idea what a species really is, but they do claim to know for certain is that it drives evolution. Yes, it's okay to laugh.



.

"Using evidence from the rock record and fossil record, scientists have developed the geologic time scale... The geologic time scale is an outline of major events in the earth's history."
-R.H. Marshall & D.H. Jacobs, General Science: Teacher's Edition, AGS Publishing, 2004, p. 305, ISBN: 0-7854-3647-2

The Geologic Column (geologic time scale) is the bible for the evolutionist. All discoveries must line up and be interpreted by this geologic column, or they are thrown out, and this is a major issue since huge amounts of facts and evidence are tossed aside due to the worship of this column.

Textbooks declare the geologic column to be a factual chronological history of the earth, but the whole thing was made up from pure imagination; and one textbook author was willing to admit this:

Before the early 1900s, most people knew the earth was only a few thousand years old, but in 1788, a man named James Hutton wrote a book called Theory of the Earth in which he suggested the earth to be much older. Hutton's book influenced a young Scottish lawyer named Charles Lyell, who hated the authority of God over his life, and wrote a book called Principles of Geology, in which he emphasized his hatred for the Word of God: "false conclusions... futile reasoning... ancient doctrines sanctioned by the implicit faith of many generations, and supposed to rest on scriptural authority." [p. 30] "men of superior talent, who thought for themselves and were not blinded by authority." [p. 302] -Charles Lyell & Gerard P. Deshayes, Principles of Geology: Being an Attempt to Explain the Former Changes of the Earth's Surface by Reference to Causes Now in Operation, published by John Murray, Vol. 1, 1830

Lyell said his goal was to: "free the science from Moses" -Katharine M. Lyell, quoting Charles Lyell, Life Letters and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell, Gregg International Publishers, Vol. 1, 1881, p. 268

So why is it important to know the link from Hutton, questioning God's Word, to Lyell, openly despising God's Word? Consider the following...

Charles Lyell first hated the Word of God before ever seeking out any "evidence." He was looking for another explanation for the Earth's history as a way to cast doubt on the Bible. Lyell was NOT converted by the evidence; his heart already hated the Christian God of the Bible, so he sought out anything that could justify his separation from the truth. With the help of a couple of other people, Charles Lyell created the geologic column from pure hypothetical imagination. It was not based on experimentation and discovery via traveling the world and digging through sediment layers. Charles Lyell's book was able to influence a young man with a brand new degree in religious studies by the name of Charles Darwin, who was a spring board to many religious lies still taught today.

Charles Lyell introduced a lie called "uniformitarianism," which is based on pure assumption. Uniformitarianism in geology basically means the slow geological processes we witness today are the way it's always been for millions and billions of years, attempting to remove God creating the heavens and earth, and the global flood in the days of Noah, but many people today are unaware that the Bible predicted this would happen in the latter days.

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
-2 Peter 3:3-7

Uniformitarianism teaches that the way things are continuing now are the way they have always been happening ("all things continue as they were"), without any major changes that would disrupt his imaginary geologic column. They will be ignorant of the creation and the flood, and willingly ignorant means that they will refuse knowledge about them, despite what facts are presented. I know full-well nothing in this article will convert anyone's beliefs in evolution, but I post this information so the believer, accepting knowledge and wisdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, will know the truth and be ready always to give an answer. (1Pet 3:15)

A real-life geologic column should be over 100 miles thick, and should contain almost all remnants of the geologic time periods, but in actual investigative research, neither of those conditions are found to be true.

"This standard [geologic] column is supposed to be at least 100 miles [160 km] thick (some writers say up to 200 [320 km]), representing the total sedimentary activity of all of the geologic ages. However, the average thickness of each local geologic column is about one mile (in some places, the column has essentially zero thickness, in a few places it may be up to 16 or so miles [25 km], but the worldwide average is about one mile [1.6 km]). The standard column has been built up by superposition of local columns from many different localities."
-Dr. Henry M. Morris & Gary Parker, What is Creation Science?, Master Books, 1982, p. 230-232, ISBN: 9780890510810

"The notion that the earth's crust has an 'onion skin' structure with successive layers containing all strata systems distributed on a global scale is not according to the facts... approximately 77% of the earth's surface area on land and under the sea has seven or more (70% or more) of the strata systems missing beneath; 94% of the earth's surface has three or more systems missing beneath; and an estimated 99.6% has at least one missing system." -Dr. Steven A. Austin, "Ten Misconceptions About the Geologic Column," Institute for Creation Research, retrieved Mar 2, 2011, [http://www.icr.org/article/ten-misconceptions-about-geologic-column]; See also John Woodmorappe, "The Essential Nonexistence of the Evolutionary-Uniformitarian Geologic Column: A Quantitative Assessment," Creation Res. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 18, 1981, p. 46-71

This isn't a situation where the evolution model is slightly off the mark. The evolution model doesn't even come close to what we witness in reality! Yet, this model still continues as a fact in modern textbooks because it deceives students into believing the geologic column has something to do with facts.

