"Dragon" Descriptions

All throughout the ancient world's literature and art, dragons are described and depicted. What were these "mythical" creatures anyway? Could they have been dinosaurs with a different name? You decide as i list the actual descriptions of these creatures.

____________________________________________

The full chapter on dragons can be found in Bill Cooper's online book. He sites the sources and gives more information on these "dragons." http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/ch10.html
Pictures in ancient art depict dinosaurs as well. http://s8int.com/dinolit1.html

This stegosaur is drawn on a temple in Angor Watt, Cambodia.

______________________________________________

'Dinosaurs', in the form of flying reptiles, were a feature of Welsh life until surprisingly recent times. As late as the beginning of the present century, elderly folk at Penllin in Glamorgan used to tell of a colony of winged serpents that lived in the woods around Penllin Castle. As Marie Trevelyan tells us:
'The woods around Penllin Castle, Glamorgan, had the reputation of being frequented by winged serpents, and these were the terror of old and young alike. An aged inhabitant of Penllyne, who died a few years ago, said that in his boyhood the winged serpents were described as very beautiful. They were coiled when in repose, and "looked as if they were covered with jewels of all sorts. Some of them had crests sparkling with all the colours of the rainbow". When disturbed they glided swiftly, "sparkling all over," to their hiding places. When angry, they "flew over people's heads, with outspread wings, bright, and sometimes with eyes too, like the feathers in a peacock's tail". He said it was "no old story invented to frighten children", but a real fact. His father and uncle had killed some of them, for they were as bad as foxes for poultry. The old man attributed the extinction of the winged serpents to the fact that they were "terrors in the farmyards and coverts".)

The giant reptile at Bures in Suffolk, for example, is known to us from a chronicle of 1405:

'Close to the town of Bures, near Sudbury, there has lately appeared, to the great hurt of the countryside, a dragon, vast in body, with a crested head, teeth like a saw, and a tail extending to an enormous length. Having slaughtered the shepherd of a flock, it devoured many sheep.'

After an unsuccessful attempt by local archers to kill the beast, due to its impenetrable hide,

'...in order to destroy him, all the country people around were summoned. But when the dragon saw that he was again to be assailed with arrows, he fled into a marsh or mere and there hid himself among the long reeds, and was no more seen.'

Later in the 15th century, according to a contemporary chronicle that still survives in Canterbury Cathedral's library, the following incident was reported. On the afternoon of Friday, 26th September, 1449, two giant reptiles were seen fighting on the banks of the River Stour (near the village of Little Cornard) which marked the English county borders of Suffolk and Essex. One was black, and the other 'reddish and spotted'. After an hour-long struggle that took place 'to the admiration of many [of the locals] beholding them', the black monster yielded and returned to its lair, the scene of the conflict being known ever since as Sharpfight Meadow. (9)

As late as August, 1614, the following sober account was given of a strange reptile that was encountered in St Leonard's Forest in Sussex. The sighting was near a village that was known as Dragon's Green long before this report was published:

'This serpent (or dragon as some call it) is reputed to be nine feete, or rather more, in length, and shaped almost in the form of an axletree of a cart: a quantitie of thickness in the middest, and somewhat smaller at both endes. The former part, which he shootes forth as a necke, is supposed to be an elle [3 ft 9 ins or 1 l4 cms] long; with a white ring, as it were, of scales about it. The scales along his back seem to be blackish, and so much as is discovered under his belie, appeareth to be red... it is likewise discovered to have large feete, but the eye may there be deceived, for some suppose that serpents have no feete ... [The dragon] rids away (as we call it) as fast as a man can run. His food [rabbits] is thought to be; for the most part, in a conie-warren, which he much frequents ...There are likewise upon either side of him discovered two great bunches so big as a large foote-ball, and (as some thinke) will in time grow to wings, but God, I hope, will (to defend the poor people in the neighbourhood) that he shall be destroyed before he grows to fledge.'

This dragon was seen in various places within a circuit of three or four miles, and the pamphlet named some of the still-living witnesses who had seen him. These included John Steele, Christopher Holder and a certain 'widow woman dwelling neare Faygate'. Another witness was 'the carrier of Horsham, who lieth at the White Horse [inn] in Southwark'. One of the locals set his two mastiffs onto the monster, and apart from losing his dogs he was fortunate to escape alive from the encounter, for the dragon was already credited with the deaths of a man and woman at whom it had spat and who consequently had been killed by its venom. When approached unwittingly, our pamphleteer tells us, the monster was...

'...of countenance very proud and at the sight or hearing of men or cattel will raise

his neck upright and seem to listen and looke about, with great arrogancy.'
an eyewitness account of typically reptilian behaviour.

