Chapter 9: Micro-evolution; The Machine That Built Itself

flight landscape nature sky
Photo by Pixabay on

Chapter 9 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD

Consider the following three assumptions.

1. We know that the formation of the universe from nothing was impossible. Quantim fluctuations?  Not even close to an explanation. Even Marcelo Gleiser, writing for the notoriously liberal NPR admits this;

It is obvious that this quantum nothingness is very different from an absolute nothingness. Physicists may shrug this away stating that concepts like absolute nothingness are not scientific and hence have no explanatory value. It is indeed true that there is no such thing as absolute nothingness in science, since the vacuum is pregnant with all sorts of stuff. Any scientific explanation presupposes a whole conceptual structure that is absolutely essential for science to function: energy, space, time, the equations we use, the laws of Nature. Science can’t exist without this scaffolding. So, a scientific explanation of the origin of the universe needs to use such concepts to make sense. It necessarily starts from something, which is the best that science can ever hope to do. (1) (For more on this topic see Chapter 17, Nothing Can’t do Something.)

2. We also know that spontaneous generation of life was and is impossible, and no scientist anywhere has been able to accomplish the task.  As Michael Denton wrote; “Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive.”(2)

3. We have established that evolution itself is impossible, as written by Hoyle; “The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it …. It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution.” (3)

But what if all three of these assumptions were wrong? What if magically everything appeared out of nothing, for no reason, and formed itself into life against astronomical, impossible odds, and evolved into multiple magnificent and self replicating organisms.  What then?

Even then evolution is impossible!

Why? Because living organisms are made up of proteins, and proteins have specific, utilitarian, designed, functional shapes.  Proteins are fascinating, complicated, three- dimensional molecules that function as a result of their shape.  The basic shape of the proteins such as enzymes allows them to present a particular molecule, or reactive agent, at a particular three dimensional site, exposed in such a way that it interacts, usually somewhat like a lock and key, with another protein or membrane in the cell so that a chemical process is either turned on or off (in the case of enzymes), or a portion of the cell is built.

Douglas Axe showed evolution to be impossible when “He provided empirical backing for this conclusion from experimental research he earlier published in the Journal of Molecular Biology, finding that only one in 1074 amino-acid sequences yields functional protein folds.“(4)  Now never mind that that number, 10 with 74 zero’s after it, is impossible even once.  That chance, random impossibility actually has to repeat itself EVERY SINGLE TIME any protein or enzyme hopes to evolve into to a new useful type of protein.  So add another thousand zeros!  Add another billion, trillion nails to the coffin of evolution!

If one alters the DNA by some mechanism (radiation for instance) and the DNA now produces a slightly different protein, then the 3D structure of the protein is altered, and it does not become a new functional protein with a different and “better” use in the cell or the organism.  It becomes a useless, broken, messy, senseless system, producing meaningless and almost always damaging or fatal proteins.  (i.e. Lou Gehrigs,  Alzheimers, Cystic Fibrosis).  For example, according to Cystic Fibrosis News today, “The development of CF results from a misfolded or improperly functioning protein known as the cystic fibrosis conductance regulator (CFTR).”(5)

There are, on the other hand, NO (none, nada, zero) examples of enzymes or proteins which have been altered as a result of genetic damage to form a new, improved, or more functional state. The oft cited example of bacterial resistance to antibiotics is NOT such an example.  According to Munita  and Arias in Mechanisms of Antibiotic Resistance, “Classically, bacteria acquire external genetic material through three main strategies, i) transformation (incorporation of naked DNA), ii) transduction (phage mediated) and, iii) conjugation (bacterial “sex”).” (6)  In each case the genetic material ALREADY EXISTED and no new protein or altered gene was required. In fact, the path to antibiotic resistance typically involves a loss of genetic material from damaged DNA. The bacterium is no longer as healthy and effective and rapidly growing as it was before, but it has a side benefit of being resistant to a particular antibiotic.

If God were small enough to be understood, He would not be big enough to be worshiped.”(7) Evelyn Underhill.

Secular scientists and institutions teach that the creation of life on earth was a random, accidental event.  Though such a thing defies all logic and probability, it is nevertheless taught as a supposed “scientific fact”.  In 1993, Michael Behe introduced the concept of irreducible complexity (IC), as a solid proof against evolution. (8) In a variety of manners secular writers have argued against (but never disproven) his initial arguments.  IC is unpopular, but its basic premise is logical, sound, and supportable.  It is in fact infinitely more probable and likely to be true than ANY version of evolution.  And Behe’s resarch is now being validated. Michael Eggnor stated that Behe’s research has contributed to recent Nobel prizes in Biochemistry, and he noted conversely thatNo Nobel Prize has ever been awarded for Darwinian research, and there’s a reason for that. Darwinism denies purpose in biology, and denial of biological purpose is a catastrophic impediment to science.”(9)

As science advances, we have found more, not less, evidences of the absolutely enormous complexity of living things. However the answer by secular scientists is always the same, something along the lines of… “Evolution must have happened, we just don’t understand it yet”. And there is a certain simplicity and elegance to this argument.  It assumes a  positive and growing body of human knowledge, and it assumes the eventual ability of mankind to overcome all obstacles to knowledge… even the knowledge of our very origins.  This, from a humanistic and scientific position, is very appealing. But as we can discuss later, it is also dangerous in its potential for unreasonable pride and arrogance about our limited human abilities. But the question is not whether it is appealing.  Is it true?

There are thousands of incomprehensibly complex systems at the cellular level. Complexity is a hallmark of the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, “Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.” [10]

Perhaps since the secular academic community has learned to pat itself on the back for mounting a few (albeit weak and insufficient) arguments to Behe’s theory of Irreducible Complexity, we should introduce another concept.  I will call it Absolutely  Incomprehensible Complexity.

You see, the entire idea that humanity can comprehend life or the cosmos is absurd. It is as ridiculous as a machine talking back to it’s maker.  The layers upon layers of complexity represented at every level by DNA, RNA, proteins, fats, glycogen, mitochondria, cell membranes, plasma, electrolytes, semipermeable membranes, and all the necessary substrates for life and growth are quite literally incomprehensible.  Every time biologists find an explanation for one thing, another layer of complexity is found. Science has not brought us closer to understanding the mystery of life.  Science just makes us much more aware of the mysteriousness of life!

When microbiologists and biochemists began to sequence proteins, they found that the protein’s function was more from its shape than from its chemical content.  As stated above, this discovery tells us that minor modifications (evolutionary steps) are virtually impossible in proteins. (Because  one could alter a protein’s shape tens of thousands of ways that make it dysfunctional or even lethal, before finding a single alteration that might have a “new and improved” function.)

Recently it has been discovered that the genetic code of DNA is almost a Rubik’s cube of complexity.  It is so complex that one area of DNA can code for more than one protein, or have multiple expressions. (11)  One cannot randomly alter one, or a few atoms via mutation, without having adverse effects on multiple biologic systems.  If a frog wanted to evolve into a lizard, each step forward could quite literally cause two or three steps backward!  Evolution, as always, cannot withstand the facts.  Life is not just Irreducibly Complex, it is Absolutely Incomprehensibly Complex.

And this is exactly  what we would expect from an infinite, omniscient, and omnipotent Creator God. As the Bible states in John 1: 3 “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.


(2) Denton, Michael Evolution: A Theory in Crisis Bethesda, MD: Adler and Adler Publishers, Inc., 1986 pp. 249-250

(3) Fred Hoyle (1981) “Hoyle on Evolution” Nature, Vol. 294, No. 5837, Nov. 12, p. 148


(5)  Stephen Shannon, Cystic Fibrosis News Today, March 12, 2015.

(6) Munita, J and Arias C., /



(9) Behe, Michael J. (1996). Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: Free PressISBN 0-684-82754-9LCCN 96000695OCLC 34150540.

(10)Michael Denton, “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,” 1986, p. 250.



Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.

Chapter 8: Natural Selection

flight landscape nature sky
Photo by Pixabay on

Chapter 8 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD

Fact. Natural Selection (NS) exists.

Fact.  NS does not, has not, and will never cause evolution.

I’ll bet you were taught that natural selection proves evolution.  In spite of what you have been told, natural selection has nothing to do with evolution.  Natural selection is conservative (of genetic material) not creative. Natural selection can only increase or decrease the number of certain cats, dogs, moths, or bacteria in a larger population. It cannot alter, evolve, or morph them into different creatures. Scientifically studying natural selection will not lead to a conclusion of Darwinism or evolution being true. It is merely an observation which can be thought of as equally supportive of a created world or an evolved world.