"Eighty to eighty-five percent of Earth’s land surface does not have even 3 geologic periods appearing in ‘correct’ consecutive order. It becomes an overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary-uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were geologic periods."
-Geologist Dr. John Woodmorappe, "The Essential Non-Existence of the Evolutionary Uniformitarian Geologic Column," CRSQ, Vol. 18, No. 1, June 1981, p. 46-71

"Only a few locations on earth (about 0.4% of its area) have been described with the succession of the ten systems beneath (west Nepal, west Bolivia, and central Poland). Even where the ten systems may be present, geologists recognize individual systems to be incomplete. The entire geologic column, composed of complete strata systems, exists only in the diagrams drawn by geologists!"
-Dr. Steven A. Austin, "Ten Misconceptions About the Geologic Column," Institute for Creation Research, retrieved Mar 2, 2011, [http://www.icr.org/article/ten-misconceptions-about-geologic-column]; See also John Woodmorappe, "The Essential Nonexistence of the Evolutionary-Uniformitarian Geologic Column: A Quantitative Assessment," Creation Res. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 18, 1981, p. 46-71

In other words, what Dr. Austin just said is that the only place you will find the geologic column is in the textbooks! The geologic column doesn't even exist in reality. Some evolutionists will say there are around 30 places on the earth demonstrate the geologic column, but that is not true because it only means there are 30 places on the earth where the fossils line up the way the evolutionists want them to, but that doesn't mean the geologic column exists with its many miles of strata.

"The [geologic] column is supposed to represent a vertical cross-section through the earth’s crust, with the most recently deposited (therefore youngest) rocks at the surface and the oldest, earliest rocks deposited on the crystalline “basement” rocks at the bottom. If one wishes to check out this standard column... where can he go to see it for himself? There is only one place in all the world to see the standard geologic column. That’s in the textbook!"
-Dr. Henry M. Morris & Gary Parker, What is Creation Science?, Master Books, 1982, p. 230-232, ISBN: 9780890510810

Some evolutionists have been a bit more willing to be honest about this imaginary column:

"Popper was describing the logical structure of the way things ought to be. In the real world, in the competitive fray that is science, data forging, plagiarism and all manner of base and venal but utterly human failings make a mockery of the counterimage of detached objectivity. Such pure, dispassionate, cold logic is rare--though more common, one assumes than the cheating of its opposite extremes."

-Niles Eldredge (evolutionary paleontologist), Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibira, Simon and Schuster, 1985, p. 46-47, ISBN: 9780434226108

In case you didn't understand what he was saying, the geologic column ("logical structure") is the way things ought to be IF evolution was true, however, the truth is that there is a lot of deception and lies ("data forging, plagiarism, etc") that mocks the real world of mixed layers that look nothing like the geologic column ("detached objectivity"). He finishes by saying that an evolutionist using good logic and honesty is rare, but people decide to respect their person and ASSUME that they would never lie and cheat for a paycheck and fame, and specifically points out the description of "dispassionate," to emphasize the emotional zeal at which evolutionary geologists perpetuate the lies.
(Read "Why Are Christians Respecting Persons?" here at creationliberty.com for more details of respecting persons being a very serious sin.)

"The truth is that it is very difficult to establish a stratigraphic column that is an accurate representation of the past. The cause of this is manifold. To begin with, there is no correct answer with which to compare our attempts at a stratigraphic analysis."
-Jon Gluyas (geoscience professor at the University of Durham) & Richard Swarbrick (managing director of GeoPressure Technology Limited), Petroleum Geoscience, John Wiley & Sons, 2009, p. 79, ISBN: 9781444311549

In case you may not have understood what he just said, there is no recorded history to verify the timings they put on the geologic column are accurate, which means everything they state about the column is complete guess work. They're making it up as they go, but yet, this imaginary time scale is the standard that everything they do is measured by, including the fallacious "radiometric dates."

"Apart from very 'modern' examples, which are really archeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils."
-Derek V. Ager, New Science, Vol 100, p 425

The reason this was stated is because it is the geologic column that is actually the basis for which dates get selected, and which ones are thrown out. This is a process by which many wild numbers of dates are gathered in a wide range, but the dates that are selected to be published are only those that match the geologic column, which is made up from pure imagination.
(Read "The Carbon Dating Game" & "Lies of Evolution: K-Ar Dating" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

"Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first."
-J.E. O'Rouke, quoted by Yale University Dept. of Geology and Geophysics, The American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, published J.D. & E.S. Dana, 1976, p. 54

Radiometric dating is supposed to be an accurate scientific process according to textbooks and mainstream media, but the fact is that scientists are unable to determine any verifiable dates without the imaginary geologic column there as a guide. The geologic column is the standard by which all things are compared in evolutionism, which makes it the bible for the evolutionists; a presuppositional fairy tale for grown ups.


As we pointed out at the beginning of the article, many states have laws that require factual accuracy in textbooks, and the only reason these lies persist is because parents are not taking initiative to enforce the law. Most teachers that teach these lies honestly believe they are teaching the truth, but it is our job as servants of the Lord Jesus Christ to rebuke and correct error, and inform the teachers and schoolboards about these lies, so they can also know the truth and do what's right.



.