As recently as the 18th century, in a lake called Llyn-y-Gader in Snowdon, Wales, a certain man went swimming. He reached the middle of the lake and was returning to the shore when his friends who were watching him noticed that he was being followed by:

'...a long, trailing object winding slowly behind him. They were afraid to raise an alarm, but went forward to meet him as soon as he reached the shore where they stood. Just as he was approaching, the trailing object raised its head, and before anyone could render aid the man was enveloped in the coils of the monster...'

It seems that the man's body was never recovered.

At about the turn of this present century, the following incident took place. It was related by a Lady Gregory of Ireland in 1920:

'...old people told me that they were swimming there, [in an Irish lake called Lough Graney] and a man had gone out into the middle, and they saw something like a great big eel making for him...'

Happily, on this occasion the man made it back to the shore, but the important thing for us to notice is that these are only a few of a great many reports concerning the sightings in recent times of lake-dwelling monsters which, if only their fossils had been found, would have been called dinosaurs.

But the British Isles are not the only place where one can find such reports. They occur, quite literally, all over the world. (14) William Caxton, for example, England's first printer, recorded for us in 1484 the following account of a reptilian monster in medieval Italy. I have modernised the spelling and punctuation:

' There was found within a great river [i.e. the Po in Italy] a monster marine, or of the sea, of the form or likeness which followeth. He had the form or making of a fish, the which part was in two halves, that is to wit double. He had a great beard and he had two wonderfully great horns above his ears. Also he had great paps and a wonderfully great and horrible mouth. And at the both [of] his elbows he had wings right broad and great of fish's armour wherewith he swimmed and only he had but the head out of the water. It happed then that many women laundered and washed at the port or haven of the said river [where] that this horrible and fearful beast was, [who] for lack or default of meat came swimming toward the said women. Of the which he took one by the hand and supposed to have drawn her into the water. But she was strong and well advised and resisted against the said monster. And as she defended herself, she began to cry with an high voice, "Help, help!" To the which came running five women which by hurling and drawing of stones, killed and slew the said monster, for he was come too far within the sound, wherefore he might not return to the deep water. And after, when he rendered his spirit, he made a right little cry. He was of great corpulence more than any man's body. And yet, saith Poge [Pogius Bracciolini of Florence] in this manner, that he, being at Ferrara, he saw the said monster and saith yet that the young children were accustomed for to go bathe and wash them within the said river, but they came not all again. Wherefore the women [neither] washed nor laundered their clothes at the said port, for the folk presumed and supposed that the monster killed the young children which were drowned.'

Caxton also provided the following account of a 'serpent' which left a cow badly bruised and frightened, although we should bear in mind that a serpent in Caxton's day was not the snake that we would imagine today, for the word serpent has changed its meaning slightly since the Middle Ages. There are one or two intriguing woodcut illustrations of these serpents in Caxton's book, and they are all bipedal, scaled reptiles with large mouths:

'...about the marches of Italy, within a meadow, was sometime a serpent of wonderful and right marvellous greatness, right hideous and fearful. For first he had the head greater than the head of a calf. Secondly, he had a neck of the length of an ass, and his body made after the likeness of a dog. And his tail was wonderfully great, thick and long, without comparison to any other. A cow ... [seeing] ...so right horrible a beast, she was all fearful and lift herself up and supposed to have fled away. But the serpent, with his wonderfully long tail, enlaced her two hind legs. And the serpent then began to suck the cow. And indeed so much and so long he sucked that he found some milk. And when the cow might escape from him, she fled unto the other cows. And her paps and her hind legs, and all that the serpent touched, was all black a great space of time.'

The following, for example, was penned only two hundred years ago in 1793 and describes creatures that sound suspiciously like pterodactyls or similar. Remember, it is an official and very sober government report that we are reading:

'In the end of November and beginning of December last, many of the country people observed dragons appearing in the north and flying rapidly towards the east; from which they concluded, and their conjectures were right, that...boisterous weather would follow.'

