Time magazine, 25 September 2009, published an article by Richard Dawkins, The Angry Evolutionists, in which Dawkins states that there are more people that believe in angels than in evolution.  Richard Dawkins is supposedly a very bright fellow; and I would have expected him to write some very profound article explaining why people should believe in evolution.  Instead, we got what appears to be a very frustrated intellectual, with preconceived biased ideas about evolution, the non-existence of God, and the stupidity of the creationist’ position.  In the article, Dawkins, instead of presenting an argument for acceptance of the truth of his ideas, presents a straw-man argument about the stupidity of the creationist.

This is the very reason that evolutionists generally refuse to debate with scientists who are also creationists.  The debate often ends with an ad hominem personal attack on the character or qualifications of the creationist.  This is because the creationist can and does expose the many holes in the fabric of evolution that the evolutionists fail to adequately answer.  By the late 1970’s, debates between creationists and evolutionists were being held on university campuses.  Luther Sunderland writes:

Evolutionists such as Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould were stating that since the creationist scientists had won all of the more than 100 debates, the evolutionists should not debate them.[1]

Regardless what Dawkins and other evolutionists believe, when you scrutinize the theory, putting aside your preconceptions, the theory is just that, a theory.  The evolutionist cannot make it a fact by stating that the only alternative, special creation, is unthinkable.

Dawkins complains that the creationists keep repeating a mantra about gaps in the fossil record.  Then Dawkins states that, “We don’t need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact.”  But, Dawkins does not tell us what evidence he has that proves evolution.

In spite of the proof that Dawkins fails to mention, there are evolutionists that have made some very startling admissions.  According to an evolution scientist, D.M.S. Watson, in his 1929 article in Nature magazine, titled Adaptation:

“Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.”

The world's foremost evolutionist, the late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, admits:

“New species almost always appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region.”[2]

Also, David B. Kitts admits:

“Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record.  Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.”[3]

Is it then any wonder that extreme atheist evolutionists such as Dawkins and Gould have abandoned any hope of finding intermediate fossils?

The evolutionist clutches at the straw of “variation within kind (micro-evolution),” which is the survival mechanism built within the genetic code of all living organisms, and then palms it off as evidence for macro-evolution (a change into something entirely different).  This is done in most, if not all, science textbooks that promote the evolutionary theory.  At the microbe level, micro-biologist point to the changes they see in viruses and say, “See, it is proof of evolution.”  Creationists do not deny that this is evolution, but the virus is still a virus; it has just adapted using its permissible variation available within its genetic code.

In a recent science assignment paper presented in a university science class, a student wrote:

“If evolution cannot be conclusively proven as fact (and it cannot since no one was there to witness the Big Bang and so on), It then it should be taught as a theory and the theory of creationism should be taught alongside it.”

The teacher remarked in the margin concerning the student’s statement as follows:

This has been proven in countless experiments where mutations have changed the characteristics of the organism: For example dog breading.

This reply by a major university biology professor is a sad testimony to the paucity of real evidence supposedly available that “proves” evolution theory.  It also testifies to the lack of understanding by most teachers to the real issues of the creation/evolution debate.  Resorting to dogs as proof of evolution is simply an appeal to micro-evolution to support belief in macro-evolution.  In dog breading, all dogs remain canines throughout.

In general, teachers have been indoctrinated in their thinking in terms of evolution, believing that it is a proven fact.  They therefore simply parrot what they have been taught, and what their biased textbook tells them.  Most have never considered the alternatives of either creationism or intelligent design.  Because of their preconceived ideas, they believe that pursuit to be a waste of time.

Many articles are printed each year supposedly presenting the “proof” of evolution, or presenting evolution as if it was a proven “fact.”  An article found on line at MSN, dated 6 October 2009, states that new evidence shows that the Komodo Dragon supposedly “evolved” in Australia between 300,000 years ago to as much as 4 million years ago.  The article then goes on to say that the proof of this is that they now have found fossils of the Komodo Dragon dated within the range above, and the fossil bones are said to be “identical” with the Komodo Dragon bones today.  How can evolution be said to have occurred if the fossil bones are identical with modern bones?[4]

An evolutionists of the stature of Richard Dawkins, writing hit-pieces against creationism without providing evidence makes one wonder what kind of proof he really has.  If evolutionists had irrefutable proof as they claim, then there would be no further debate.