Because radiometric dating is solely dependent on the geologic column, we will not discuss dating methods in this article, but we do have two other articles that further discuss the fraudulent and deceptive tactics used to trick people into thinking radiometric dating is accurate and reliable. (Read "The Carbon Dating Game" and "Lies of Evolution: K-Ar Dating" [Potassium-Argon Dating] here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Let's take a moment to see what kind of things you'll hear an evolutionist typically say about the so-called "fossil record." The following is an article from Carnegie Magazine attempting to defend their fossil record:
"Locally, journalist Jack Kelly of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (September 19, 1999) wrote that the fossil record does not support evolution. Nothing could be further removed from the facts... Understanding the fossil record produces awe at the magnificent unfolding of life through the immense sweep of the Earth’s past, an appreciation for the present, and certainty of continuing change in the future."
-Tina Calabro, "The Fossil Record and Evolution: Carnegie Scientists Prove that Darwin Got It Right," Carnegie Magazine, 2000, retrieved Nov 23, 2012, [http://carnegiemuseums.org/cmag/bk_issue/2000/marapr/feat7.html]

And just as the author states, they believe their fossil record to be upheld almost as a god, to be viewed in awe. Remember that their fossil record is in direct conjunction with their geologic column, which is the bible of their religion.

"In general, the fossil record is consistent with the developmental order suggested by looking at the characteristics of living species. As such it represents another independent piece of evidence for common descent, and a very significant one since the fossil record is a window to the past."
-Austin Cline, "Fossils & Evolution - Fossil Evidence Supports Evolution," About.com Guide, retrieved Nov 23, 2012, [http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/FossilRecordEvolution.htm]

Their fossil record is treated as the best evidence they have for evolution, as this textbook teaches:
"Perhaps the best evidence in favour of evolution is the fossil record... The most direct evidence for evolution derives from palaeontology, the study of fossils."
-Michael Roberts & Michael Reiss, Advanced Biology, Nelson Thornes, 2000, p. 735, ISBN: 9780174387329

"In fact, one of the strongest sources of evidence for evolution is the consistency of the fossil record around the world."
-Alex Rosenberg (evolutionary professor of biology at Duke University) & Robert Arp (National Center for Biomedical Ontology), Philosophy of Biology: An Anthology, John Wiley & Sons, 2009, p. 40, ISBN: 9781405183178 An evolutionist digs into the ground and finds the bones of a dead creature, then digs farther into the ground and finds the bones of another creature, and finally concludes that the deeper creature sired (i.e. gave birth to; is the ancestor of) the creature on top. This is based on nothing but pure religious imagination, and logically fallacious at its core, because if I get buried on top of a hamster, that doesn't prove he's my grandpa.

Let's take a look at an example that will help demonstrate the presuppositional fallacy and religious dogma of those who believe in the evolutionary "fossil record." The evolutionist claims that trilobites went extinct 500-600 million years ago.

"The best index fossils include swimming or floating organisms that evolved rapidly and were distributed widely, such as graptolites, trilobites, and ammonoids." -Edward J. Denecke & William H. Carr, Let's Review: Earth Science -- The Physical Setting, Barron's Educational Series, 2008, p. 253, ISBN: 9780764134326; Image from same source. An "index fossil" is a fossil that the evolutionist claims is a marker to measure other things around it. They claim they know when this creature went extinct, and will use it to date layers of rock they find them in.

"Trilobite fossils make good index fossils. If a trilobite fossil, such as this one is found in a rock layer, the rock layer was probably formed 500-600 million years ago." -Modern Earth Science, Holt, 1989, p. 290 If the evolutionary fossil record was truly scientific, wouldn't evolutionists adjust their geologic time scale (i.e. evolutionary history) to match what is found? If a creature they claim is extinct was found alive, wouldn't they correct their theory? This is what we would expect, but in reality, it doesn't happen due to the evolutionary religious presuppositions to which they desperately cling.

(Image provided by Kent Hovind. [www.2peter3.com])
The above image shows dead trilobites that were found in a water intake filter at the Conoco Oil water treatment plant in the Kuparuk River in Alaska. This is one of a number of examples of trilobites being discovered still alive today. Think about it for a moment, if they are being found still alive today, that means the evolutionary model about trilobites is 100% incorrect, and needs to be changed to match the findings, but that's not what they do; evolutionists instead assert that those findings are not trilobites, and that it is impossible for them to be trilobites.

This is where the subject gets very interesting because I have heard evolutionists in live discussion state that it is impossible for those to be trilobites. When I ask why it is impossible, their answer is that trilobites went extinct 500 million years ago, which means, according to the evolutionist, the reason has nothing to do with biology or geology, it has to do with what the geologic column (evolutionary bible) tells them. They "know" those aren't trilobites because they already religiously believe they're not trilobites.

(Kent Hovind [with co-host] debating evolution on his radio show with an evolutionary/atheist caller who gets very religiously zealous after hearing that trilobites were found alive today.)

This is only one example of the many fallacies that come forth out of the geologic column. The reason there are so many fallacies when approaching the geologic column is due to the fact that entire dating process of the column is based on circular reasoning.

"Fossils in the lower layers of sedimentary rock are older than those found in upper layers. Often, the layers of rock can be dated by types of fossils they contain."
-Biology, Glenco, 1994, p. 306

This textbook teaches students the way to date the layers of rock is by looking at what fossils they contain. They date rocks by the fossils. Let's take a look at what this textbook teaches on the very next page: "Scientists have determined the relative times of appearance and disappearance of many kinds of organisms from the location of their fossils in sedimentary rock layers."
-Biology, Glenco, 1994, p. 307

This textbook also teaches students the way to date the fossils is by looking in what rock layer they are found. They date the fossils by the rocks. This is called circular reasoning.

circular reasoning (n): a use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this"
(See 'circular reasoning', Random House Dictionary, Random House Inc, 2014; See also Collins English Dictionary, Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition, William Collins Sons & Co)