Likewise, the Voluspa tells us of a certain monster which the early Vikings called a Nithhoggr, its name (corpse-tearer) revealing the fact that it lived off carrion. Saxo Grammaticus, in his Gesta Danorum, tells us of the Danish king Frotho's fight with a giant reptile, and it is in the advice given by a local to the king, and recorded by Saxo, that the monster is described in great detail. It was, he says, a serpent:

'...wreathed in coils, doubled in many a fold, and with a tail drawn out in winding whorls, shaking his manifold spirals and shedding venom ... his slaver [saliva] burns up what it bespattersyet [he tells the king in words that were doubtless meant to encourage rather than dismay] ...remember to keep the dauntless temper of thy mind; nor let the point of the jagged tooth trouble thee, nor the starkness of the beast, nor the venom there is a place under his lowest belly whither thou mayst plunge the blade'

This beach monster washed up on california's shore in 1925. Read full story here:
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=115

Whale Evolution?

by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M.
First published in Refuting Evolution
Chapter 5

Cetaceans (whales and dolphins) are actually mammals, not fish. But they live their whole lives in water, unlike most mammals that live on land. But evolutionists believe that cetaceans evolved from land mammals. One alleged transitional series is prominently drawn in Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science. This chapter analyzes this and other arguments for cetacean evolution, and shows some of the unique features of whales and dolphins.



Wonderful whales

Cetaceans have many unique features to enable them to live in water. For example:

• Enormous lung capacity with efficient oxygen exchange for long dives.
• A powerful tail with large horizontal flukes enabling very strong swimming.
• Eyes designed to see properly in water with its far higher refractive index, and withstand high pressure.
• Ears designed differently from those of land mammals that pick up airborne sound waves and with the eardrum protected from high pressure.
• Skin lacking hair and sweat glands but incorporating fibrous, fatty blubber.
• Whale fins and tongues have counter-current heat exchangers to minimize heat loss.
• Nostrils on the top of the head (blowholes).
• Specially fitting mouth and nipples so the baby can be breast-fed underwater.
• Baleen whales have sheets of baleen (whalebone) that hang from the roof of the mouth and filter plankton for food.

Many cetaceans find objects by echo-location. They have a sonar system which is so precise that it's the envy of the U.S. Navy. It can detect a fish the size of a golf ball 230 feet (70 m) away. It took an expert in chaos theory to show that the dolphin's 'click' pattern is mathematically designed to give the best information.1

One amazing adaptation of most echo-locating dolphins and small whales is the 'melon,' a fatty protrusion on the forehead. This 'melon' is actually a sound lens—a sophisticated structure designed to focus the emitted sound waves into a beam which the dolphin can direct where it likes. This sound lens depends on the fact that different lipids (fatty compounds) bend the ultrasonic sound waves traveling through them in different ways. The different lipids have to be arranged in the right shape and sequence in order to focus the returning sound echoes. Each separate lipid is unique and different from normal blubber lipids, and is made by a complicated chemical process, requiring a number of different enzymes.2

For such an organ to have evolved, random mutations must have formed the right enzymes to make the right lipids, and other mutations must have caused the lipids to be deposited in the right place and shape. A gradual step-by-step evolution of the organ is not feasible, because until the lipids were fully formed and at least partly in the right place and shape, they would have been of no use. Therefore, natural selection would not have favored incomplete intermediate forms.

Missing links

Evolutionists believe that whales evolved from some form of land mammal. According to Teaching about Evolution, page 18, they 'evolved from a primitive group of hoofed mammals called Mesonychids.'

However, there are many changes required for a whale to evolve from a land mammal. One of them is to get rid of its pelvis. This would tend to crush the reproductive orifice with propulsive tail movements. But a shrinking pelvis would not be able to support the hind-limbs needed for walking. So the hypothetical transitional form would be unsuited to both land and sea, and hence be extremely vulnerable. Also, the hind part of the body must twist on the fore part, so the tail's sideways movement can be converted to a vertical movement. Seals and dugongs are not anatomically intermediate between land mammals and whales. They have particular specializations of their own.

The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realized by evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper: 'We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales.'3

The lowest whale fossils in the fossil record show they were completely aquatic from the first time they appeared. However, Teaching about Evolution is intended as a polemic for evolution. So it reconstructs some recent fossil discoveries to support the whale evolution stories that Slijper believed on faith. On page 18 there is a nice picture of an alleged transitional series between land mammals and whales (drawn at roughly the same size without telling readers that some of the creatures were hugely different in size—see the section about Basilosaurus in this chapter). This appears to be derived from an article in Discover magazine.4 The Discover list (below) is identical to the Teaching about Evolution series except that the latter has Basilosaurus as the fourth creature and the Discover list has 'dates':

• Mesonychid (55 million years ago)
• Ambulocetus (50 million years ago)
• Rodhocetus (46 million years ago)
• Prozeuglodon (40 million years ago)

One thing to note is the lack of time for the vast number of changes to occur by mutation and selection. If a mutation results in a new gene, for this new gene to replace the old gene in a population, the individuals carrying the old gene must be eliminated, and this takes time. Population genetics calculations suggest that in 5 million years (one million years longer than the alleged time between Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus), animals with generation lines of about ten years (typical of whales) could substitute no more than about 1,700 mutations.5 This is not nearly enough to generate the new information that whales need for aquatic life, even assuming that all the hypothetical information-adding mutations required for this could somehow arise. (And as shown in chapter 9, real science shows that this cannot occur.)


