More than 600 scientists holding doctoral degrees have gone on record expressing

skepticism about Darwin’s theory of evolution and calling for critical examination of the evidence cited in it’s support. The statement they have signed reads in part:

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged”

The statement, which includes endorsement by members of the prestigious U.S. National Academy of sciences and Russian Academy of Sciences, was first published by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute in 2001 to challenge statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS’s “Evolution” series.

The PBS promotion claimed, “virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true” NOT QUITE TRUE, PBS

Dr. Richard Lewantin, Harvard University Professor: “We take the side of science in spite of the Patent absurdity of some of it’s constructs, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism . . . . . We cannot allow a devine foot in the door. . . . ref Billions and Billions of demons New York Review of Books, Jan 9, 1997, p 31

Dr. Scott Todd, Immunologist:

“Even if the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic” . . . Nature, 9/30/1999.

So, we cannot escape the fact that Darwinism is much more in the realm of philosophy, religion, superstition, than science. Even if many scientists support it, that does not make it scientific. After all, these are people and all people have something they worship. Very often, in the case of those with advanced degrees, the object of worship is their own intellect.

Where is the science in the theory of evolution? Genetics is real science and it does not conform to the Darwinist theory. One species does not beget another. Every living thing has in each cell of it’s body, a formula for it’s manufacture (DNA). The only response evolutionists have to these facts is: “EONS of TIME”. Would they also buy the idea that the rules of mathematics, physics, chemistry change over time? - - Don’t think so. So why the rules of biology? The idea is simply the only thing men have been able to come up with to counter the teachings of GOD . . . . . which bother human egos.

In the 1830s, a 22 year-old divinity student, Charles Darwin sailed on the HMS Beagle as naturalist on a world scientific voyage. His observations led him to theorize natural selection as a basis not only to explain why some animals are different from others, but to a theory that all life evolved from a single source and that time and environment caused the differences we see today between living things.

Gregor Mendel was an Austrian monk who was contemporary with Darwin, but who applied scientific study and experimentation to the questions of plant differences. He applied scientific technique to an enormous number of experiments which gave us the Mendalian laws of genetics.

Both men died in the 1880s just as the scientific model was beginning to be adopted worldwide as a means of learning the truth about our world. Strangely, although Mendel’s work was truly science and Darwins was philosophy, Darwin’s work is chosen by many people “of science” as “gospel” and taught in our schools, while Mendel’s work is largely ignored as far as educators are concerned.

Darwinism does not explain why one species would develop new, marvelous appendages, such as arms, legs, eyes, etc. They claim it was done by mutations. But mutations are accidents in the copying of genetic material (DNA) Such accidents do not create. When does an automobile accident create some new and previously unknown automotive feature? Never! And neither do genetic accidents.