For decades, evolutionists and liberal educators have used the peppered moth as “proof” of evolution. Sewall Wright called it “a conspicuous evolutionary process”.(1) But while the peppered moth does provide evidence of natural selection, it in no way supports evolution. In fact, one wonders, if this is, in the words of Sewall Wright the “clearest case of a conspicuous evolutionary process”, why he supported the evolutionary theory at all!  If a change in the proportions of two different phenotypes of the same moth is considered the best evidence zoologists have for evolution, it is indeed a theory without scientific support!

Creation and Evolution advocates can agree, the light colored phenotype (of the moth) may confer a survival advantage where light colors blend in, and the dark phenotype may be beneficial in a darker or more polluted environment. However, that is where the agreement (and the science) ends and the conjecture begins. The dark and light alleles may just as easily have been created or evolved, and neither side can scientifically prove (to the satisfaction of unbiased observers) that their side must be correct. But every scientist should readily agree that when the light phenotype becomes more prominent, NO NEW GENETIC MATERIAL is produced or created.

It should be noted that whatever you believe about evolution and the tree moth, the dark and light alleles have never changed or evolved. No new moth has been created, and no new color has been documented. Both colors have been present through all of the recorded history of the tree moth. Thus natural selection is NOT evolution. Evolution requires a gradual change in the genetic material over time. Natural selection is simply a mechanism by which members of a population best suited to the environment may survive and pass on their genetic material. These are vastly different concepts.

Or as written by Biochemist John Marcus, “The key fact to note here is that natural selection simply cannot act unless there are functional, self-replicating molecules present to act on.”(2) NS does not create life, or create molecules, or create DNA.  NS simply allows one already created creature to thrive over another created creature.

NS is real.  Evolution is not.

For nearly a century evolutionists have conflated natural selection with evolution. But read just a bit further and you will find it is nothing more than a sleight of hand card trick. Natural Selection (NS) is real.  NS exists.  But NS is NOT evolution, is not responsible for evolution, and in no way supports or proves evolution. No matter how much conjecture and theorizing sites like subject us to, there exists absolutely NO proof of evolution.

Natural selection is conservative of genetic material, whereas evolution requires the creation of vast amounts of new genetic material. NS creates nothing. Evolution (if were a reality) would have required the creation of hundreds of billions of new genetic sequences to account for the genetic material for every living thing on earth.

In other words, natural selection cannot alter, evolve, or morph any form of life into new or different creatures. Scientifically studying natural selection does not lead to a conclusion of Darwinism or evolution being true.

The online dictionary defines natural selection as follows: “the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution.”  (3) Note the insertion, without any proof or logic, of the concept of evolution, and note the assertion “now believed”. Even pro-evolutionary writers admit there is absolutely no proof they are connected. Yet atheists and educators everywhere have for decades performed this sleight of hand, explaining one logical concept (NS) and then substituting another completely illogical and unsubstantiated theory (evolution).

Eve pro-evolution institutions like Berkeley admit that Natural Selection can NOT explain the origin of life, NS does NOT occur by chance, and evolution often occurs RAPIDLY. (4)  All of these ideas would have been considered complete and utter nonsense to Darwin.  Yet these institutions persist in pushing the idea of evolution, because they cannot accept the alternative of a Creator, God, with all the implications of Divine Creation.

NS does not create life, or create self sustaining molecules, or create DNA.  NS simply allows one already created creature to thrive over another created creature. There is much more we will discuss about NS.  But for now just know this.  NS is real.  Evolution is not.

Isaiah 45:7 states, “The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.”



(2)  John P. Marcus, in six days, New Leaf Publishing, 2017. p. 172




Job 12:7-9 “But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you; or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of the sea will declare to you. Who among all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this?

Chapter 7: The Data in the Strata

flight landscape nature sky
Photo by Pixabay on

Chapter 7 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD

Are you old enough to remember the La Brae Tar Pits? I remember quite vividly being told that this is how the fossil graveyards were formed.  Then when human and dog remains were found alongside saber-tooth cats and woolly mammoths (and other animals that we were told had been dead for tens of thousands of years) suddenly the pro-evolutionary scientific community lost interest in the pits. In reality, of course, the entire idea that thousands of animals accidentally fell into pits of tar and were preserved was absurd. Do animals do that today?  Certainly not. No animals today walk into pits of tar so they can someday become fossils.   In fact, the entire early thinking about the tar pits was likely erroneous. In reality, the oil tar formed far more rapidly than scientists were previously willing to admit and developed around the carcasses which had been rapidly buried in the flood sediments (see previous chapter).

Or as shown by the following article in the journal Organic Chemistry:

In many geological situations much longer time intervals are available but evidently the molecular mechanism of the decomposition is little changed by the additional time. Thus, within sedimentary basins, heating times of several years are sufficient for the generation of oil and gas from suitable precursors. The precise point in this range of times from seconds to years, at which the products adequately resemble natural gases and/or oils, remains to be established. Heating times of the order of years during recent times may even improve the petroleum prospects of particular areas. Flooding of a reservoir with migrating hydrocarbons is more likely to produce a reservoir filled to the spill point than slow accumulation over a long geological period with a possibility of loss …’.(1)

For generations, students have been fed a scientifically unsupportable line of atheistic propaganda about how dinosaurs and other organisms were fossilized.  If you travel to any Museum of Natural History or even to places like Dinosaur National Monument in Utah, you will read nice (imaginary) explanations about how the fossils originated, and why they are at the site.  All over the world there are massive “fossil graveyards” where thousands or millions of fossilized creatures lie buried or partially exposed.

These graveyards are not evidence supporting evolutionists claims.  Rather, in the words of Roger Patterson, “the greatest testimonies to a worldwide flood are the many, massive fossil graveyards across the globe”.  (2)  Why would Patterson say this? Because the very presence of such massive graveyards is evidence, if not almost proof, of a global flood.  Fossils do not form if a creature dies naturally and is eaten or decomposed by natural processes. Fossil formation requires sudden burial (as in a sudden, catastrophic global flood with massive mudslides in an environment that lacks oxygen) in order to fossilize!

Patterson also notes that in places like the Green River formation in Wyoming, we find birds, bats, ocean fish, insects, and land plants all buried together.  How could these be buried together if not for a huge catastrophe like the flood?

And what about oil and coal in the deep earth strata?  We are told that there was lush growth which gathered and was compressed over millions of years, forming oil and coal.  Yet so many scientific facts and observations do NOT fit this storyline.  For one, why would the deceased plants and animals not have been destroyed by bacteria and turned into simple organic matter (dirt) if this happened as a normal process over millions of years?  That would comply with the uniformitarian views evolutionists claim to espouse!

Also, many samples contain carbon 14, which should be impossible if they are even 50,000 years old, let alone hundreds of millions of years old.  In addition, coal often has readily visible bark from trees, and even track marks from crabs, dinosaurs, and amphibians (3) which might occur in cases of sudden rapid burial, but not with gradual accumulation over hundreds of thousands of years. And of course there is all that fresh organic material, and red blood cells they have been finding in dinosaurs that are supposedly hundreds of millions of years old!


And what about those troublesome polystrate fossils (see the above picture).  How can a fossilized tree be found vertically, penetrating what we are told is many millions of years of accumulated sediments? Author John McKay, who has found “there are polystrates of just about every fossil known if you look hard enough, and the reality is that any fossils even those that lie parallel to their strata yet are thicker than one lamina of sediment, by definition have to be polystrate.” (4) But the question is, how can a fragile fern be fossilized vertically in strata that would otherwise be thought to represent millions of years of accumulation?  But for those who believe in the Great Global Flood, this represents no problem at all. It makes absolute and complete sense. The tree or fern happened to come to rest in a vertical position as all the sediments flooded in and around it and were then compressed into limestone rock formations.

Famous Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould in Natural History magazine said,  “The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change, and the principle of natural selection does not require it — selection can operate rapidly. Yet the unnecessary link that Darwin forged became a central tenet of the synthetic theory.” He also tried to defend a fellow evolutionist, writing, “Goldschmidt raised no objection to the standard accounts of microevolution; … He broke sharply with the synthetic theory, however in arguing that new species arise abruptly by discontinuous variation, or macromutation.”(5)

This overt admission (by a prominent evolutionist) that life appeared suddenly, and that the fossil record does not support evolution has yet to reach the halls of academia, where evolution is still taught, and the fossil record is still used as proof. Yet Gould tries to rescue the theory with yet another unscientific proposal, seeming to believe that new species appeared fully formed in the past, but still, somehow he manages to call this evolution.  But for an interesting and very readable account of this story, please see the article by Scot Wall in the Houston Chronicle from 2008. (6)


(1) Saxby, J. D., Bennett, A.J.R., Corcoran, J.F., Lambert, D.E. and Riley, K.W., 1986. Petroleum generation: simulation over six years of hydrocarbon formation from torbanite and brown coal in a subsiding basin. Organic Geochemistry, vol. 9(2), pp. 69–81.