Ambulocetus




(A) Reconstruction of Ambulocetus, 'at the end of the power stroke during swimming.'7 The stippled bones were all that were found, and the shaded ones were found 5 m above the rest.
(B) With the 'additions' removed there really isn't much left of Ambulocetus!


The second in this 'transitional series' is the 7-foot (2 m) long Ambulocetus natans ('walking whale that swims'). Like the secular media and more 'popular' science journals, Teaching about Evolution often presents nice neat stories to readers, not the ins and outs of the research methodology, including its limitations. The nice pictures of Ambulocetus natans in these publications are based on artists' imaginations, and should be compared with the actual bones found! The difference is illustrated well in the article A Whale of a Tale?6 This article shows that the critical skeletal elements necessary to establish the transition from non-swimming land mammal to whale are (conveniently) missing (see diagram). Therefore, grand claims about the significance of the fossils cannot be critically evaluated. The evolutionary biologist Annalisa Berta commented on the Ambulocetus fossil:

Since the pelvic girdle is not preserved, there is no direct evidence in Ambulocetus for a connection between the hind limbs and the axial skeleton. This hinders interpretations of locomotion in this animal, since many of the muscles that support and move the hindlimb originate on the pelvis.7

Finally, it is dated more recently (by evolutionary dating methods) than undisputed whales, so is unlikely to be a walking ancestor of whales.

Basilosaurus

Basilosaurus isis (a.k.a. euglodon) is the fourth and last postulated transitional form on page 18 of Teaching about Evolution. Basilosaurus is Greek for 'king lizard,' but it was actually a serpent-like sea mammal about 70 feet (21 m) long, with a 5-foot (1.5 m) long skull. It was 10 times as long as Ambulocetus, although the Teaching about Evolution book draws them at the same size—it helps give the desired (false) impression that there is a genuine transitional series.

However, Basilosaurus was fully aquatic, so hardly transitional between land mammals and whales. Also, Barbara Stahl, a vertebrate paleontologist and evolutionist, points out:

The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar shape of the cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes [like Basilosaurus] could not possibly have been the ancestor of modern whales.

Both modern branches of whales, the toothed whales (Odontoceti) and baleen whales (Mysticeti), appear abruptly in the fossil record. Stahl points out the following regarding the skull structure in both types:

… shows a strange modification not present, even in a rudimentary way, in Basilosaurus and its relatives: in conjunction with the backward migration of the nostrils on the dorsal surface of the head, the nasal bones have been reduced and carried upwards and the premaxillary and maxillary elements have expanded to the rear to cover the original braincase roof.8

Basilosaurus did have small hind limbs (certainly too small for walking), and Teaching Evolution says 'they were thought to be non-functional.' But they were probably used for grasping during copulation, according to even other evolutionists. For example, the evolutionary whale expert Philip Gingerich said, 'It seems to me that they could only have been some kind of sexual and reproductive clasper.'9


Pakicetus









Top left:Gingerich's first reconstruction10,12
Bottom left: what he had actually found10,12
Top right: more complete skeleton13
Bottom right: more reasonable reconstruction15


Pakicetus inachus is yet another candidate as an intermediate between whales and land mammals in the eyes of some evolutionists. According to evolutionary 'dating' methods it is 52 million years old. Since some educational publications have also claimed Pakicetus is transitional (see diagram), it is worth discussing although it is absent from Teaching about Evolution. This indicates that its authors don't believe Pakicetus is a good example of an intermediate. This could be because Pakicetus is known only from some cheek teeth and fragments of the skull and lower jaw, so we have no way of knowing whether its locomotion was transitional. The diagram shows the imaginative reconstruction taught to schoolteachers and on the cover of Science, compared to the reality as reported in the same issue. Note that only the stippled parts of the skull represent actual fossil evidence, while the rest is 'reconstructed.' But we do know that its hearing mechanism was that of a land mammal and that it was found in fluvial sediments with other land animals.10 So the evidence shows that it was probably a land mammal, not a transitional form.11

After I first wrote Refuting Evolution, new research has blown away this reconstruction. This demonstrates an oft-repeated phenomenon in evolutionary paleontology. Many of the alleged transitional forms are based on fragmentary remains, which are therefore open to several interpretations, based on one's axioms. Evolutionary bias means that such remains are often likely to be interpreted as transitional, as with Gingerich, and is also prevalent in ape-man claims. But when more bones are discovered, then the fossils nearly always fit one type or another, and are no longer plausible as transitional. It's also notable that alleged intermediate forms are often trumpeted in the media, while retractions are usually muted or unpublicized.