This circular reasoning goes unnoticed by the average person, yet it is taught world wide:
"Paleontology (the study of fossils) is important in the study of geology. The age of rocks may be determined by the fossils found in them."
-The World Book Encyclopedia, World Book, Vol. 15, 1978, p. 85; See also The World Book Encyclopedia, World Book, Vol. 15, 2000, p. 103, ISBN: 9780716601005

"Scientists determine when fossils were formed by finding out the age of the rocks in which they lie."
-The World Book Encyclopedia, World Book, Vol. 7, 1978, p. 364

Here's another high school textbook used here in Indiana: "To find the age of a fossil, scientists find the age of the rock in which the fossil was found." [i.e. Date the fossils by the rocks.]
-R.H. Marshall & D.H. Jacobs, General Science, AGS Publishing, 2004, p. 299, ISBN: 0-7854-3647-2

On the very next page: "Some fossils, called index fossils, can be used to establish the relative ages of rocks that contain these fossils." [i.e. Date the rocks by the fossils.]
-R.H. Marshall & D.H. Jacobs, General Science, AGS Publishing, 2004, p. 300, ISBN: 0-7854-3647-2

In live discussions with evolutionists, you will run into those who will object to this whole thing by claiming that their fossil record is consistent, and we even saw quotes at the beginning of this section that asserted that idea. It's a complete illusion; it's not true. There is a great mixing of fossils in the ground, but there's a parlor trick they use to convince the public that there is an order to their fossil record.

If an evolutionist finds some limestone in the ground, the only way to tell the age of the limestone is by what fossil they find in it. So even if the layer is out of place of the geologic column, they can change the age of the layer simply by naming it a part of a different era based on the fossils they find in it. The Cambrian layers are supposed to be 500 million years old. This student from UC Berkeley said the following about his religious beliefs:
"You will never find a whale in the Camerian layers. You will never find any mammal in the Cambrian layers. You will not find a bird in the Cambrian layers."
-Evolutionist Student, Debate at UC Berkeley, Kent Hovind vs room full of evolutionists, retrieved Sept 20, 2014, [http://youtu.be/xPQJF21IOhA?t=1h46m42s]

The reason they never find any mammal in the Cambrian layers is because any layer that contains mammals is first ASSUMED not to be Cambrian. This is a complete lack of logic. This is like arguing the following:

A detective believes Bob would never shoot anyone. The detective finds someone was shot. The detective immediately concludes Bob is innocent.

This is not logical, it is not scientific, and it is certainly not how investigators approach matters of inquiry. In logical argumentation, this is called a fallacy of assumption, in which the conclusion is based on the assumed premise.

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks... The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results." -J.E. O'Rourke, American Journal of Science, J.D. & E.S. Dana, Vol 276, 1976, p. 47

In case you did not understand what he just said, allow me translate:

"Yes, we use illogical circular reasoning to create the geologic column. However, if these lies get people to believe in evolution, it's an acceptable means to an end."

Some people may be shocked that the American Journal of Science would publish such a thing, but I praise the Lord Jesus Christ when they do, because at least they're being honest. Other evolutionists will object to my layman's translation of what was said, but here is another quote from the same publication by the same author to clarify:
"The charge of circular reasoning in stratigraphy can be handled in several ways. It can be ignored, as not the proper concern of the public. It can be denied, by calling down the Law of Evolution. It can be admitted, as a common practice... Or it can be avoided, by pragmatic reasoning."
-J.E. O'Rourke, American Journal of Science, J.D. & E.S. Dana, Vol 276, 1976, p. 54

But notice that ANSWERING the problem was not one of the solutions. We need to take a moment and slowly go over this quotation, because it will explain the truth behind the evolutionary religion, and how it corrupts those who desperately cling to its philosophies:

"QUOTE"	TRANSLATION
"It can be ignored as not the proper concern of the public,"	Yes, we lie about our evidence for evolution, but it is none of your business, so you will be ignored.
"It can be denied by calling down the Law of Evolution,"	We believe evolution is a fact, so we will deny anything you say against it.
"It can be admitted as a common practice,"	Other people lie about evidence for evolution, so it's an acceptable practice for us to lie as well.
"It can be avoided by pragmatic reasoning,"	We want your children to believe in evolution, and if lying is the only way we can accomplish that, then our lies are justified.

The one thing they will NEVER abandon is their geologic column because that is the bible for their religion. Evolutionism is a holy sacred cow to many people, and in willful blindness, they refuse to even allow others to consider alternative views that might line up with the Bible, mostly because they hate the Christian God of the Bible.

Whatever else an evolutionist wants to say about the so-called "fossil record" is irrelevant after this point. The fossil record is based on pure imagination, and is backed up by claims of circular reasoning, before any charts, diagrams, or any other propaganda is drawn up.

That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
-Ephesians 4:14

The foundation of the fossil record is a complete fairy tale; the result of hyperactive religious imagination, not scientific investigation, and there are many evolutionists out there that are ready and willing to lie to you to get you to believe in their false religion, and even worse, they want you to pay them to lie to your children in the public school classroom as well.

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools... Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
-Romans 1:21-25

.