(2) P 148, Evolution Exposed,  2008, Answers in Genesis USA.

(3) Ibid, p. 151



(6) ibid


John 1:3  Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.


Chapter 6: The Cambrian Explosion

flight landscape nature sky
Photo by Pixabay on

Chapter 6 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD

Atheistic cosmology is completely dependent on explosions.  Secular scientists believe all matter exploded out of nothing due to a quantum fluctuation.  They also believe all life exploded into being in a short period for no reason a few hundred million years ago. They adopt these beliefs, not based on uniformity of agreement, not based on SCIENTIFIC evidence, not because logic demands it, but because as atheists, they have no other explanation! 

For over a hundred years those atheists who promoted evolution patiently explained to unbelievers that evolution was a gradual process, step by step, one tiny building block at a time. It occurred, they said, over hundreds of millions of years, as accidental radiation-induced genetic changes supposedly built ever more complicated forms of life from simpler forms of life, one little accidental genetic modification building on another accidental genetic modification.

Unfortunately, the science of archaeology has destroyed these gradual timelines as foundations for evolution, and now scientists, archaeologists, and evolutionists say life suddenly appeared during the Cambrian explosion some 500 million years in the past.

We will discuss the absurdity of quantum fluctuation creating everything in another chapter.  Today lets discuss the absurdity of believing in evolution, and at the same time believing all life appeared suddenly on the earth.

As we have discussed, for over a century, those who preferred evolution as an explanation for everything taught, and apparently believed, that evolution was a gradual process, requiring hundreds of millions of years to make small changes that progressively increased the complexity of life.  But in fact, the evidence from the geological strata show it pretty much appeared all at once during or just before the Cambrian period. This should have discouraged the proponents of evolution. But since the belief in evolution is primarily a philosophical, rather than a scientific tenet, it did little to discourage their atheistic zeal.

In the Precambrian Era, all life on earth supposedly originated, developed, and thrived.  Life not only created itself during this period, according to evolutionary theory it advanced rapidly into millions of species in a very short period. (1)  This is the antithesis, the exact and complete opposite of how evolution was described for over a century and is in itself, proof of the complete failure of evolutionary theory.  In fact, in order to support the latest evolutionary timeline, during the “Cambrian explosion” there would have been the appearance of an entirely new species of life approximately every 50 years!

But there is more. The Precambrian and Cambrian Era geological remnants are distributed around the world in what is called the “Burgess-type” shale.  In all the areas of the world where such “Burgess-type” shale has been found, all the organisms appear the same.  No variance, no progression. All are the same.  All over the world. No support for evolution here.

In addition, secular scientists recognize, “The way in which the Burgess Shale animals were buried, by a mudslide or a sediment-laden current that acted as a sandstorm, suggests they lived on the surface of the seafloor.” (2) (Wikipedia) This mudslide or sediment-laden current sounds much more like evidence of a single great flood than evidence of evolution! Imagine what would happen during a Biblical Great Flood.  Millions of animals all over the world would have been suddenly buried, and preserved, in mudslides, or “sediment-laden currents”!  And the fact that other living creatures are found in geologic and archaeological strata above this layer could suggest they were carried in by a sediment-laden current afterward, and buried in successive layers above the sea floor creatures. (3)

The history of geology and evolution do not support the gradual development of life on earth.  Not even using Uniformitarian assumptions (which we will discuss later). The Theory of Evolution is a scientifically unpalatable philosophical assumption in light of many new findings in geology, molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past 70 years.


Job 12:7-10 ESV “But ask the beasts, and they will teach you;
    the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you;
or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you;
    and the fish of the sea will declare to you.
Who among all these does not know
    that the hand of the Lord has done this?
In his hand is the life of every living thing
    and the breath of all mankind.





Chapter 5: The Day Evolution Died

flight landscape nature sky
Photo by Pixabay on

Chapter 5 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD

Evolution is dead.  Every attempt over the last century to find actual scientific proof has ended in failure. (Not that the academics will readily admit this, but please keep reading while in the next few paragraphs I summarize some of the evidence.) Nevertheless, like a zombie in an apocalypse movie belief in evolution refuses to go away.  Its rotten corpse continues to stink in the halls of academic sciences, and no amount of formaldehyde can prevent the stench.

Proponents of evolution would have you believe, in spite of evidence to the contrary, that we have proof from the geologic record that shows a gradual increase in the complexity of life.  This is a lie.  (See chapter 7 The Data in the Strata.)

They would have you believe that we have proof from the lab that life can “create itself” from a lightning strike and a soup of pre-life chemicals.  This is also a lie.  This has never occurred, in spite of over a century of attempts by scientists who are desperate to prove evolution. (See chapter 9 Micro-evolution.)

They would have you believe that “we see evolution all around us.” But they knowingly substitute examples of natural selection and pass it off as evolution.  This is obfuscation at best, if not a blatant lie.  (See chapter 8 on Natural Selection)

Evolution (by definition) requires increasing complexity of the genetic code. Evolution as an explanation for life on earth as we know it would have required trillions upon trillions upon trillions of increases in the complexity of the genetic code.  Yet as of this writing there is not one proven example of any mutation at any time, in any living thing, that has increased or added to the complexity of the DNA. Not One!

 In fact, after over a hundred years of lab scientists radiating the rapidly reproducing fruit fly hoping to demonstrate evolution, all we have is normal, dead, or deformed fruit flies. And after studying hundreds of thousands of generations of bacteria, not one evolutionary scientist anywhere in the world has shown the addition of new genomic material.  Yet evolutionists would have you believe that the many thousands of evolutionary changes from “Neanderthal Man” to the current day occurred in just 40,000 years (less than 2000 generations)!

Such a position is scientifically untenable. Yet secular atheist instructors and speakers continue to push the lie that “evolution is an established fact.”

  1.  Scientist’s make claims based on conjecture for which they have no sound evidence, such as calling the Big Bang a proven historical event, or claiming there is scientific proof of evolution.
  2.  Public policymakers use pseudo-scientific claims to support their social agendas, as occurs with those promoting drastic social change in the name or “global warming” or “climate change”.
  3.  Self-promotion or personal gain takes priority over exacting evidence, as with Stephen Hawking or Richard Dawkins.
  4.  A culture of braggadocio rather than humility occurs in the scientific community, which we see in virtually all aspects of scientific inquiry today.
  5.  A culture of intimidation occurs, where any competing events or ideologies are shut out of our institutions of higher learning by shouting down, rioting, or even physically attacking those with differing ideologies.
  6.  Free speech and free inquiry are replaced by political correctness, and students demand safe spaces so they are not forced to try to defend their indefensible beliefs.

Even Wikipedia admits that Biologists “used to believe” that evolution was progressive.  The first fatal blow to progressive evolution was in the fossils themselves (See the Data in the Strata). The claim of progressive evolution received another fatal blow from genomics.  Modern genomics (which should have easily proven progressive evolution) has instead shown that the supposed evolutionary Tree of Life is not real. It exists only on paper, or in outdated, unscientific textbooks written by pro-evolution secularists.  Secular scientists have rearranged and changed the tree of life. They have cut and pasted it to no avail.  The Tree of Life is dead.  Belief in evolution should have died with it. So if you were educated under the teachings of atheists, and were taught that the universe created itself out of nothing, and life is some giant cosmic accident, today you have a choice.  You can continue to accept the ungodly propaganda of the atheists, or today can be the day you accept the fact that there is no scientific support for evolution.  For you, TODAY can be the day that evolution died.

Just to summarize a few important points regarding evolution… Perhaps an instructor told you “Evolution has been scientifically proven” or “Evolution was the mechanism by which life appeared and grew on Earth”. They may have even told you if you ever doubted evolution, you must be a religious fanatic, science denier, or a hopelessly ignorant person. But here are 9 SCIENTIFIC problems with evolution.  Just 9 are listed here, but there are thousands more..