A prominent whale expert, Thewissen, and colleagues unearthed some more bones of Pakicetus, and published their work in the journal Nature.13 The commentary on this paper in the same issue14 says, 'All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and … indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground.' (See illustration, above right.) This is very different from Gingerich's picture of an aquatic animal! But the evolutionary bias is still clear, describing Pakicetus as a 'terrestrial cetacean' and saying, 'The first whales were fully terrestrial, and were even efficient runners.' But the term 'whale' becomes meaningless if it can describe land mammals, and it provides no insight into how true marine whales supposedly evolved.

Also, 'solid anatomical data' contradict previous theories of whale ancestry. The news article Fossil Finds Show Whales Related to Early Pigs says:

'Until now paleontologists thought whales had evolved from mesonychians, an extinct group of land-dwelling carnivores, while molecular scientists studying DNA were convinced they descended from artiodactyls [even-toed ungulates]

'"The paleontologists, and I am one of them, were wrong," Gingerich said.'

Such candor is commendable, and it shows the fallacy of trusting alleged 'proofs' of evolution. Pity that Gingerich is still committed to materialistic evolutionism.

G.A. Mchedlidze, a Russian expert on whales, has expressed serious doubts as to whether creatures like Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, and others—even if accepted as aquatic mammals—can properly be considered ancestors of modern whales. He sees them instead as a completely isolated group.16

Vestigial legs?


Many evolutionists support whale evolution by alleging that there are vestigial hind legs buried in their flesh. However, these so-called 'remnants' are not useless at all, but help strengthen the reproductive organs—the bones are different in males and females. So they are best explained by creation, not evolution.17 As with the allegedly functionless limbs of Basilosaurus, we should not assume that ignorance of a function means there is no function.

One myth promulgated by some evolutionists says that some whales have been found with hind legs, complete with thigh and knee muscles. However, this story probably grew by legendary accretion from a true account of a real sperm whale with a 5.5 inch (14 cm) bump with a 5-inch (12 cm) piece of bone inside. Sperm whales are typically about 62 feet (19 m) long, so this abnormal piece of bone is minute in comparison with the whale—this hardly qualifies as a 'leg!'18

References and notes

1. R. Howlett, Flipper's Secret, New Scientist 154(2088):34–39, 28 June 1997. Return to text.
2. U. Varanasi, H.R. Feldman, and D.C. Malins, Molecular Basis for Formation of Lipid Sound Lens in Echolocating Cetaceans, Nature 255(5506):340–343, 22 May 1975. Return to text.
3. E.J. Slijper, Dolphins and Whales (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1962), p. 17. Return to text.
4. C. Zimmer, Back to the Sea, Discover, p. 83, January 1995. Return to text
5. This is explained fully in W.J. ReMine, The Biotic Message (St. Paul, MN: St. Paul Science, 1993), chapter 8. Return to text
6. D. Batten, A Whale of a Tale? CEN Tech. J. 8(1):2–3, 1994. Return to text
7. J.G.M. Thewissen, S.T. Hussain, and M. Arif, Fossil Evidence for the Origin of Aquatic Locomotion in Archeocete Whales, Science 263(5144):210–212, 14 January 1994. Perspective by A. Berta, What is a Whale?, same issue, p. 180–181. Return to text
8. B.J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974), p. 489; emphasis added. Return to text
9. The Press Enterprise, 1 July 1990. A–15. Return to text
10. P.D. Gingerich, N.A. Wells, D.E. Russell, and S.M.I. Shah, Science 220(4595):403–6, 22 April 1983. Return to text
11. A detailed analysis of alleged whale intermediates is A.L. Camp, The Overselling of Whale Evolution, Creation Matters, May–June 1998; online at . Return to text
12. Gingerich, J. Geol. Educ. 31:140–144, 1983. Return to text
13. Thewissen, J.G.M., Williams, E.M, Roe, L.J. and Hussain, S.T., Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyls, Nature 413:277–281, 20 September 2001 (see PDF file). Return to text.
14. Muizon, C. de, Walking with whales, Nature 413:259–260, 20 September 2001 (see PDF file). Return to text.
15. Pakicetus … eight years on. Illustration: Carl Buell Return to text
16. G. A. Mchedlidze, General Features of the Paleobiological Evolution of Cetacea, translated from Russian (Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, 1986), p. 91. Return to text
17. J. Bergman and G. Howe, Vestigial Organs Are Fully Functional, Creation Research Society Monograph No. 4. Return to text
18. C. Wieland, The strange tale of a leg on a whale, Creation 20(3):10–13, June–August 1998. Return to text

