Every once in awhile we need to take our readers kicking and screaming into the stench of the baloney factory to show them how the Darwin sausage is made. We know you can only stand it for a few minutes at a time. This is the garbage that is force-fed to students. They have no choice; it's the only thing on the menu. http://creationsafaris.com/crev200805.htm#20080506b For current news: http://crev.info

 "'Scientists have not been able to cause amino acids dissolved in water to join together to form proteins. The energy-requiring chemical reactions that join amino acids are freely reversible and do not occur spontaneously in water. However, most scientists no longer argue that the first proteins assembled spontaneously. Instead, they now propose that the initial macromolecules were composed of RNA, and that RNA later catalyzed the formation of proteins.' The stories have changed, but the central dogma, ‘Life did not require an intelligent Creator’, has remained the same. But the new proposal, ‘the initial macromolecules were composed of RNA, and that RNA later catalyzed the formation of proteins’, is false. RNA, like DNA, will not form outside of already living cells!" ~ Thomas Heinze

" Proteins are so complex they will not form anywhere in nature except in living cells. Inside cells, the directions for protein construction are already contained in the DNA. Then, if a protein is to perform its task, its production must be carefully regulated, but even then, it will not function unless it also has the correct address tag and is properly folded. All these systems would have to have been in place or the ‘first cell’ could not function. These systems, however, are just the tip of the iceberg. I chose them to illustrate the many coordinated systems that would have to have been present before the first cell would work.

The teaching that the first cell spontaneously popped into being without the involvement of the Creator has its basis in the pre-scientific myth that single-celled creatures were simple. It obviously does not stand up under today’s knowledge that a cell’s DNA, RNA, membranes and proteins are extremely hard to make, and when proteins are made, they must be properly folded, addressed, and turned on and off at just the right times. None of these brilliant solutions could invent itself, yet no ‘first cell’ could exist without all of them. They could not have happened without a very intelligent Creator.

God’s solutions to these complex problems were, in fact, incomparably better than those hoped for from the world’s most powerful super computer. They remind us of how powerful and intelligent the Creator is. It’s only reasonable to trust Him with our lives."  ~ Thomas Heinze

"Unlike the word evolutionism, the word creationism is found and defined in almost all dictionaries of the English language. For example, my Random House Dictionary defines creationism as “the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.”3 This dictionary could have similarly defined evolutionism as “the doctrine that matter and all things evolved over billions of years to their current form by purely natural processes, and not supernaturally created in six days by an omnipotent Creator.” But as we have seen, there can be no evolutionism vs. creationism." ~ Dr. David Menton

Regarding the way that evolutionists love to compare evolution to gravity: "Evolutionary apologists can be devilishly clever in glossing over the failure of molecules-to-man evolution to measure up to the observational status of gravity. For example we often hear that “the Theory of Evolution is as well-established as the theory of gravity.” They apparently hope that the average person will understand this to mean that evolution is as well established as the “theory” that a dropped bowling ball will fall rather than rise. But the theory of gravity must not be confused with the observation of gravity. The theories of gravity attempt to explain the actual mechanism of observed gravitational force. Anyone who troubles to look into the many exceedingly complex theories of gravity may wonder if a testable theory of gravity even exists." ~ Dr. David Menton

"Evolution is necessarily a belief because molecules-to-man evolution is not observable but rather must be inferred and believed." ~ Dr. David Menton

"It clearly takes a lot of credulity (willingness to believe without evidence) for evolutionists to believe that an expanding cloud of hydrogen turned into people over 14 billion years."  ~ Dr. David Menton

"Any belief system that purports to explain the origin of virtually everything that is real is a religion or worldview. Evolution was certainly the worldview of evolutionist Julian Huxley who believed that 'evolution is the whole of reality, a single process of self-transformation.' Indeed for those who consistently hold the worldview of evolution, nothing can be elevated above evolution because everything that is real must ultimately be a product of evolution, including religion and even God if he is to be considered to be part of reality. And so it is that evolutionism is a widely held, essentially atheistic belief system that dare not speak its name."  ~ Dr. David Menton

Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. Charles Darwin

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism....It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door. ~ Harvard University geneticist, biologist, and social commentator, Dr. Richard Lewontin

"It is obvious that the omnipotent power of natural selection can do all things, explain all things...." The above statement came from an early Darwinist, but I have lost the source. The ubiquitous nature of the philosophy underlying this statement makes its source irrelevant. It could have come from just about any Darwinist. In fact, just a few years ago I might have said it myself. ~ geneticist John Sanford

The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to isolated systems, so it's not relevant to evolution, because the earth is an open system. (It was derived using theoretical isolated systems, but it applies to all systems, and can only be overcome locally and temporarily in open systems when stringent conditions are met. Furthermore, the universe, in which evolution is alleged to have occurred,is an isolated system.) ~ http://creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No. ~ Roger Lewin, the journal Science (Vol. 210(4472):883-887, 1980.)