  1. The fossil record does not support Evolution. For proof see chapter 7 on “The Data in the Strata” and also see “Intelligent Design has Scientific Merit in Paleontology” ( As written by Casey Luskin, “ID predicts irreducibly complexity. Because irreducibly complex structures require all of their parts to function, they cannot arise in a gradual, step-by-step manner. If many characteristics of life are irreducibly complex, then ID leads us to expect that the fossil record will exhibit a pattern of abrupt appearance of novel, fully functional body plans that do not develop in a gradual, step-by-step fashion. This is precisely what we typically find in the fossil record.” (1) So in point of fact, the fossil record actually supports CREATION.
  2. Molecular biology has completely failed to demonstrate Darwin’s “Tree of Life”. See the chapter “Branch or Vine?”. That diagram you have seen in dozens of textbooks, some sort of “tree” or branched diagram allegedly illustrating the “interconnectedness of all species”… It doesn’t exist in nature.  Nowhere in the real world have scientists found evidence that the species actually evolved, or are evolving, one from another. And the study of genomics has virtually destroyed any possibility that such a tree could exist by showing patterns of genetic changes completely inconsistent with any known evolutionary paths.
  3. The geological strata do not support gradual evolution.  Archaeologists have almost universally agreed that life seemed to appear suddenly, more or less all at once, not gradually as predicted by evolution. (They will tell you it was millions of years in the past… but this also is unproven.)  For example Wikipedia states, “In 2017, fossilized microorganisms, or microfossils, were announced to have been discovered in hydrothermal vent precipitates in the Nuvvuagittuq Belt of Quebec, Canada that may be as old as 4.28 billion years old, the oldest record of life on Earth, suggesting “an almost instantaneous emergence of life“.(2) Note “almost instantaneous,” and try to imagine how they can still claim evolution while saying that life appeared all at once.
  4. The Fossil record does not support gradual evolution.  There are no proven transitional fossils. (There should be countless billions of transitional fossils if evolution were true.) As stated in Wikipedia, “More than 99% of all species of life forms, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct. Some estimates on the number of Earth’s current species of life forms range from 10 million to 14 million, of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86 percent have not yet been described.”(2)  Yet of all these millions of living and extinct species, none have been proven to be transitional!
  5. There is no evidence of current evolution.  The rate of evolution required to transition from apes to man would have required extremely frequent changes (several positive mutations every year) in order to evolve in just a few million years. Yet in hundreds of years, no one has ever seen any current signs of evolution! Not ONE!
  6. Evolution cannot explain the origin of life.  The law of abiogenesis states life cannot create itself. (3) This law has never been disproven. Evolution could never have occurred because life could never have begun.
  7. Even the most primitive forms of self-replicating life are incomprehensibly complex. The idea of a “primordial chemical soup” which is transformed into a living cell so completely unscientific it is laughable. (4) A single living cell is more complicated in its chemical and electrical engineering processes, as well as its manufacturing processes than the most advanced, largest cities on earth!
  8. No “primordial soup” could have existed in the first place because the proteins would have of necessity had to be all isomers (not a random mix) and they would have been degraded by natural processes a thousand times more quickly than they could have ever formed. (5) Those “experiments” from a hundred years ago which supposedly showed that the building blocks of proteins could have appeared accidentally when lightning hit ancient ponds were fundamentally flawed in dozens of ways.
  9. Evolution (and its best friend Old Earth Cosmology) has no explanation for why the earth or the universe is so perfectly fine-tuned for life to occur. Things like gravity, radiation, rate of expansion, tides, temperatures, and many more universal constants are so finely tuned that even minor alterations would make life as we know it absolutely impossible. (6)









Psalm 14:1 “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.”

  I can offer various theories as to why a belief in such an obviously unsupportable theory persist, but I suppose, like belief in vampires and zombies, some people will believe anything.  In the long view, evolution will be shown to be just a PC, faddish belief without an iota of factual scientific evidence.


Chapter 4: Hoaxed

flight landscape nature sky
Photo by Pixabay on

Chapter 4 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD

Evolution will someday be shown to be the greatest hoax in the history of science.  It may be, as the title of Jonathan Sarfati’s book suggests, “The Greatest Hoax on Earth?” Sarfati writes, describing one of evolution’s most vocal advocates Richard Dawkins, “Dawkins is much like his hero, Charles Darwin, who embellishes scientific observations with curious speculation to fit his own atheistic worldview.“(1)

Many atheists will admit there have been numerous “hoaxes” such as Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Java man, Orce man, or Boule’s Neanderthal man.  Archeoraptor and Haeckel’s embryos were also proven fraudulent. Some evolutionary proponents will admit individual instances of a person here or there who “faked” a specimen.  A few might even acknowledge the clearly “embellished” and fanciful horse series, (which has been put forward for generations as “proof” of evolution, but is actually three different species of horses).

These are just a few examples, but this is bigger than a few dozen examples can explain.  It is a systematic, guided, planned, and intentional misleading of our youth.  It is what some call textbook fraud.  Evolutionists tolerate knowingly fraudulent pro-evolution evidence in school textbooks. New textbooks purchased by schools are filled with inaccurate information to promote evolution. School teachers and professors (at least the more educated among them) know the material is fraudulent, but they continue to teach it. Materials persist in High School and University Textbooks that were exposed as fraud over 90 years ago! Everyone ignores this, because this fraudulent data is the best evidence for evolution that they have!

Evolution itself, the very idea, the inane proposition itself will someday be shown to be the greatest (and perhaps most destructive) hoax ever perpetrated on mankind.

How could such a thing have happened?  Well, it is amazing just how far astray you can go with the blind leading the blind.  Jesus told his followers, “Stay away from those Pharisees! They are like blind people leading other blind people, and all of them will fall into a ditch.”  Psalm 14:1 also tells us “The fool has said in his heart there is no God.”  Unfortunately, for over a hundred years, our society has been led by fools, blinded by their pride and arrogance. Atheistic scientists are, by scriptural definition, fools. Why? Because they don’t believe in God.  They have moved to the forefront of social consciousness, becoming so influential on our campuses that we have entire generations of youth believing that the universe created itself out of nothing and that life arose from a mud puddle to its current array of magnificent complexity.

Scientism is in many ways much like progressivism, or “modern architecture”. If you ask a social progressive about his or her political beliefs, you will likely find a mix of social, religious, and philosophical constructs that are largely a rehash of prior failed systems around the world.  However, because the individual has not seen these in her own lifetime, they believe they are “progressive”, and they are therefore superior to the status quo. Many of today’s political progressives in America, for instance, promote socialism, or communism, or other impractical, idealistic, failed forms of government.  These forms of government are in reality, far more repressive and regressive than progressive.

Similarly, when I look at examples of “modern architecture” from the 1960s and 1970s, I find an avant-garde style that was considered hip, innovative and state of the art at the time.   However, the bizarre roof angles, shiny metals, and glass walls have since been relegated to the trash heaps of architectural design, with a preference for more conventional architecture rapidly returning. “Modern” may sound good for a while, but in a few years it is passe.  Just like “Progressivism”.

The same will, I believe, soon be said of the fad of Scientism.  One too many “new discoveries” will come along and undermine the foundations of Cosmology, and even the gullible public will realize that Scientism has always been the most unscientific of disciplines.

In fact, it may well be the burgeoning group of Creation Scientists at organizations such as the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis who eventually undermine and factually disprove much of the currently accepted Old Earth cosmology. The Lord has chosen, in His divine and eternal wisdom, to allow secular scientists to dominate the progress of cosmology for some time now, and to define the current concepts of the origin of the Earth and the universe. But in the near future, given access to the same technology, many scientists and researchers who are Christian are finding more and more convincing evidence that the Earth and the Universe were created by the Word of God, just like the Bible says.

Or as Nasr has written, “Today, all kinds of philosophical conclusions are made concerning physical or astronomical theories and discoveries, often with total neglect for the limitations and assumptions originally made by the scientists. With Kant, physics became the source of philosophy and there developed a physicism very much similar to the earlier mathematicism of Descartes. With a real philosophy of nature there would be an independent matrix within which the implications of different sciences could be tested and tried and their meaning made known without the aberrations which so often accompany philosophical interpretations of scientific theories today.”(2)
― Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Man and Nature: The Spiritual Crisis in Modern Man

Romans chapter one vs 18-23 (NIV) in context shows parallels to today:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

It is critical, for the sake of our youth, that a generation of scientists, teachers, pastors, and parents educate themselves on the fallacies of evolution and the Big bang.  Start from the beginning of this blog.  EDUCATE YOURSELF.  Visit sites like the Creation Museum, Answers in Genesis, or  Join the movement. Share these blogs.  Save our kids.