Vestigial Organs

THE RISE AND FALL OF THE VESTIGIAL ORGAN MYTH

The myth of vestigial organs began with Darwin. In his Origin, he described as "primitive" organs that had lost their functions, or whose functions had diminished. He compared them to the letters one finds in some written words but which are silent and not pronounced. (1)

Like Darwinism's other claims, however, this was a myth reinforced by the primitive level of science at the time. As research and discoveries advanced, gradually it emerged that the organs described as "functionless" were actually ones whose functions had not yet been established. The more of these functions were discovered, the shorter became the list of "vestigial" organs. The list set out in 1895 by the German anatomist R. Wiedersheim contained around 100 "vestigial human organs," including the appendix and the coccyx. As science progressed, it was established that all the organs on Widersheim's list, and which Darwin and his followers regarded as "vestigial," actually had important functions.

Today, in fact, a great many evolutionists have accepted that the myth of vestigial organs was actually based on ignorance. In an article titled "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?" in the journal Evolutionary Theory, the evolutionist biologist S.R. Scadding sets out this fact:

Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution. (2)

An Unfounded Theory Collapsed In The Face of Scientific Facts

In the same way that the claim for vestigial organs rests on no scientific facts at all, neither can it be supported by logic. For example, the moles on our skin that appear with the excessive functioning of melanocytes cannot be explained along the lines of "all human beings were once dark skinned." Neither can we describe our fingernails and toenails as a "primitive feature" left over from when we lived in the wild, as predators. Such an approach stems from evolutionists' preconceived view of human beings. According to evolutionists, many features of our bodies are unnecessary: Our hair, earlobes, eyebrows and little fingers should not exist. In the same way, it might be claimed that canine teeth are left over from our meat-eating ancestors, just as it is suggested that the hairs on our bodies are left over from our ancestors, the great apes. You can expand such a list indefinitely. But however long, that list will have no scientific basis, and will be shaped by the prejudices and viewpoints of the person making it.

Moreover, it must be recalled that these organs and tissues provide no evidence for evolution. That is because in every respect, the theory of evolution has collapsed, in the face of the evidence for God's incomparable creation. Out of the infinite number of signs leading to faith, just a few examples are enough to demonstrate God's flawless creation:

• It is mathematically impossible for amino acids to come together in the correct sequence to give rise to proteins and then to a cell, all by chance. The theory of evolution cannot account for the formation of a single protein in terms of chance, and can never explain how the cell and even more complex structures came into being.
• The energy generator in our cells known as the mitochondrion, just 100th of a millimeter in size, is more complex than any gasoline refinery or hydroelectric station. The energy in these artificial stations is maintained by thousands of engineers, technical experts and industrial designers, all working together and using the most advanced technology. The workings of the cell's mitochondrion cannot be similarly explained by saying that a number of atoms are teaming up to produce energy on their own.
• The DNA molecule in the nucleus of every human cell contains enough information, in a most sensitive and significant order, to fill 1 million encyclopaedia pages. DNA cannot be the result of blind chance.
• Some genes have the power to control others. This hierarchical order among genes is too complex for "chance" evolution to explain.
• The flawless and extraordinary design in animals and plants clearly demonstrates that they must be the result of intelligent design.
• The brain consists of approximately 100 billion nerve cells, and the number of synapses between them is estimated to be around 1 quadrillion. It is absolutely impossible for chance to have organized nerve cells so as to construct such a breathtaking intercommunication.
• The flagellum, comprising 240 separate proteins, is used by certain bacteria to move in a liquid environment. and works like an engine. The flagellum must have functioned perfectly ever since the moment it first came into being. This structure alone is enough to invalidate the theory of evolution's claim of "stage by stage" development.
• The way immune system cells recognize antigens and destroy them by producing substances known as antibodies cannot be explained in terms of evolution.
• Blood coagulation, a phenomenon of vital importance, comes about when a string of enzymes react and activate one another. The way these collections of atoms display such intelligent intent is doubtless a great miracle and cannot, of course, have resulted from a process of "evolution" based entirely on chance.

By itself, each of these examples is enough to demonstrate the superior design in life. By learning just one of these signs, even someone with no information at all can be led to faith and see the existence of an Almighty Creator.