You can't build anything solid on ever-shifting Darwin quicksand. ~ creationsafaris.com ~ http://crev.info

A pair of quotes: "...dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.... that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom...." --Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, 1863. "But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" --Charles Darwin, Letter to William Graham, 1881. Died 1882.

Observational (i.e., scientific) evidence, as seen in medical research every day, leads one to be skeptical of the claims of evolutionary biology. How does science explain that mythical first bacterial cell three billion years ago? Did it transform itself--by random mutations in the DNA--into all the "wondrous profusion" of life forms (one million species), and all their wondrous functional organs, over an imaginary time period? The evidence says no. ~ Dr. Barney Maddox

... but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate. ~ Francisco Ayala (Associate Professor of Genetics, University of California)

The question "How did life originate?" which interests all of us, is inseparably linked to the question "Where did the information come from?" Since the findings of James D. Watson... and Francis H. C. Crick, it was increasingly realized by contemporary researchers that the information residing in the cells is of crucial importance for the existence of life. Anybody who wants to make meaningful statements about the origin of life would be forced to explain how the information originated. All evolutionary views are fundamentally unable to answer this crucial question. ~ Werner Gitt, In the Beginning was Information: A Scientist Explains the Incredible Design of Nature (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, [2005] 2006), 99.

With all my scientific skill and depth of understanding, I have attempted to find a rationale to accept evolutionary postulates for the creation of life; and have failed. Similarly, I have found it scientifically plausible and experimentally supportable to extrapolate current geologic conditions back in a short amount of time through cataclysmic events in support of a young-Earth. (That the framework for these two findings is provided within the text of a 3,000 year old document reinforces my belief in the scientific veracity of Scripture.) ~ NASA scientist Michael Tigges

Quantitative information in genetics today is proving evolutionary theory as simply a man-made and irrational philosophical belief. ~ Dr. Barney Maddox

Following a discourse on the total lack of any evidence for evolutionism that to which a sane person would be able to relate, Meredith continues with this: "Of course it [evolution] doesn't [make sense]. We are, after all, animals that have experienced the quixotic touch of evolution by natural selection, and that's anything but an orderly process. Our past is just as messy as any animal that's been around for millions of years, and we should be prepared to expect the unexpected when the next fossil is announced." ~ Meredith Small, evolutionist, unknowingly giving yet another example of evolutionism's schizophrenic dogmatism.

It's all futureware, speculation, smoke and mirrors, bluffing and ignorance. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking this is scientific. The use of scientific instruments does not justify calling this science. Alchemists used the best instruments available... Their findings about what did not make gold proved useful when the real science of chemistry supplanted alchemy. But none of the effort, the experimentation, the writing, or the speculation justified the premise of alchemy at all. Similarly, astrobiologists and chemical evolutionists are revising experimental methods and learning many things about chemicals while ruling out scenarios that prove hopeless for evolving life. What remains is a bundle of raw speculation that has not yet been ruled out. Speculation is not science. ~ creationsafaris.com/crev200707.htm#20070727a ~ http://crev.info

How can this multiply-discredited theory [evolution] ever get falsified? The evidence can be 180 opposite Darwin's prediction, and yet they turn it into a great victory. Nobody asks any hard questions. Nobody calls foul. Nobody sees the intellectual crime being committed. They get away with it, time and time again. Doesn't anyone in the scientific and media establishments have any sense any more? ~ creationsafaris.com ~ Current News: http://crev.info

... evolutionary speculation is superstition. That's what we should call it. ~ creationsafaris.com ~ Current News: http://crev.info

All (mis-)interpretations of Genesis which deny its plain meaning, e.g. day-age, gap theory, theistic evolution, must assert that death, 'the last enemy' (1 Cor. 15:26) was a part of the 'very good' creation (Gen. 1:31).5 ~ creationontheweb.com/content/view/2417/

