Piltdown Superman

Casey Luskin considers evolution's top three flaws to be:  (1) Tell students that the fossil record often lacks transitional forms and that there are "explosions" of new life forms, a pattern of radiations that challenges Darwinian evolutionary theory. (2) Tell students that many scientists have challenged the ability of random mutation and natural selection to produce complex biological features. (3) Tell students that many lines of evidence for Darwinian evolution and common descent are weak The article itself is short, so I suggest that you click on the reference links and learn something. You can read "What Are the Top Three Flaws in Darwinian Evolution, as Taught Today in Public Schools?" , here.

In late 2001, Creation Ministries International did an article about the 2000 book Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?  that showed how several of the "proofs" of evolution fail. Even in 2012, we encounter "proofs" of evolution that are outdated, discredited and even fraudulent. Some of these are the Peppered Moths, Haeckel's drawings (someone said to me, "Even though they were faked doesn't mean it's still not true"...agonizing), the Miller experiment and more. I maintain that some of Darwin's cheerleaders are victims of bad science and indoctrination, but they are also to blame for taking so much by faith and not investigating the flaws in evolution that so many of us are trying to get them to see. To be blunt, presenting bad information is indoctrination, not education. The educational system appears to be more interested in promoting a worldview and misotheistic biases rather than educating and training students to think critically

There have been times when I have been astonished at remarks from evolutionists about science. They have used outdated, spurious, discredited, tendentious and even dishonest evidence as "proof" of the "fact" of evolution. (One atheist called Matt Slick of CARM and actually presented discredited Lamarckism , or Lamarckianism, as proof of evolution!) Sometimes, this clinging to an unworkable worldview is simply the result of willful ignorance. But how often is the problem based on faulty textbooks , and they never learned the truth about evolutionism? Perhaps the problem is bad science indoctrination coupled with emotional attachment to a faulty worldview, but never mind about that now. Let's looks more closely at the textbook problem. Evolutionists are now formulating scientifically archaic teaching standards they want the states to follow “in whole, without alteration.” Our evolution-drenched science education in the U.S. is pathetic, with science literacy scr

I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that you think is true?” I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago … and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said: “Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.” — Colin Patterson   Fundamentalist evolutionists insist that the fossil record proves macroevolution is true. Creationists cite evolutionists who say that there are no transitional forms, then get accused of quote mining . Damage control! Then, the evolutionary faithful will trot out pictures of fossils, say that there are many transitional forms, and paste material from angry anti-creationist sites like talk.origins (they should check out tru

A fossil that is allegedly 34 million years old may contain some of the original hard biochemical material. That is no surprise. But the chitin is relatively fragile, and should have broken down long before the supposed millions of years.  Credit: Freeimages / John Boyer This is yet another example that the presuppositions of radiometric dating are flawed and should be overhauled to represent a much younger Earth. Cuttlefish are mollusks that look somewhat like squid. They have an internal, hard, supportive structure with soft organs around and inside it. This resilient "cuttlebone" is made of cleverly woven strands of a biochemical material called chitin and mixed with a hard biomineral called aragonite. A team of paleontologists found a supposedly 34 million-year-old fossil cuttlebone that still had both the original aragonite and chitin. This is significant, because one might expect the hard aragonite to persist in the fossil record, but not the  organic  chiti

Scientists generally take a straightforward, even common sense, approach to their theories. That is, they will see if evidence and observations fit their theories. If not, they abandon the theory and make a new one. Or adjust the original theory. stock.xchng/knightia How much adjustment is excessive? This is where the sensible approach fails evolutionary scientists. They start with the presuppositions that the world is ancient and that evolution happened. Then the data are interpreted within this worldview — sometimes even resorting to amazing extremes rather than abandon a faulty theory. When fossils do not fit the time frame, then the time frame is pushed back. This happens much more frequently than evolutionists want to admit. We are commonly challenged to explain the fossil order worked out by evolutionary scientists. Fossils are, of course, crucial to the evolutionary story; their sequences and placement in the evolutionary time scale are fundamental to the evolutioni

This is the third in a three-part series on Carbon-14. Part 1 discussed the basics of Carbon-14 dating , and Part 2 pointed out a major dilemma for evolutionists : Carbon-14 is found where is should not be, according to their reckoning. This section points out that creationist models have to deal with date ranges that do not fit their  model, either. Also, there are assumptions that are made in all radiometric dating, and some greatly affect Carbon-14 dating. A Biblical creation model fitting the Noahician Flood geology is explored and offered as the best explanation. Evolutionists aren’t the only ones who run into challenges when trying to reconcile radiocarbon dating with their view of history. How do creationists explain dates of 50,000 years? Conventional geologists claim that fossils, coals, and diamonds are millions to billions of years old. Yet it has now been firmly established that they still contain measurable amounts of radiocarbon, which has a half-life (decay rate) of onl