Chapter 3: Evolutionism, Scientism, and the Demise of Atheism

flight landscape nature sky
Photo by Pixabay on

Chapter 3 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD

As we noted previously, scientism (under the guise of science) has been preached to unsuspecting generations of students, but it is NOT science. Nor would it qualify as a serious attempt at philosophy.  Furthermore, physicist Ian Hutchinson has stated that scientism is not only bad as a philosophy.  He believes it is bad for science.

The health of science is in fact jeopardized by scientism, not promoted by it. At the very least, scientism provokes a defensive, immunological, aggressive response from other intellectual communities, in return for its own arrogance and intellectual bullyism. It taints science itself by association.” (1)

Arrogant secular writers like Richard Dawkins commonly elevate “science” while casting aspersions on those who believe in a higher power.  They ridicule Creationist scientists as inferior to themselves because they supposedly “take the easy way out” by blaming everything they don’t understand on a Creator.  Such an approach, according to the secularist, leads to bad science and lazy thinking.  Dawkins said, “I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world“.  Whereas I readily acknowledge this might occur at times, I would argue that the opposite is equally true, and very possibly even more prevalent! Refusing to acknowledge the possibility of a Creator is equally unscientific.

To disallow the possibility of a Creator/God without any consideration of the implications, and without applying the evidence equally to both possibilities (the God possibility and the No-god possibility) is also lazy and unscientific.  Creation scientists may approach science differently at a “gut level” than secular scientists.  However, the fact is that both camps have a scientifically unproven and unprovable presupposition.  Both have a “faith” in something that precedes and overwhelms their intellectual processes.

The fact is, either there is a Creator God, or there is not.  Philosophically and spiritually and intellectually, I find strong reasons to believe there is a God.  As a Christian and a student of scripture, I have the comfort of believing in a holy, loving, sacrificial God who has revealed Himself to mankind through the Bible and who cared so deeply that he sent His only Son to make a place for us in Heaven.

Nevertheless, I accept that this is a faith-based statement.  I cannot prove scientifically that Jesus died for my sins.  Yet like billions of others, I believe it with all my heart. The problem comes when secular science accepts an equally unscientific premise, the belief that there is NO GOD, and does so not based on science but on faith.  Such a scientist then has no right or reason or foundation from which they can cast aspersions on those who believe in God and interpret scientific data differently.  Each position is a statement of faith.

When all the observable facts and statistics of the universe are viewed from a Bible-believing, faith-based viewpoint, the universe, the solar system, the earth and life itself are seen as strong, nearly concrete evidence for the existence of God.

When these same exact facts are seen from a viewpoint of a secular atheist, they apparently seem to indicate that there is no god, or at least no god worth believing in, according to Richard Dawkins, who famously stated in The God Delusion, “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”(3) So you see, Dawkins, like most atheists, actually has very strong feelings about God.  If indeed an atheist does not believe in God, then why in the world would he or she have any particular feelings about the character of God?

In this statement, Dawkins does not so much seem to be disallowing God, as to be disapproving of God. He seems unable to comprehend the possibility that God is infinitely more powerful, and intelligent than he himself is, and so he uses words like megalomaniacal without even considering the implications.  Seriously, can anyone who even comprehends the word “omniscient” attempt to use a descriptor such megalomania to describe the Almighty”? How can an All-Knowing God be a “know it all”? Dawkins is not placing God out of the picture, but placing his own (Dawkins) judgments above the judgments of God. Such is the case with many in the atheistic camp. Unfortunately his beliefs have been systemically inoculated into at least three generations of the world’s youth.

Sometimes a single domino falls and hundreds more fall in rapid succession. I hope and pray this may soon be the case with evolution.  How could this occur?  Well, in reality just one thing needs to happen. Real science must be allowed to freely take its course.

Secular scientists should be among the first to recognize the importance of seeking the truth. Science is a study based on ruling out false hypotheses and continually seeking a truer understanding of our physical universe. Science can ONLY be advanced by the honest and objective analysis of both our successes AND our failures. A repetitive refusal to acknowledge failed hypotheses is not just bad science.  It is not scientific at all. But in the case of these three inextricably linked arguments (evolution, scientism, and atheism) the failure of any one piece exposes the logical, philosophical, and scientific fallacies of the others.

As science advances, even in spite of the extreme pro-evolutionary bias of  our institutions of higher learning, the scientific underpinnings of evolution have been progressively undermined to the point that belief in evolution is now held completely on the basis of faith, not science.

But as early as Shakespeare, the phrase was used, “The truth will out.”

Or as Buddha said, ““Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.” And this is exactly what is occurring in society today as we discuss evolutionism, scientism, and atheism.

To summarize, Evolutionism describes the belief in the evolution of organisms. Its exact meaning has changed over time as the study of evolution has progressed. In the 19th-century, it was used to describe the belief that organisms deliberately improved themselves through progressive inherited change (orthogenesis). (4) This has been proven by archaeology NOT to have occurred.

Nevertheless, although subsequent chapters in this book will show that evolution has lost most if not all of its scientific (geology, archaeology, genomics, and historical) credibility, it remains as the current foundation for teaching for biology in our schools.! In addition, there is an intricately woven web of assumptions and presuppositions developed over the last century in which science (or scientism) has sought NOT the truth, but merely sought to support evolution.  Rather than searching for truth, atheistic biologists and cosmologists sought support for their own atheistic assumptions.  This is one of the inherent weaknesses of scientism.

Scientism is an ideology that promotes science as the purportedly objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values.“(5) Don’t let that definition deter you. It is actually quite simple.The key principle is that Scientism is an ideology and a philosophy.  Scientism is not science!

Scientism is completely illogical and ultimately self-defeating. As stated by Edward Feser, “Scientism is the view that all real knowledge is scientific knowledge—that there is no rational, objective form of inquiry that is not a branch of science…Despite its adherents’ pose of rationality, scientism has a serious problem: it is either self-refuting or trivial. Take the first horn of this dilemma. The claim that scientism is true is not itself a scientific claim, not something that can be established using scientific methods. Indeed, that science is even a rational form of inquiry (let alone the only rational form of inquiry) is not something that can be established scientifically.”(6)

Or as JP Moreland has written about the self-refuting nature of Scientism, “The only knowledge we can have about reality are those that have been properly tested in the hard sciences” is not itself a statement about reality that has been properly tested in the hard sciences, so it cannot be a knowledge claim about reality. It is actually a claim of philosophy to the effect that all claims outside the hard sciences, including those of philosophy, cannot be known to be true. Thus, it is an inherently self-refuting claim.”(7)

Atheism has a similar problem. Of course, Atheism is totally dependent on evolution and scientism in order to explain its very existence. If not for an accidental universe imbued with accidental, self-sustaining, evolving life, the atheist has no reason for his or her own existence. But that is not all. As written by Matt Slick in his discussion of materialistic atheism, “Materialism is the theory that matter is the only thing that exists in the universe, and that all phenomena can be explained in terms of it and its properties. This would mean that everything must operate within the bounds of physical laws, including the human brain. But this presents a problem for the materialistic atheist. A materialist atheist has no intellectual justification whatsoever to trust his own thinking because his physical brain cannot exceed the limits of physics and chemistry. Therefore, there’s no reason for him to conclude that his rationality is correct since his brain is acting “mechanically.” (8)

So we see that neither atheism, scientism, nor evolutionism is scientifically or philosophically sound.  They can claim no rational superiority over belief in creation!

The good news in all this is that recently tens of thousands of scientists are beginning to clearly understand and espouse the failures of evolutionism and scientism. As they write and speak clearly of the scientific reasons that neither life, nor the universe have created themselves, millions of people may reject atheism and once again feel free to explore the more rational and spiritually fulfilling alternative of belief in an Almighty God who created the universe, and humanity, for His divine purposes.

The good news is that Atheism is no longer able to assume the stamp of philosophical or scientific approval.
The good news is that life has meaning.
The good news is you are not just made up of matter. You Matter!


(1)  “The Perils of Semantic Ascent: Quine and Post-positivism in the Philosophy of Science” in A Nice Derangement of Epistemes


(3) Dawkins, R. The God Delusion, 2015.




Hebrews 11:6  But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

John 8:45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!