In addition, the existence of any living thing can only prove the existence of God, Who created it. The ways that inanimate, unconscious atoms and molecules combine to form a human being with all five senses is proof of God's impeccable creation, because it is impossible for atoms?unable to see or hear or have any sense perceptions?to combine for that purpose. The theory of evolution fails to account for how a collection of matter can look at itself in the mirror, or taste and touche and hear. These senses can only be explained by the existence of God and His flawless, super-material creation.

If, despite all these facts, the theory of evolution is still brought up, it can only be through lack of information. Therefore, the duty of informing people of the invalidity of evolution assumes great importance. Let us now examine the actual functions of the organs and tissues referred to as "vestigial"? A myth that Hurriyet Bilim has sought to resurrect.

THE APPENDIX

Hurriyet Bilim describes the appendix, which lies at the beginning of the large intestine, as functionless. It has long been the best known of all the allegedly "vestigial" organs, though that this assumption has been proven to result from ignorance. True, that the appendix does sometimes becomes infected and poses a danger to health. But it still has important functions in all healthy individuals, as is set out in one scientific paper that cities various anatomical sources as references:

An examination of the appendix microscopically, shows that it contains a significant amount of lymphoid tissue. Similar aggregates of lymphoid tissue (known as gut-associated lymphoid tissues, GALT) occur in other areas of the gastrointestinal system. The GALT are involved in the body's ability to recognize foreign antigens in ingested material. My own research, in particular, is focused on examining the immunological functions of the intestine.

Experiments in rabbits demonstrate that neonatal appendectomy impairs the development of mucosal immunity. Morphological and functional studies of the rabbit appendix indicate that it is probably the equivalent of the avian bursa in mammals. The bursa plays a critical role in the development of humoral immunity in birds. The histological and immunohistochemical similarity of the rabbit and human appendix suggest that the human appendix has a similar function to that of the rabbit appendix. The human appendix may be particularly important early in life because it achieves its greatest development shortly after birth and then regresses with age, eventually resembling such other regions of GALT as the Peyer's patches in the small intestine. These recent studies demonstrate that the human appendix is not a vestigial organ, as originally claimed. (3)

Why was the appendix regarded as vestigial? The reason lies in the dogmatism based on the primitive level of science at the time of Darwin and his supporters. The appendix's lymphoid tissue could not be viewed under their primitive microscopes. Unable to understand its structure, they regarded the tissue as "functionless" in the light of their own theories and added it to their list of "vestigial" organs.

The same applies to the other so-called vestigial organs.

WISDOM TEETH

In assuming the third molars, commonly known as wisdom teeth, are in fact vestigial, Hurriyet Bilim repeats a classic evolutionist error.

This is a widespread misconception. Many dentists adopt a moderate approach to day-to-day problems posed by other teeth and seek to preserve them, while extracting wisdom teeth has become routine. But the fact is, some recent research has shown that these teeth are no different from any other in terms of function. (4) Studies have also shown that the belief that these molars disrupt the position of other teeth is unfounded. (5) Scientific criticisms have also been published of problems encountered in extracting these teeth, when medicines could be used. (6)

In conclusion, contemporary medicine agrees that the belief that wisdom teeth do have a masticatory function just like the other teeth.

That being so, why do wisdom teeth cause a many people such great discomfort? Scientists researching this question established that wisdom teeth presented very infrequent problems to pre-industrial societies. Over the past few centuries, the preference for soft foods over hard ones has impacted on jaw development. Therefore, it's been determined that most wisdom teeth problems have emerged in connection with problems resulting from dietary habits.
Similar changes in dietary preferences are known to have a negative impact on other teeth. For example, the preference for sugary and acidic foods over the past century has led to an increase in the rate of tooth decay. This, of course, does not mean that our teeth are functionless or vestigial. The same applies to wisdom teeth. Problems with these teeth stem not from any evolutionary "vestigialization," but from modern dietary habits.

THE "THIRD EYE LID" AND EAR

The tissue referred to as the "third eyelid" by Hurriyet Bilim consists of a thin fold at the inner corner of the eye. Darwin portrayed this tissue as a "vestigial organ," and it is commonly referred to as the semilunar fold.

However, this tissue, with the scientific name plica semilunaris, is not a functionless structure inherited from reptiles, as Darwin (and Hurriyet Bilim) believed. Researchers have shown that the plica semilunaris secretes a fatty liquid that moisturises the eye, playing an important role in protecting it from foreign bodies. (7)

Therefore, referring to this tissue as a vestigial organ only highlights the ignorance and bigotry of Darwin, and those who blindly follow in his footsteps.