Darwinists boast that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,' but the major disciplines of biology - including anatomy, botany, embryology, genetics, microbiology, paleontology, physiology and zoology - were founded either before Darwin or by scientists who rejected his theory. Agriculture and medicine - the two disciplines that have provided us with the most practical benefits - owe nothing to Darwinism. ~ Jonathan Wells, PhD, "Top Ten Highlights" from The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (Regnery, 2007)

What a colorful phrase--"reckless drafts on the bank of time." Doesn't that describe the banking habits of evolutionary biologists and geologists still today? They think long ages provide a blank check for any miracles they need. It was good for these three men to set the record straight. Kelvin was not perfect, but he was a heck of a lot better scientist than many geologists of his day and thereafter who speculate with utter disregard for the realities of thermodynamics. Unless someone holds them accountable, these reckless checkwriters will continue to commit fraud via time laundering and heat laundering. ~ creationsafaris.com ~ Current News: http://crev.info

We know that the computer is the product of careful design, but to argue that the much more complex human brain is an accident of nature makes very little sense! ~ creationmoments.com/radio/transcript.php?t=1912

Whenever you hear evolutionists saying, "Now we know," you know two things: (1) they didn't know anything before, and (2) they're lying. Now we know is code that a new just-so dime novel has hit the bookshelves, to replace the last one that got exposed as a fraud ~ creationsafaris.com ~ Current News: http://crev.info

Evolution... is an idea developed from a conscious mind; it's not a person, place, or thing. It can't do anything because there is no "it" to do anything. When pushed, evolutionists, who are materialists, would have to admit that no one has ever seen the invisible entity that has been named "evolution." ~ Gary DeMar

Familiar claims to the contrary notwithstanding, Darwin didn't manage to get mental causes out of his account of how evolution works. He just hid them in the unexamined analogy between selection by breeding and natural selection...we can claim something Darwinists cannot. There is no ghost in our machine; neither God, nor Mother Nature...and there are no phantom breeders either. What breeds the ghosts in Darwinism is its covert appeal to intensional biological explanations....Darwin pointed the direction to a thoroughly naturalistic--indeed a thoroughly atheistic--theory of phenotype [trait] formation; but he didn't see how to get the whole way there. He killed off God, if you like, but Mother Nature and other pseudoagents got away scot-free. We think it's now time to get rid of them too. ~ Fodor, J. and M. Piattelli-Palmarini. 2010. What Darwin Got Wrong. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 162-163.

"Remember this tendency from order to disorder applies to all real processes. Real processes include, of course, biological and geological processes, as well as chemical and physical processes. The interesting question is: "How does a real biological process, which goes from order to disorder, result in evolution, which goes from disorder to order?" Perhaps the evolutionist can ultimately find an answer to this question, but he at least should not ignore it, as most evolutionists do. Especially is such a question vital, when we are thinking of evolution as a growth process on the grand scale from atom to Adam and from particle to people. This represents an absolutely gigantic increase in order and complexity, and is clearly out of place altogether in the context of the Second Law." http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-thermodynamics-entropy/

"However, all of those who embrace those naturalistic presuppositions are united in resisting any acceptance of a theistic or supernatural intrusion into the discussions.   The one exception to that resistance, interestingly, is the growing acceptance of Panspermia. This theory insists that life exists in some form throughout the universe and has found its way onto our planet by assorted space detritus (meteorites, ice crystals, etc.) or through the design of some form of super-intelligence that exists in another galaxy. Usually, the argument is based on the known lack of evidence for an evolutionary origin of life which then requires a non-evidentiary solution—that is, a presupposition (without evidence) that explains the predisposition to “believe” in naturalistic evolution of all things.   During the 30 years since Sir Fred Hoyle made his comments about life, and the 20 or so years since Dr. Lewontin arrogantly demanded that scientists design experiments to produce the anti-creation dogma of naturalistic evolution, genuine science probed deeper into the universe and peered into the unimaginably tiny world of the atom and the unfathomably complex world of the genome. There is more evidence now than ever before for the omniscient design of everything! Using the actual facts of science, man has built an exhilarating world of cities, computers, and commerce that now “has dominion” over the world as never before. The science and technology that enable man to do such things are based on the proven order, purpose, and precision of 'the things that are made.'   Only a fool looks at the overwhelming and worldwide evidence and then says, “There is no God” (Psalm 14:1).   “Willingly ignorant,” indeed! It is not surprising that God insists that those who reject the evidence that He has imbedded in the very creation itself are “without excuse” (Romans 1:20)."  http://www.icr.org/article/7258/