Chapter 2: Real Science

flight landscape nature sky
Photo by Pixabay on

Chapter 2 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD

Today I will discuss the importance of Scientism.  It may be the longest and driest chapter of the book.  But please don’t give up. It lays the foundation for understanding just how unreliable the concept of evolution really is.

I believe that most laypersons today believe the world is billions of years old. Most also believe evolution is true. And when questioned about why they believe these things, most would answer something along the lines of “Because science says so.” But what “science” do they mean? Social science? Formal science? Natural science? Pure science? Applied science?

According to the Oxford scholarship online, “The natural taxonomy of the empirical sciences would break the sciences down into three basic groups: the physical sciences (physics, astronomy, chemistry, geology, metallurgy), the biological sciences (zoology, botany, genetics, paleontology, molecular biology, physiology), and the psychological sciences (psychology, sociology, anthropology, maybe economics). (1)

And within all these branches of science, as well as between the branches, lie many strident disagreements about extremely important and foundational issues. Scientists among themselves disagree vehemently about cosmological constants and the mathematical calculations on which the age of the universe is calculated. They disagree over the geological, archaeological, and genetic evidence for and against evolution. Yet somehow, the public has been convinced that “science knows” the age of the universe, and “science has proven” evolution to be true.

But in reality these the Big Bang and Evolution are not only unproven, but they are also in many ways deeply unscientific.  Public statements about evolution are actually not Science, but Scientism.  Yet few have any idea of the difference between REAL science and scientism.

Believers in Scientism feel that the natural sciences have preeminent authority over all other branches of philosophy and learning.  It is similar to Positivism, the belief that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge, which was first posited by Auguste Comte in the early 1800s.  Scientism is, in essence, a fanatical and unscientific form or Empiricism, the idea that observational evidence is indispensable for knowledge of the world.

As written by Dallas Willard, “We say “science,” but in actuality there are sciences like physics and biology. We say “religion,” but it would be more accurate to say religions like Christianity or Buddhism. Scientists will tell you that they do have a method, but the method of one science doesn’t work in another science. The method of validating a theory in biology doesn’t work particularly well in astronomy. Method is always tied to subject matter, and in dealing with life in general there is no such thing as a single scientific method. This has become the quandary of our culture, because everything that really matters in guiding life falls outside of science.” (2) (bold type added)

Scientism and Positivism both make a claim to a form of superior intellectual authority.  They posit themselves as more important, more authentic, and superior to all other forms of knowledge. But in doing so they cannot offer empiric or scientific or provable claims. Therefore these claims are not scientific, but philosophical in nature.

So Scientism is not good science, because it makes a claim that only scientific claims are meaningful, and this claim is itself unscientific and unprovable.  But is scientism good philosophy?   Jürgen Habermas, the German sociologist and philosopher, wrote, “The scientistic faith in a science that will one day not only fulfill, but eliminate, personal self-conception through objectifying self-description is not science, but bad philosophy.” (3)

Physicist Ian Hutchinson believes that scientism is not only bad as a philosophy.  He believes it is bad for science. “The health of science is in fact jeopardized by scientism, not promoted by it. At the very least, scientism provokes a defensive, immunological, aggressive response from other intellectual communities, in return for its own arrogance and intellectual bullyism. It taints science itself by association.”(3)

G.K. Chesterton wrote, “Science must not impose any philosophy, any more than the telephone must tell us what to say”.(4) Yet in spite of this, modern secular scientists do exactly this, they propose a philosophy which is supposedly superior to religion, and philosophy, and all other forms of rational thought, and they do so without any evidence, scientific or otherwise. Hence proponents of the Big Bang and Evolution are often acting out of their perverted and unjustified faith in scientism when they ridicule and persecute those who believe in Creation. If their cause was the advancement of science, there would be no need, or place, for such antisocial and unscientific attitudes.

Austin L Hughes stated, “If philosophy is regarded as a legitimate and necessary discipline, then one might think that a certain degree of philosophical training would be very useful to a scientist. Scientists ought to be able to recognize how often philosophical issues arise in their work — that is, issues that cannot be resolved by arguments that make recourse solely to inference and empirical observation. In most cases, these issues arise because practicing scientists, like all people, are prone to philosophical errors. To take an obvious example, scientists can be prone to errors of elementary logic, and these can often go undetected by the peer review process and have a major impact on the literature — for instance, confusing correlation and causation, or confusing implication with a biconditional. Philosophy can provide a way of understanding and correcting such errors. It addresses a largely distinct set of questions that natural science alone cannot answer, but that must be answered for natural science to be properly conducted.” (bold added) (5)

Thus it can be seen that Scientism is not just bad science.  It is also bad philosophy and bad logic. (Much more on this in the next chapter) It is bad for society and all its (scientism’s) practitioners.  Like every form of incorrect thinking, it has consequences.

As I wrote in the blog “BIG GOD. small god. Why Cosmology Matters. “Atheists say creation is impossible because it would have required something miraculous, something fantastic, something unbelievable, something outside the bounds of science. Creationists say that The Big Bang and Evolution are impossible because they would have required something miraculous, something fantastic, something unbelievable, something outside the bounds of science.” And BOTH are correct.  Yet rather than admit the weakness of their arguments, or their inability to prove their points scientifically, each side often resorts to dogma.  Rather than a free and mutually beneficial exchange of ideas, many resort to ridicule or even persecution of those with whom they disagree.

The consequences of belief in Scientism include even such seemingly unrelated fields as agriculture.  As written by Robert J Cabin, in the HuffPost; “More than 70 years ago, Sir Albert Howard foresaw many of the problems that would result from the over-zealous application of science to the vast biological and social complexities of agroecosystems. As summarized by Michael Pollan in “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” Howard argued that ‘’the problem is that once science has reduced a complex phenomenon to a couple of variables, however important they may be, the natural tendency is to overlook everything else, to assume that what you can measure is all there is, or at least all that really matters.’’ (6)

Cabin continues, “At present, a few multinational corporate giants control an ever-increasing majority of our food production and distribution systems. Often under the guise of ‘’scientific progress,’’ these corporations continue to replace small, diversified, highly productive, ecologically sustainable, locally controlled, indigenous agricultural systems (developed in the absence of western science) with ever larger, genetically engineered monocultures that displace the local human community, require many calories of fossil fuel to produce one calorie of food, and contaminate the land and water with synthetic fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides.” (7)

So as we can see, bad science leads to bad agriculture, and back to more bad science.

But perhaps, as we shall discuss in forthcoming chapters, the most alarming and worrisome aspect of society’s unwarranted belief in scientism is its effect on our educational system. There it has influenced generations of gullible and unsuspecting youth, where we see the resulting rampant rejection of faith.


Real science, unpretentious and unassuming is this, to investigate the wonders of Creation with all the powers of our God given intellectual capacity, and to maintain truth and objectivity at all costs.” ANM

Insofar as he makes use of his healthy senses, man himself is the best and most exact scientific instrument possible.” Goethe (1)



(2) Dallas Willard, The Allure of Gentleness: Defending the Faith in the Manner of Jesus (Harper-Collins: February 10, 2015), PP. 14-15

(3) “The Perils of Semantic Ascent: Quine and Post-positivism in the Philosophy of Science” in A Nice Derangement of Epistemes




(7) ibid



Stay tuned, tomorrow we sill discuss Richard Dawkins statement, “I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world“.





Chapter 1: BIG GOD, small god:  Why Cosmology Matters .

flight landscape nature sky
Photo by Pixabay on


Chapter 1 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD

For those not yet familiar with the term, cosmology is the study of the origin and the development of the universe. If your understanding of cosmology comes from motion pictures, television, or even one of many secular colleges or universities, you may believe that “scientists” have established the age and origins of the universe, and our planet.  You may believe that evolution is an “established fact”. You may even believe that science has proven the Bible to be a collection of fairy tales.

If so, you would be wrong.

One’s view of the universe is fundamentally predicated on one’s beliefs about God.  Those who choose NOT to believe in God look for accidental, random, self-directing origins for life, for our wonderful planet, and for the universe itself.  Those who understand the concept of an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God have no need for such impossibilities, and in fact find compelling scientific evidence supporting the Bible and Creation. Consequently, one’s view of cosmology is inseparably connected to one’s views about God. Why does this matter? Because both science and religion, when taken apart from one another, can lead to distorted and wrong views about life.