The few people in public school and college faculty who have dared to question evolution have found their jobs in jeapordy. They are being excommunicated from the church of evolutionism.

excommunicate (v): to exclude or expel from membership or participation in any group, association, etc; cut off from communion with a church
(See 'excommunicate', Random House Dictionary, Random House Inc, 2014; See also Collins English Dictionary, Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition, William Collins Sons & Co)

In Catholicism, it's acceptable to question the Bible, but it is NOT acceptable to question the authority of their cult, and likewise, in Evolutionism, it's okay to question how evolution might have happened, but it is NOT okay to question if evolution happened at all. In the U.S. today, Evolutionism has become a carefully-protected, state-funded religion, harboring the public schools and universities as their church, and any conversions away from their doctrine are quickly disposed of before the public is aware of what happened.

In Ben Stein's documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, there was an interview with atheist/evolutionist Michael Shermer:
STEIN: "What if a person published something, say, at the Smithsonian, in favor of intelligent design and lost his job over it? It had been peer-reviewed, and published, and then he lost his job over it?"
SHERMER: "I don't know, I think there had to be something else going on. People don't get fired over something like that."
-Ben Stein & Michael Shermer, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, retrived Aug 29, 2014, [youtu.be/V5EPymcWp-g?t=8m40s]

Though Shermer is a good example of an atheist/evolutionist that turns a blind eye to the oppression of those who dare to question evolutionism, he is not alone. Most conversations I have had with atheists/evolutionists about this topic have demonstrated a complete ignorance of people losing their jobs for simply pointing out flaws in the Darwinian religious beliefs.

Please keep in mind that the following people are not necessarily Christians (some are, some aren't), but the focus of this section is on those who have simply raised scientific inquiry against Darwinism.

MARK ARMITAGE - M.S. in Biology, B.S. in Botany "Armitage, who does not believe in evolution, was lauded by his colleagues and the science community after he discovered in 2012 the largest triceratops horn ever recovered from the world-famous Hell Creek Formation in Glendive, Mont... On Feb. 12, 2013, a science journal published Armitage's triceratops soft tissue findings. Days later, Armitage was fired from his position." -Cristina Corbin, "Scientist Claims California University Fired Him Over Creationist Beliefs," FOX News, July 30, 2014, retrieved Sept 17, 2014, [www.foxnews.com]

One thing the average person may not understand is that colleges and/or research facilities make profit based on how well-known they are; research groups via grants, and colleges via students. The more people you have on staff who have made famous discoveries, the more money you make. To fire someone as soon as they make a record-breaking discovery makes no sense whatsoever, unless there is a hidden agenda.

Armitage has 30 published papers in scientific journals, his micrographs have appeared on the covers of eleven of those journals, and has a US patent for an optical inspection device he invented. Yet, when making discoveries that disprove the geologic column, things turned sour for Armitage:
"Scientists who study dinosaurs have long believed that triceratops existed some 68 million years ago and became extinct about 65 million years ago. Armitage's finding, however, challenged that assertion. He argued the triceratops must be much younger or else those cells would have "decayed into nothingness," according to the July 22 lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court... The lawsuit alleges that in the weeks leading up to his termination, Armitage's boss, Ernest Kwok, 'stormed into' his lab and shouted, 'We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!!'"
-Cristina Corbin, "Scientist Claims California University Fired Him Over Creationist Beliefs," FOX News, July 30, 2014, retrieved Sept 17, 2014, [www.foxnews.com]

Of course evolutionism won't tolerate a different religion -- it creates too much competition against their church.

RODNEY LEVAKE, M.S. in Biology, High School Teacher in FariBault, MN "LeVake, who was removed as a biology teacher... said his fight is about 'whether a Christian can teach biology, and whether Darwin can be criticized.'" -"Teacher Caught in Evolution Debate," Duluth News Tribune, Associated Press, Faribault, MN, Aug 15, 2000 LeVake confessed to the school board that he had doubts about Darwin's theory. He taught evolution, and pointed out the flaws in the theory. He never mentioned God or religion, and said "he had no interest in teaching creationism or making references to God or religion."

Though LeVake had the only Masters in Biology in the department, he was relieved of his position because he questioned Darwinian evolution, and the courts ruled that he had no right to question the holy sacred cow of evolution.

"Plaintiff in the instant case has no constitutional right to teach his proposed criticisms of evolutionary theory, though they may be scientifically meritorious."
(See Rodney LeVake vs ISD #656, Court file CX: 99-793, June 23, 2000; See also "Highlights of Rod LeVake's Brief Career Teaching Biology," Twin Cities Creation Science Association, June 15, 2010, retrieved Apr 5, 2011, [http://tccsa.tc/articles/levake_summary.html])

In case you didn't understand that, the court stated that even if LeVake was telling the truth, with current science research, he had no constitutional right to tell the truth if it was concerning the subject of evolutionism. Yet, many evolutionists, including Michael Shermer, believe with blind faith that this is not happening in America.

RODGER DEHART, BS in Biology, M.S. in Science Education, 30-Years Teacher of Biology "[DeHart] dissected such scientific topics as bacterial flagella, fossil records and embryonic development. Examine the evidence, he told the students, and ponder the Big Question: Is life the result of random, meaningless events? Or was it designed by an intelligent force?" -Teresa Watanabe, "Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator," Los Angeles Times, Mar 25, 2001, [http://articles.latimes.com/2001/mar/25/news/mn-42548], retrieved Mar 28, 2011

This Los Angeles Times article reported that DeHart "never mentioned God" in his high school classroom, and "he has always stayed within the law by never discussing... theological questions." He simply wanted to help students see all sides of the issue, and reason for themselves what was true, and he was doing so by passing out up-to-date science journals and showing students the errors in the textbooks.

