Counterpoint to evolution, part 1

After agonizing over the condition of America today, I have realized that many of our problems are attributable to an increasingly godless culture rooted in the teachings of evolution. It is illogical to expect our children to live by God’s moral codes established in Genesis, or that our rights come from God, when they are taught that His creation account is nothing more than a myth. It is also disturbing that the “evidences” for evolution were founded upon fallacious interpretations of observable data and the successful censoring of opposing points of view.

Therefore, it has become my mission to present a counterpoint to what is being taught in order to rescue our children from being led down an academic path that mocks our faith with innuendos and inferences based on a worldview that is neither scientifically supportable nor logical. The atheistic theology being presented to our children disguised as authoritative and empirical science through twisted conclusions and cleverly constructed insinuations is as much an insult to our intelligence as it is to our faith.

Charles Darwin, father of modern evolution

Charles Darwin at 45. Drawing: Henry Maull and John Fox.

In this series I will be evaluating Pearson/Prentice Hall’s Biology textbook, 2006 edition, written by Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine. It was adopted by the state of Texas. Texas asserts significant influence on textbook selections throughout the nation. Additionally, Pearson’s website also acknowledges that the mirror-like Miller & Levine iBiology Textbooks are the world’s bestselling high school biology programs.

The first article in this series will focus on the basics of Darwinian evolution presented in Chapter 15 of the book. It sets the stage with psychological coercion and straw men arguments that sophomores in high school lack the critical thinking skills to defend against. Direct quotes from the book will appear in italics prefaced with the page numbers for easy reference. The bold lettering included is copied as it appears in the textbooks. Subsequent articles will focus on the Miller-Urey experiment, Haeckel’s embryos, the evolution of birds, homology, and possibly other subjects as I may deem appropriate as this project develops.

An evolution apologetic

Page 369:

What scientific explanation can account for the diversity of life? The answer is a collection of scientific facts, observations, and hypotheses known as evolutionary theory.  Evolution, or change over time, is the process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient organisms. A scientific theory is a well-supported testable explanation of phenomena that have occurred in the natural world.

Counterpoint – The answer provided to the question above is presented as the only credible explanation for origins. The way it is structured dismisses the growing and overwhelming support for creationism as being a legitimate possibility. The claim that evolution is credible becomes authoritative in the students’ minds, who are led to believe that it is well-supported by facts. They are not told that the data that will be discussed neither supports nor denies evolution or creationism. It is simply data that is subject to interpretation.  In evolution, the theory drives the interpretation of the data to fit a naturalistic worldview as opposed to a supernatural worldview that requires intervention. In order to twist the data to fit the theory, impartiality is sacrificed – many times in a tortured manner, as this work will reveal.

Although it is true, as the book states, that natural selection occurs and the fittest do survive better than those that are unfit, survival is not a proof of evolution, as the students are led to believe. Dr. Walt Brown in his book In the Beginning, stated it best. He said: “Natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among preexisting characteristics.” He goes on to say, “While natural selection occurred, nothing evolved, and in fact, some biodiversity was lost…In other words, while natural selection sometimes explains the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the origin of the fittest…” I will add to Dr. Brown’s critique by saying that not only doesn’t natural selection explain the origin of the fittest, neither has Darwin nor any of his successors ever proposed a mechanism that adds information to the genetic code that would result in the evolution of a new creature.

Since the scientific criteria for a good theory requires that it should be repeatable, observable, predictable , and falsifiable, obviously any theory regarding origins cannot fully comply with this standard. Regardless, the authors of this textbook do their best to make the student believe that their theory is beyond challenge and is observable. To be sure, there is observation but it is the observation of impartial data that can be used to support Intelligent Design just as easily as it can be used to support Evolution, as will be discussed in a future article on homology. When data supports two conflicting theories, it is deceptive to claim that it proves only one of the theories.

P. 372 –

Darwin observed that the characteristics of many animals and plants varied noticeably among the different islands of the Galapagos. After returning to  England, Darwin  began to wonder if animals living on different islands had once been members of the  same species. According to this hypothesis, these separate species would have evolved from an original South American ancestor species after becoming isolated from one  another. Was this possible? If so, it would turn people’s view of the natural world  upside down.

Counterpoint – The observations being made are not proof of evolution in progress but observations of diversity within the plant and animal kingdoms. The book also draws the conclusion that this observation alone was an assault on the prevailing view at the time – inferring “creationism.”

Furthermore, diversity within a family (phyla) can be observed and is NOT evolution at all. For instance, it is believed by both creationists and evolutionists that all the breeds of dogs known today have descended from the gray wolf – with many of the breeds being the result of selective breeding over the past century. This “observable” diversity that resulted from breeding – whether selective or natural – is not evidence of evolution, since the traits of the resulting animals were traits that existed in the gray wolf from the beginning. Breeding just “selects” certain heritable traits over others. However, evolutionists would have you believe that the diversity that we can observe in progress in dogs, represents evolution of other animals in the fossil record. This defies logic.