The public has a distorted view of science because children are taught in school that science is a collection of firmly established truths. In fact, science is not a collection of truths. It is a continuing exploration of mysteries.” Freeman John Dyson (1)

Science is an exploration of mysteries? But that sounds so unscientific! The whole concept of mysteries is a subtle, enigmatic conundrum.  Not scientific at all.  Not a testable, provable, measurable thing.  It seems to me that Dyson’s statement might be anathema to many modern secular writers and scientists, who seem to believe they have all the answers to all the questions.

Many secular scientists would have us believe that there is no longer a place for, or a need for mysteries.  Such things are remnants of our distant past, something from pre-history, or from the Greek and Roman empires.  Mysteries were acceptable for our feeble minded progenitors in the Middle Ages, but surely we no longer have a need for such enigmas today!  We live in the age of science, and we understand the universe!   We have looked at our own DNA. We have peered a million light years into space! What need have we for mysteries?

Yet it is the mystery of it all that attracts us to science in the first place.  We show a grade school child the unexplained movement of metal shavings when approached by a magnet.  They are fascinated. We explain to them, with an air of superiority, that it is all easily explained by magnetism.  But what is magnetism?  What causes it?  What are it’s rules and limits? We can look up the cause and quickly find that the magnetism is caused when the majority of electrons in a material spin in the same direction.  Mystery solved.

But wait.  How do we know that?  And what would cause them to spin in the same direction?  And why wouldn’t they just go back to a random orientation when challenged by any electrical or magnetic field?  And perhaps most importantly… Haven’t the atomic scientists scientists told us that there is really no such thing as particles like electrons and protons? Isn’t particle theory is just a myth to help us understand how matter works?  Magnetism is caused by the spin of electrons, but there is really no such thing as electrons!  Quite a puzzling, mysterious enigmatic conundrum.

If one were to list some of the most puzzling and unexplained matters in science (mysteries), one would have to confront such issues as:

Why do we sleep?

What causes Gravity?

What is Dark matter?

How did life begin?

How do animals migrate?

Why is there infinitely more matter than antimatter?

What is Dark Energy?

Where did the universe come from?

Each of these topics seems more puzzling than the one before.  And the scientists and secularists who claim they understand everything about the universe have NOT A CLUE about these mysteries.  Stephen Hawking, who claimed to KNOW that there were black holes, and that they radiated a particular type of energy (a type that no one has ever seen or measured) could not answer these questions.  Richard Dawkins, who claims to KNOW that there is no God, and that evolution is a fact, cannot not answer these questions.  In fact every scientist who has ever lived stands in awe, and is completely humbled by questions like these.  Yet in their pride, many secular scientists insist that they are in possession of all the necessary answers.  They teach our children that they KNOW that the Big Bang occurred and that evolution occurred, and most importantly they KNOW that their is NO GOD.

But how can a scientist claim to know such deep, complicated, and intricate things?  How can they KNOW the age of the universe when they do not even know what the universe is made of, what holds it together, or how it came to be? How can they KNOW life originated spontaneously when no one but God was there to witness it, and all the laws of nature and science say abiogenesis (life from non-life) is an impossibility?

The answer is Scientism.  What is Scientism? Tom Sorrel states, “Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture.”(2)  In fact many modern scientists are so enamored of their particular branch of knowledge that they, like Ian Hutchinson of MIT, believe “Science, modeled on the natural sciences, is the only source of real knowledge.”(3)

Now firstly, try to imagine a world without wonder, without poetry, without music, without philosophy, without worship, or logic, or direct knowledge or experiential knowledge or all the other ways we learn in our daily lives!  Imagine trying to learn life only from a science lab.  Such a thing is ridiculous from the outset.  Absolutely absurd. Yet this is what many modern secular scientist promote… and worse yet, this (Scientism) is what our children are being taught in our educational system!

And secondly, practitioners of Scientism will rarely admit it, but Scientism is ultimately self defeating. If science is indeed the only source of knowledge, but Scientism cannot be proven scientifically, then it is disqualified by its own rules.  The scientific method requires testing a hypothesis, and if that hypothesis, such as the belief in Scientism, cannot be tested and proven true or false, it cannot proven scientifically.  Scientism is not in itself a science.  It cannot be proven, or falsified, in a lab. It is not even scientific!  Scientism is a philosophy, and as such must be accepted, discussed, and potentially rejected under the rules of philosophy.

Now let’s compare and contrast this with what I call populist cosmology.

If you ask the man or woman on the street “Is it possible to predict the future?”, they will likely say no.  It is of course NOT possible for us to “predict the future” except in a very few, short term, low variable type situations, like tomorrow’s weather. And yet as humans, we see this as just another obstacle to be overcome. So that is exactly what secular scientists are continually trying to do, attempting to predict the weather, earthquakes, hurricanes, politics, economics, lifespans, relationships, and dozens of other events in life. This might not seem such a bad thing.  After all, isn’t that the exciting and compelling thing about science fiction, the desire to see into the future? What is the harm in that?

Well perhaps if it only involved educated, consenting adults who understood the actual underlying principles of scientific research and statistical analysis it would be acceptable. Or perhaps if it were seen for what it was, which is science fiction rather than hard science, perhaps it would be acceptable.  Perhaps if humanity were better at separating fact from fantasy…  But such is not the case. This area of “soft science” has pervaded all aspects of education and the media.

In another way of looking at this, one could say that the merger between science and pop culture has created a progeny.  That progeny is called scientism, and in the name of science, our children are instead taught scientism from early grade school all the way through college.  They are also exposed to it on shows like “Star Trek” and “The Big Bang Theory” and even “Avengers: Endgame” (all of which I find quite entertaining).  But while it is treated as actual science, many of the predictions made by scientism (about both past and future events) have much more in common with indoctrination and fortune telling than with actual, provable science.  Consider the following headline for example:

“Scientists Have Figured Out When And How Our Sun Will Die, And It’s Going to Be Epic”

So reads the headline on (4) And the article goes on to say, “The Sun is about 4.6 billion years old – gauged on the age of other objects in the Solar System that formed around the same time. And, based on observations of other stars, astronomers predict it will reach the end of its life in about another 10 billion years.”

The science of Astronomy is indeed amazing.  Astronomers observe,  speculate, theorize and calculate.  They attempt to explain this magnificent universe in which we live.  But they fail to tell you, as they predict earth’s incineration and demise, that their theories and explanations are still, even now, full of holes the size of galaxies. 

Or for another example, consider the following article by Jillian Scudder.

It is widely understood that the Earth as a planet will not survive the sun’s expansion into a full-blown red giant star. The surface of the sun will probably reach the current orbit of Mars – and, while the Earth’s orbit may also have expanded outwards slightly, it won’t be enough to save it from being dragged into the surface of the sun, whereupon our planet will rapidly disintegrate.” (5)

Or if you prefer to get your forecasts from NBC news, here is a headline:

“Now we know what will happen when the sun dies” 

“New study suggests our star will become one of the prettiest objects in the night sky.”(6) Of course, at the time they predict our suns demise, the earth will already be long gone according to their own predictions.  The astronomers had been arguing back and forth among themselves as to whether when the sun died it would create a planetary nebula.  This latest theory (latest computer model) says it will, and it will supposedly be spectacular to see.

These are just a couple of the many pseudo-scientific internet sites that predict the future of our planet, and the fate of our sun.  But what happened to the belief that “we can’t predict the future”?  Well, you might say, “this is different… these are scientists!”  Yes, that is what they say.  But what is a scientist? And more importantly, what types of predictions for the future have scientist made?  What are their results and their credentials for predicting future events?

Well it turns out that scientists are quite good at predicting the future of a real time event in a laboratory if all the factors are known and contained, and the the basic processes of physics are completely stable. They can tell you what is going to happen in the next few minutes after you combine sodium and chloride in a test tube.  They can predict what will happen when gasoline and oxygen are allowed to interact in the presence of intense heat.  These momentary observations can be reproduced again and again in a laboratory or a test tube.  The results will be the same and are thus predictable.

But what are their credentials in predicting things even just a thousand years from now?  Has science ever done that? No.  Not yet anyway.

Martyn Shuttleworth authored the following excellent discussion about predictive science.