"Jerry Benson, a community leader who supports DeHart, said the science teacher was only doing what educators should be doing: stimulating students to think critically. 'The [intelligent-design] debate is exciting,' Benson said. 'I so want that excitement to be presented to our students and cause them to stop and say: Well, what do I think?'"
-Teresa Watanabe, "Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator," Los Angeles Times, Mar 25, 2001, [http://articles.latimes.com/2001/mar/25/news/mn-42548], retrieved Mar 28, 2011

However, despite DeHart's effort to give a real education and help the students be able to think (as opposed to indoctrinating them), he was told by the principal that he could no longer mention intelligent design by passing out up-to-date science journals to correct bad information. The article reports, "Even though DeHart never overtly discussed religion in the class, Beth Vander Veen, Burlington-Edison High School principal, said she has grown wary of DeHart's real motivations. 'I don't think it's about showing holes in evolutionary theory anymore,' she said. 'I think it's about getting religion into the schools.'"

Even though DeHart never mentioned anything religious, and only helped the students by allowing them to think for themselves, his job was threatened if he ever again mentioned intelligent design in his classroom. I recognize that intelligent design is not a Christian concept, and that it carries with it a new-age religious idea on its own, but nevertheless, anything that would possibly lead a student away from the evolution religion is squelched immediately because the evolutionism clergy know they can't handle the competition.

"If something in science suddenly becomes so sacrosanct that you can't question it, then it ceases to be science, and I really think that's what's become of Darwinism."
-Rodger DeHart, quoted by reporter Julie Foster, "Unnatural Selection: Science Teachers Under Fire for Criticizing Evolution Theory," World Net Daily [worldnetdaily.com], Mar 03, 2000, retrieved Mar 28, 2011

FORREST MIMS, Commissioned Officer in the US Air Force, Graduated from Texas A&M University, Named one of the "50 Best Brains in Science" by Discover Magazine "Forrest M. Mims has been a science writer for 20 years." -"Hire a Creationist? A Nonbeliever in Darwin? Not at a Proud Science Journal," The New York Times National, Oct 24, 1990

Mims wrote articles for National Geographic, Science Digest, American Journal of Physics, and much more. Mims was denied a job at Scientific American simply because he was a creationist.

SA Editor Jonathan Piel denied Mims a job, despite the fact that he had been excited about hiring Mims based on his outstanding work in other publications. In an audio recording of the interview, Piel said: "There's no question that on their own merits the columns are fabulous... You're a man of honor and integrity...In its own right what you've written is first rate. That's just not an issue. It's the public relations nightmare that's keeping me awake." This means that it doesn't matter how scientific and helpful the work is, if you don't buy into the evolutionary religion, you are banished from academia.
(See Forrest M. Mims, "The Scientific American Affair," retrieved Sept 17, 2014, [www.forrestmims.org/scientificamerican.html]; Mims provides a lot more documentation on his dilemma with SA.)

KEVIN HALEY, PhD in Biology (Purdue University), Professor at Central Oregon Community College "Kevin Haley was a biology professor at Oregon Community College until this spring, when the administration chose not to renew his contract. His only crime: to expose students to flaws in evolutionary theory." -Nancy Pearcey, "Creation Mythology: Defenders of Darwinism Resort to Suppressing Data and Teaching Outright Falsehoods," June 15, 2010, reprinted from World Magazine, June 24, 2000, Vol. 15, No. 25, retrieved Apr 4, 2011, [http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/self_correcting.html]

Dr. Haley simply showed his classroom some of the problems with the evolution theory, and the school refused to renew his contract. COCC refused to give any explanation of why they were getting rid of Dr. Haley.

"Kevin Haley in Oregon has been criticized by other faculty for questioning human evolution. Haley, who has been teaching biology for non-majors for more than three years, told WorldNetDaily new biology textbooks read like "sales pitches" for the theory, rather than presenting a discussion of facts."
-Julie Foster, "Unnatural Selection: Science Teachers Under Fire for Criticizing Evolution Theory," World Net Daily, March 3, 2000, retrieved Apr 4, 2011, [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17819]

This article goes on to talk about how Dr. Haley had numerous complaints and attacks on his class and his character, "But the college science department's former chairman, Bruce McClelland, wrote a letter recommending Haley be promoted from assistant to associate instructor last month." In addition, those religiously advocating for evolution lied to get Dr. Haley fired. Female students came forward to say that, "Haley tends to belittle women by questioning their intelligence," however, Dr. Haley "taught for seven years at the College of St. Mary in Omaha, an all-girls school. While there, Haley was selected by the pupils to receive the Student Senate award."

All this strife and mud-slinging, just for showing flaws in the evolutionary religion. You don't question their holy sacred cow.

WILLIAM DEMBSKI, BA in Psychology (University of Illinois), Masters in Statistics, Mathematics, and Philosophy (University of Illinois & Chicago), Masters in Theology (Princeton Theological Seminary), Ph.D in Mathematics (University of Chicago), Taught at Northwestern University, University of Notre Dame, and University of Dallas President of Baylor University, Robert Sloan, was pressured to fire Dr. Dembski simply because he advocated intelligent design.