Ironically, diversity in the animal kingdom resulting from natural or selective breeding supports the biblical account of Noah bringing two of every animal into the Ark. Creationists have long argued that Noah only had to bring the original type of the animal into the ark and not all the species of the animal that have been developed over time. This theory reduces the number of animals necessary to repopulate the planet. Once again, the data used to support the theory of evolution also supports the theory of the Noah’s Flood, and therefore cannot be used as proof for either.


Explorers were traversing the globe, and great thinkers were beginning to  challenge established views about the natural world…

Most Europeans in Darwin’s day believed that the Earth and all its forms of life had been  created only a few thousand years ago…Rocks and major geological features were  thought to have been produced suddenly by catastrophic events that humans rarely, if  ever, witnessed.

Counterpoint – If students are led to believe that the evolutionists represent the “great thinkers”, does that imply that creationists represent the “backward thinkers”? This is also a direct reference to Noah’s Flood as being the catalyst for the geological features. It seems references to intelligent design can be censored based on separation of church and state and the inferences of a “Designer” but derogatory remarks that insinuate creationists are intellectually challenged are permissible.

Additionally, this is also a blatant lie. We can “observe” in the scientific sense, that catastrophic events produce many of the geologic features we see today. Case in point: Mount St. Helens. This observable eruption in May of 1980 produced much of the strata layers that evolutionists claim are the result of successive layers of sediment deposited over long periods of time – and it did it in a 24-hour period! Additionally, the flume experiment produced the same laboratory results (see: which can be repeated, observed, falsified, and predicted.

Page 380-

The Struggle for Existence …Darwin realized that high birth rates and a shortage of  life’s basic needs would eventually force organisms into competition for resources. The struggle for existence means that members of each species compete regularly to obtain food, living space, and other necessities of life…This struggle for existence was central to Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Counterpoint – Direct observation of Darwin’s realizations stated in the above text contradicts this statement. For instance, human beings gravitate toward cities to live in, where they do not compete in the ways described above. Their gathering together enables them to share resources. This is also true in the animal kingdom. There are flocks, herds, packs, colonies, etc., etc. In all these instances animals live together and do not compete with each other but cooperate for survival, all of which disproves Darwin’s central premise.

Page 381-

Over time, natural selection results in changes in the inherited characteristics of a population. These changes increase a species’ fitness in its environment.

DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION Darwin proposed that over long periods, natural selection produces organisms that have different structures, establish different niches, or occupy different habitats…Each living species has descended, with changes, from other species over time. He referred to this principle as descent with modification.

Counterpoint – Survival of the Fittest does not equate to evolution. The fittest do survive but they do not evolve. A fit cat will never become any other type of animal, no matter how many years pass by. The developing science of genetics as well as direct observation supports the biblical claim that animals reproduce after their own kind.

AND.. “descent with modification” remains an atheist’s dream. The modifications – or diversity – within any living species is dependent upon the genes that exist within their gene pool. As stated previously, neither Darwin nor any of his followers, have ever proposed a mechanism that adds information into a gene pool that would allow for the procreation of an animal or plant that differs from the options that exist within the gene pool of their parents. If it did, every pregnant woman would have cause for concern.

The section on Darwinian evolution ends with the following statements:

Page 387-

Scientific advances in many fields of biology along with geology and physics, have  confirmed and expanded most of Darwin’s hypotheses….researchers still debate such important questions as precisely   how new species arise and why species become  extinct. There is also uncertainty about how life began.

Counterpoint – The advances referred to in this statement are as convoluted as the “evidences” detailed in this book. The last sentence, however, does contain a modicum of truth for evolutionists. In fact, they will remain uncertain about how life began for as long as they refuse to acknowledge the existence of a supernatural Creator.

Reprinted from The Daily Rant, copyright 2015 Mychal Massie. Used by permission. Reprinted also from Conservative News and Views.