Printer-friendly versionSend by emailPDF version

Scientists and Soothsayers

“Prediction in research fulfills one of the basic desires of humanity, to discern the future and know what fate holds. Such foresight used to involve studying the stars or looking at the entrails of animals. Obviously, few pay heed to such methods, in the modern world, but many people expect scientists to become the new soothsayers and predict where humanity, the environment, and the universe will end up. To a certain extent, most scientists regularly use prediction in research as a fundamental of the  scientific method, when they generate a hypothesis and predict what will happen.As part of humanity’s quest to understand nature, predictive science is much more widespread than before. Much of this is due to the exponential growth in computing power, which allows gradually more detailed and accurate models. These are of great use in predicting the weather or natural disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis.The other factor driving this growth of predictions in research is politics and economics. Predicting the weather benefits an economy by informing farmers about what to expect, and allows emergency services to predict when adverse weather may require action. Economics is prediction driven and, as the current economic crisis shows, incorrect predictions can be devastating, although whether politicians choose to listen to the advice of computer prediction models, if they disagree with their policies, is another matter.With the millions of dollars invested by governments, or by oil companies using the predictions of geologists to know where to drill test wells, predictive science is only going to grow. However, this entire field of science and computing rests upon the same foundations that drove early scientists, the principle of making a prediction and setting out to test it. Unfortunately, these predictions in science are at the whim of paymasters, whether in government or the private sector. This will always compromise the integrity of the scientists making predictions, but prediction in research will always drive the scientific method. That is my prediction, anyway! “(7) You may have noted Martyn’s disdain for the effects that money, power and politics can have or science, when he states “This will always compromise the integrity of the scientists making predictions”. 

And as you may have predicted, I agree entirely.



(2) Sorell, Tom. Scientism: Philosophy and the Infatuation with Science. New York: Routledge, 1991.

(3) Hutchinson, Ian. Monopolizing Knowledge: A Scientist Refutes Religion-Denying, Reason-Destroying Scientism. Belmont, MA: Fias Publishing, 2011.











Evolution, The Big Bang, and Other Fables

flight landscape nature sky
Photo by Pixabay on



Twenty-two chapters to follow on

Do you REALLY believe you evolved from a bacteria in a mud puddle? Do you REALLY accept that the tens of millions of species of plants and animals on our beautiful planet just accidentally appeared or developed themselves from nothing?  If you do, please read this book.  You will find many SCIENTIFIC reasons to question what you have been taught about the supposedly solid foundations of evolution. You may find that much of what you believe is founded in dogma, not scientific fact, and you will hopefully find your mind enlightened with a new view of science, and history, and especially evolution.

There exists an intricate, but little-discussed alliance between secular atheism and the teaching of evolution in our educational system.  This is fostered by a false view of science and it’s limits and abilities. Evolution is discussed, taught, pushed, and essentially propagandized, while concurrently teaching our youth that science has all the answers (Scientism), and that science “knows” that the universe is 13 billion years old. Students are taught that life created itself from nothing and evolved, and by the time they finish college most believe that the Bible and all teachings about God and His creation are fairy tales. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This book is an essential and critical addition to the debate on Evolution and Cosmology (the study of the origin of the universe).  It is essential because we must not lose another generation of youth to the false secular atheistic teachings of the public schools without providing a coherent, substantive, scientific answer to the questions of human origins. My only regret is that it was not written sooner.

I am a practicing Emergency Physician, and I have had an interest in the creation-evolution debate since I was in high school and early college. Last year I created a blog which can be accessed at or  This book is a compilation of scientific, philosophical and scriptural post from that site, a summary of scientific findings related to the debate on evolution vs creation.

This book is a critical read for pastors, educators, and students because there now exists an abundance of scientific evidence that disproves evolution.

In addition, there is beginning to accumulate an amount of scientific evidence sufficient to cast a great deal of doubt on the secular scientists’ proposals for Deep Time and the Big Bang. All of this is abundantly supported by and compatible with scripture. But why is this important?  Who really cares exactly how old the earth is, or the universe is? It turns out it is critically important, because as I will explain in later chapters, if our youth understand the scientific failures of evolutionism and scientism, they will be far less likely to fall for the lies of atheism. (See Chapter 20.)

Science, when properly taught and understood, is not in conflict with Scripture. As I wrote last year;  “Real science, unpretentious and unassuming is this, to investigate the wonders of Creation with all the powers of our God-given intellectual capacity, and to maintain truth and objectivity at all costs.” ANM

I believe this book should become a standard for the evaluation of all future educational materials in the sciences, starting with Christian Colleges, Schools, and Academies, and then in the curriculum of every educational system in the US.

Table of Contents

1. BIG GOD, small god:  Why Cosmology Matters.   Our view of the world, our selves, our relationships, and even our families changes drastically when science tells us there is no God. But what does science really tell us?

2.  Real Science  There is no conflict between science and the Bible.  There are just incomplete understandings of both. “Real science, unpretentious and unassuming is this, to investigate the wonders of Creation with all the powers of our God-given intellectual capacity, and to maintain truth and objectivity at all costs.” ANM

3.  Evolutionism, Scientism, and the Demise of Atheism. The scientific underpinnings of evolution have been progressively weakened to the point that belief in evolution is now held completely on the basis of faith, not science.

4.  Hoaxed. Evolution will someday be shown to be the greatest hoax in the history of science.  Is it, as the title of Jonathan Sarfati’s book suggests, “The Greatest Hoax on Earth?”

5.  The Day Evolution Died. Evolution began as a theory. Secular atheist educators have now for decades pushed it as “settled science”. But the science has come full circle, and evolution is no longer even a plausible theory. Tragically in the meantime, it has become such a firmly implanted dogma that few in the educational system dare oppose it.

6.  The Cambrian Explosion. Let’s discuss the absurdity of the teachings of modern science.  Secular atheists believe in evolution, and at the same time teach that during the so-called Cambrian Explosion, all life appeared suddenly on the earth.

7.  The Data in the Strata. Do Fossils support evolution?  Absolutely NOT. Are they compatible with a great flood? Perhaps much more than you know.  Find out here.

8.  Natural Selection: The Machine that Built Itself, The human body has been called the most complex and intricate machine in the universe.  Do evolutionary scientists really have proof that we created ourselves through evolution?

9.  Micro-Evolution. The Machine that Built Itself. Evolutionary theory all comes down to chemical changes in DNA, RNA, and Proteins.  Is evolution practically, or even theoretically possible at this level?

10.  A knife in the Back. Secular scientists who study evolution are like policemen who don’t believe in murder.  What do they do when they find a dead body in the park with a knife in his back?

11.  The Created Chimp Genome. In the 1990’s we were constantly told how closely we were related to the Chimps.  Now that the real data is out, evolutionists are strangely quiet.  What does it really show?

12.  Sex: Evolutionary Accident or God’s Gift? It turns out that worldview does make a difference.  In fact, it makes an enormous difference whether our children are raised believing they are a gift from God or believing they are the result of an accident of cosmology.

13.  Science vs Reason. Yes, you read that correctly. The title of this chapter is NOT faith vs reason.  It is science vs reason. Perhaps there should never have been any conflict… but enter human nature.

14.  Antithetical, Lemmings, and Unethicalists.  What is the difference between responsible scientific inquiry and scientism? Read this chapter and find out.

15.  Five Things Everyone Should Know about Scientism. Scientism is quite possibly the most important new word every Christian should add to their vocabulary!

16.  The Failure of Uniformitarianism.  Secular scientists say they search out history by applying dependable uniformitarian assumptions.  Do they really? How dependable are these assumptions, and do they apply them all the time, or just when it is convenient and supportive of their own presuppositions?

17.  Nothing can’t Do Something. Where did the universe come from? Is the Big Bang really scientific? You may be surprised at the answer.

18.  The Absurd Cosmology of the Big Bang. Is the Big Bang actually scientific? Has it been proven? Are “holes” in the theory bigger than the theory itself… or perhaps bigger than the entire universe?

19.  To Teach, To Educate, or to Tell the Truth? A challenge to educators who have for too long just “gone along with the flow”. If we are to redeem the lives of our youth from the hopelessness and meaninglessness of atheism, and provide meaning for their lives, it must start with teaching Truth.

20.  Millennials: A generation lost in Deep Time.  What you believe about the origin of the universe affects what you believe about the Bible.  And what you believe about the Bible affects what you believe about yourself!

21.  Branch or Vine? Evolution and Scripture.  Is modern science contaminated by the secular atheistic worldview?  Is is possible that science could progress even more rapidly and honestly with a scriptural worldview?

22.  A Hope and a Future. We can still save a generation of youth.  Truth Matters.  Science Matters.  The Bible Matters.  And YOU Matter!

Authors note: For those who have followed my blog over the past year, thank you. I hope you will enjoy this concisely edited compilation of some of the facts and science surrounding the modern day fable called evolution. And I hope you will share this with your own fathers, and children, and friends.

I plan to release a chapter a day for the next 22 days.  Happy reading.