(See Tony Carnes, "Intelligent Design: William Dembski fired from Baylor's Intelligent Design Center," Christianity Today, Dec 4, 2000, retrieved Apr 4, 2011, [http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/december4/18.20.html?start=2]; See also Fred Heeren, "The Lynching of Willaim Dembski," The American Spectator, November 2000, retrieved Apr 4, 2011, [http://www.wanderingcow.net/Written%20Analysis%20/thelynchingofbilldembski.pdf])

NANCY BRYSON, B.S. in Biology (Mississippi University for Women), M.A.T. from Mississippi State University, Masters in Theology (Princeton Theological Seminary), Ph.D in Physical Chemistry (University of South Carolina), Taught College-level Chemistry for 20 Years "During a recent honors forum at Mississippi University for Women, Dr. Nancy Bryson gave a presentation titled 'Critical Thinking on Evolution' - which covered alternate views to evolution such as intelligent design... The next day, Vice President of Academic Affairs, Dr. Vagn Hansen asked Bryson to resign from her position as head of the school's Division of Science and Mathematics." -Jim Brown & Ed Vitagliano, "Professor Dumped Over Evolution Beliefs," Agape Press, Mar 11, 2003

Though Hansen hadn't even heard Bryson's talk, other faculty members pressured the school to fire Dr. Bryson. Though MUW denies that Dr. Bryson's talk had anything to do with her dismissal, there is evidence that suggests otherwise, and the school still refuses to give any explanation for the request of resignation and firing. Dr. Bryson filed a lawsuit against the school, and due to the pressure from the lawyers, and students supporting Bryson, the school reinstated her back to the head of Science and Mathematics.

"I have not received any negative feedback from any students here at MUW. It's all been positive."
-Jim Brown, quoting Dr. Nancy Bryson, "Reinstated College Prof Grateful for Support of Christians School Says Instructor's Criticism of Darwinism Not Linked to Request for Resignation," Agape Press, Mar 17, 2003

Though MUW was supposed to be well-known for "free thought and academic freedom," they are quick to silence anyone that suggests that evolutionism may not be true.

DEAN KENYON, BSc in Physics, Ph.D in Biophysics, Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University Dr. Kenyon was an evolutionist who wrote many publications on evolution, and co-authored a book on evolution (with Gary Steinman) called Biochemical Predestination. A few years later, he made the tragic mistake of getting converted to become a creationist, and wrote a book called Of Pandas and People. His book simply pointed out that everything is far too complex to have arranged itself, and there must have been an intelligent origin for life. (See Dean H. Kenyon & Gary Steinman, Biochemical Predestination, published McGraw-Hill, 1969; See also Dean H. Kenyon & Charles B. Thaxton, Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins, Haughton Pub. Co., 1993, ISBN: 9780914513407)

In 1993, Dr. Kenyon was removed from his teaching position at SFSU, and given the job of a lab assistant. He sued the school, and got his teaching job back, but only because he was a tenured professor.

DAN CLARK, Degree from Bob Jones University, Degree from Purdue University, High School Teacher in Lafayette, IN "Clark denies that he teaches creationism, but acknowledges highlighting natural phenomena that he thinks are incompatible with evolution." -Abe Aamidor, "Educator Quits Over Reprimand for Teaching Evolution Alternative," The Indianapolis Star, Sept 23, 2001

Teacher Dan Clark pointed out flaws in Darwin's theory, and received reprimands from Ed Eller, the school's superintendent. When Eller refused to take the reprimand off Clark's file, Clark quit his teaching position.

The article quotes Dan Clark saying, "You can't challenge evolution at Jefferson High... either you'll be fired or you'll have to move on."

These schools claim to be supporters of academic freedom, but they don't seem to practice academic freedom. There is a great myth of neutrality and tolerance in public schools and universities in America. In the area of science, that freedom has been long disposed of and replaced with evolutionism.

If someone in a Muslim country stood up and said, "I have doubts about Islam, and there are some other options." He would be quickly outcast or most likely killed. We have the same censorship in America for daring to question the holy sacred cow of evolution.

There are HUNDREDS of examples like this in the U.S. alone.
The Los Angeles Times, in research on the Darwinian suppression of education in America, reported the following:
"Other scientists report receiving correspondence from colleagues who confess doubts about Darwin's theories but are afraid to go public for fear of career setbacks."
-Teresa Watanabe, "Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator," Los Angeles Times, Mar 25, 2001, [http://articles.latimes.com/2001/mar/25/news/mn-42548], retrieved Mar 28, 2011

Repeatedly, however, mainstream evolutionists insist that this kind of censorship is not actually happening. Yet, once again, from atheist/evolutionist Michael Shermer:
"I don't know, but I think there had to be something else - people don't get fired over something like that."
-Ben Stein & Michael Shermer, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, retrived Aug 29, 2014, [youtu.be/V5EPymcWp-g?t=8m40s]

This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:
-Ephesians 4:17-18

.

vague: not clearly stated, expressed, or defined
(See 'vague', Random House Dictionary, Random House Inc, 2010; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2009)

As we have demonstrated, the general theory of evolution is not well-defined, and there are almost no attempts by evoltuionists to eliminate the vagueness and confusion of what all their terms actually mean. However, we also need to understand that it is common in cultic religions (like Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehova's Witness, etc) to purposefully NOT clearly define the words they use, because the more vague something is, the harder it is to argue against, and it is a very similar technique American politicians use in order to deceive the general public. They keep their definitions vague, or make it so heavily complex, no one will know what they're talking about, and then rely on the public's laziness to never attempt to find out the truth.