4 thoughts on “Counterpoint to evolution, part 1

  1. To counter all your counterpoints…
    1: That’s because school is a place for facts and learning. And the only way to discover the truth is to look at all the evidence, not make up a story then cling to it regardless. And every piece of evidence points to evolution from multiple fields of study, but you know that. And not a single points to creation unless one declares various scientific methods to not work or twists them into conclusions that 99% of people using those methods would disagree with.
    Evolution fits all 4 of those requirements for a good theory- it could have been shown false by fossils found from an unexpected era of time but when they check all the fossils they are where predicted, same with all the ‘missing link’ fossils which aren’t missing anymore and were found to be from the time period that was predicted by the model of evolution.
    And Dr Brown seems to have forgotten that children are like their parents but still different, which is where the different genes and the passing on of specific genes happens.
    2: It is observable, though mostly though looking at history. When people say evolution is not observable they seem to be saying that just because it takes a long time and they don’t want to admit that, it can’t be true. It’s the same as planting an acorn, starting at the ground for 20 seconds and then saying ‘You lied! Acorns don’t turn into oak trees!’ and then stomping off. If we can take wolves and in a few hundred years turn them into both great Danes and chihuahuas then it makes sense that the offspring of a mammal could branch off into cats and dogs and horses after 100,000,000 years.
    And there are hairless varieties of cats and dogs – that is not a trait that is part of cats and dogs, that is a new trait for those specific varieties.
    If the ark and flood just had the two of every animal ‘kind’ and evolution only accounts for the species in each ‘kind’… One you are completely ignoring how they got to different parts of the world, and also saying that a few thousand years is enough for evolution to cause the difference between species in a ‘kind’ like lets say horses, donkeys and zebras, but a billion years is not long enough for bigger changes to occur. Its like saying ‘you can walk 10 miles in a day easy. But there is no way you could walk 200 miles in a year!’.
    3: The answer to your question, according to the more educated people on the planet is yes.
    Granted catastrophic events can create many things that look like they took a long time, and may have fooled people before, but not everything is created by volcanoes or 1 flood that would have had to contain more water than exists on earth.
    4: Agreed that survival of the fittest does not equate with evolution. It is the description of how in certain populations, certain traits can be selected for. Like for example, in siberia the wild cats that survive are the ones with thick extra warm fur.
    New genes are caused by mutations. Our genes mutate all the time – its just that the vast majority of the time these mutations do not really make a difference. Which is why changes in a population takes many many generations. But sometimes they do cause a difference. There is a family in italy that is immune to heart disease due to a new gene that is unique to them. There is a family in the USA with super dense and hard bones that are nigh unbreakable. That is a new gene.
    5: Well yeah, DNA testing and gene sequencing is complicated and not easy to explain to a layperson.
    And they have recently found how the compounds and chemicals that existed on early earth could have spawned the first replicating cell, in other words, life. And people will never progress if they refuse to move on from outdated stories that make no sense.

  2. Dear Jonathan,
    It is usually my policy not to engage in conversation with evolutionists who have always, in my experience, exhibited close-mindedness. Historically, it has been a waste of time, but in your case I will make an exception because you typify the very product of education that I am trying to challenge.
    To begin, I appreciate your point of view and understand why you believe what you believe. The psychological manipulations and downright lies that are in our high school textbooks and repeated at the college level allow little room for the critical thinking student, that is required to tear down this illusion. Additionally, you seem annoyed with creationists when you should be annoyed and downright angry with those who have consistently lied to you and led you down this path. I sincerely hope that in the future you will make every effort to examine this subject with an open mind and seek out the evidence that contradicts what you have been indoctrinated into believing.
    If you are still with me at this point and can manage to get beyond your anger, I will say that I completely agree with your opening statement in point 1. Schools should be a place where facts (data) are presented. However, THEY SHOULD NOT BE A PLACE WHERE STUDENTS ARE INDOCTRINATED INTO A CONSPIRATORIAL POINT OF VIEW and opposing points of view are censored. If one point of view is more legitimate than the other, time and honest examination will support it. Case in point, the textbook I am evaluating does not allow students to look at the facts and construct their own thoughts; it indoctrinates them.
    You go on to say that every piece of evidence points to evolution. Apparently you haven’t read the RATE experiment that refutes with impartial data most geology being taught today, and you haven’t read the article by a disappointed evolutionist on on the regrettable abandonment of the Miller-Urey experiment.
    As far as cosmogony goes, are you aware of the FACT that the Big Bang Theory (basically a misnomer- should be the Big Expansion Theory) actually confirms the biblical statements in the Old Testament (some written in the first five books gathered by Moses over 3800 years ago) that God expanded and continues to expand the universe? Even the mathematically-challenged can appreciate how far ahead of time these verses are. You may be surprised to learn that there are 17 verses in the Old Testament that attest to this. I could write a book on this alone but time constraints simply will not allow that.
    Regarding volcanology as being the only catastrophic cause of the geologic structures visible today, if I implied that was the only catastrophic mechanism, I apologize. Actually, the Flood would have been a major factor with volcanology playing a role.
    Finally, you have a very convoluted opinion regarding mutations. Mutations do occur. No one is denying that, but mutations cannot produce new genes. Mutations simply mistakenly read the genetic code, which most of the time results in a loss of information. There may be occasions when the mutation results in a benefit to the species, such as for polar bears, but mutations to not add information – new or otherwise, into the genetic pool.
    Please forgive me for my passionate response. Ideally I would like to be more diplomatic but the lies and the manipulation that is being foisted on our children strikes me as abominable and does anger me. And although I am sure I have come across as somewhat belligerent, I do sincerely hope that you will take the time to examine this subject with an open mind, which would include looking at the interpretations of the data that contradicts the evolutionary wonderland.
    In closing, please consider this my rebuttal to your comments, and due to time constraints, I will not be engaging in further conversation with you.

  3. Pingback: Counterpoint to evolution 2 - Creation Science Hall of FameCreation Science Hall of Fame

  4. Pingback: Counterpoint to evolution 3 - Creation Science Hall of FameCreation Science Hall of Fame

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.