Most recently, there are some evolutionists that have attempted to redefine science from its previously specific definition of knowledge gained through observation and experimentation, to a more vague definition of "a way of knowing."
(See Dr. John A. Moore, Science as a Way of Knowing: The Foundations of Modern Biology, Harvard University Press, 1993, ISBN: 9780674794825; See also Science, Evolution, and Intelligent Design, Union of Concerned Scientists [www.ucsusa.org])

"Science is a wondrously successful way of knowing... nothing in the world of nature escapes the scientific mode of knowledge, and that we owe this universality to Darwin's revolution."
-Dr. Francisco Ayala, Evolutionist Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of California, "Science as a Way of Knowing," Counter Balance: New Views on Complex Issues, [www.counterbalance.org], retrieved Mar 24, 2011

The reason there is so much emphasis and god-like worship of "science" is because many of the atheistic scoffers understand very well that, without the Christian God of the Bible, there is no way to know anything at all. There is no certainty in this universe without its creator, and thus, "science" becomes their god.
(Read "How to Talk with Atheists" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

And the reason the definition of science has to be changed is because Evolutionism cannot match the qualifications of basic science. The claims of MACRO-evolution, and all stages prior, cannot be observed, tested, nor repeated, so to save the Darwinian beliefs from obvious short-comings, some things need to be changed:

The definitions of science must be vague, so it is open to evolutionary interpretation. Evidence that contradicts evolution be must thrown out so no one can see the truth. Anyone in academia that says anything against evolution beliefs must be silenced.

This is exactly what happens with religious cults all over the world, and this is exactly what we have seen in this article. The parameters of the religion are setup so no one can fully understand it, and therefore, no one can challenge it.

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."
-Dr. T.N. Tahmisian (US Atomic Energy Commission), "The Fresno Bee," Aug 20, 1959, quoted by N.J. Mitchell, Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes, Roydon Publications, UK, 1983, Title Page

These are NOT creationist quotes.
These are from authors and scientists who believe in evolution.
"We have all heard of The Origin of Species, although few of us have had time to read it... A casual perusal of the classic made me understand the rage of Paul Feyerabend... I agree with him that Darwinism contains 'wicked lies'; it is not a 'natural law' formulated on the basis of factual evidence, but a dogma, reflecting the dominating social philosophy of the last century."
-Kenneth J. Hsu, "Sedimentary Petrology and Biologic Evolution," Journal of Sedimentary Petrology #56, September, 1986, p. 730

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion - a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality... Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."
-Michael Ruse (evolutionary biologist), "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians," National Post, May 13, 2000, p. B-3

And though I appreciate the honesty of these evolutionists, there are other, more dedicated members to the church of Evolutionism who are much more forward in announcing the beliefs they have adopted from the philosophy of their God-hating religion. They openly denounce Jesus Christ, declare mankind the "gods" of their own universe, and commonly refer to themselves as "humanists."

"But we discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves..."
-American Humanist Association, "Humanist Manifesto II," The Humanist, Vol. 33, Sept/Oct 1973, p. 6

It is the mission of these men to destroy any thought of faith in Jesus Christ.

"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god... If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!"
-G. Richard Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution," The American Atheist, Vol. 20, No. 2, February 1978, p.30

They hate Christians because they hate the Christian God of the Bible. Though much of the new-age apostates and heretics against the Word of God (i.e. those calling themselves "Christians," but are false converts) have done much to destroy dilute the teachings of Christ, the fact is that humanists hate Christ, and that means they will also hate us born-again believers in Him.

The following is from a book entitled American Fascists, and the subtitle points directly towards Christianity, which means the author believes that fascism in America is due to Biblical belief on Jesus Christ.

"The split in America, rather than simply economic, is between those who embrace reason, [he's talking about himself] who function in the real world of cause and effect, and those who, numbed by isolation and despair, [he's talking about Christians] now seek meaning in a mythical world of intuition, a world that is no longer reality-based, a world of magic."
-Chris Hedges, American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America, Simon and Schuster, 2008, p. 39, ISBN: 9780743284462

As we discuss in "The Seeds of Evolution," this God-hating, self-absorbed philosophical mindset stems from an evolutionary upbringing. Evolutionism teaches an unwritten philosophy, which is apparent in the actions and ideals of those who believe in it, but all of it is based on vagueness and circular reasoning, made up from the minds of those who childishly hate the rebuke and chastening of the Lord God, despising anything or anyone that would dare to point out the wicked lusts of their hearts, and so they turn to an imaginary illusion; an idea that will help them justify themselves as they run, and hurl rocks at, the very God who will judge them.


Evolution uses the same parlor tricks that magicians use, only in magic shows, there is an illusionist to explain how something pops out of nothing. Evolution simply claims that something popped out of nothing, without any explanation for it at all.

No matter how many people want to BELIEVE by faith that evolution is part of science, it is still a religion by definition and demonstration. Evolution does not become part of science just because someone wants to believe it's part of science. I admire evolutionists' faith to believe that we evolved from a hot bowl of soup 3 billion years ago, but I don't have enough faith to believe in that, and if I'm going to put faith in anything, it's in the Salvation of our Lord Jesus Christ, not some swiss cheese pagan religion made by men who hate the Word of God.

🔍