Hurriyet Bilim regards the small fold in the upper part of the ear and the muscles that let the ear move as "vestigial," but this, likewise, is totally speculative.

THE COCCYX

Hurriyet Bilim also suggested that the small bone at the very end of the spinal column has no function-an error that has long since been abandoned. It is now known that the coccyx supports the bones around the pelvic bone, and did it not exist, we would be unable to sit comfortably. Moreover, this bone is also stated to be the fixing point for various organs and muscles in the pelvic region.

THE MALE NIPPLE

Evolutionists frequently and superficially seek to depict the male nipple as a "vestigial organ." Yet this claim is actually inconsistent. In order to claim that an organ is vestigial, it must be shown to have once had a function in some previous living organism. But the fact is, none of the males of species portrayed as the alleged ancestors of man have ever secreted milk, and therefore the male nipple has no biological function.

THE LITTLE TOE

One particularly fine example of the speculative, frivolous nature of Hurriyet Bilim's claims is what they say on the subject of the little toe. It claims that apes make use of all their toes to grasp and catch branches, but when human beings stand upright, they only need their big toes to keep their balance. It then goes on to infer that the little toe is "surplus to what's required." The fact is, however, that not all apes live in trees; and not just apes, but most land-dwelling vertebrates have a five-toed (pentadactyl) foot structure. The five-toed structure therefore has nothing to do with clinging onto branches, but is rather a design common to most land-dwelling vertebrates.

BODY HAIR AND ERECTOR PILI MUSCLES

The erector muscles that cause one's hair to stand on end in times of danger have been discovered to play an important role in maintaining the health of the hair. John P. Cole, an expert on baldness, carried out studies showing that in human beings suffering from baldness the erector pili muscles were weakened. (8) In other words, this muscle is essential for healthy hair.

THE PLANTARIS MUSCLE

In humans, this muscle at the front of the knee is attached to our Achilles tendon. In apes, on the other hand, it controls the toes, which is why apes' toes are prehensile. The only conclusion we can draw from this is that the human foot was not designed to pick up objects. The same applies to the palm muscle, also regarded as being one of the vestigial organs by Hurriyet Bilim.

Hurriyet Bilim is using these examples to portray an anatomical difference between human beings and apes and then interpreting that as evidence of evolution. For Hurriyet Bilim to support its case, however, not an interpretation but a scientific explanation based on empirical evidence is necessary. Clearly, evident differences alone constitute no evidential ground for evolution. If the theory of evolution is to be valid, it needs to demonstrate by which natural processes these differences came about?and this it cannot do.

To give just one example, apes' bodies are covered in fur, while there are very few hairs on the human body. An evolutionist might try to account for this by saying "We lost our fur as we evolved." but that is only an interpretation, not evidence. The same difference can also be explained by saying, "Apes were created in one form, human beings in another." Which of these two explanations is correct? This we can determine by looking at other criteria: the picture in the fossil record, genetic differences between living things, the effect of the mechanisms of natural selection and mutation, etc.?all of which demonstrate that evolution is false, and creation true.

THE THIRTEENTH RIB AND CLAVICLE MUSCLE

Hurriyet Bilim's comments regarding these bones and muscles are totally speculative. Some humans possess these structures, others do not; and such small bone and muscle differences exist among the races. But significantly, none of these constitute evidence that human beings evolved from another living creature.

"THE MALE WOMB" AND "THE FEMALE SPERM DUCT"

Hurriyet Bilim suggests that in the female reproductive system, the blind tubules around the ovaries are the remnants of sperm ducts. Similarly, they claim that the male prostate gland contains an undeveloped female organ, and that these bodies belonged to organs that had become functionless during the evolutionary process. But when we examine the bodies in question, we see that they are the remains of embryonic structures that served a purpose during the development of the embryo in the mother's womb, which purpose has now been fulfilled.

An adult human's permanent organs are preceded by a set of structures which begin to form while in the embryo stage. With the exception of the ducts, all of these structures disappear almost entirely before the end of fetal life. Of these embryonic structures, the Wolffian duct and the Müllerian duct connect the reproductive organs to the outside world. With reproductive organs, a single tissue develops in either the male of female direction. With ducts, there are two tissues, one develops in the male direction and the other in the female direction.

On the middle of the Wolffian duct, a series of tubules called the Wolffian tubules, is developed. These tubules collectively constitute the Wolffian body. The reproductive glands develop from the Wolffian body during the fifth and sixth weeks of pregnancy. This body disappears with the development of the permanent kidneys. Degeneration of the Wolffian bodies begins in the sixth to seventh weeks, and by the beginning of the fifth month, all that remains is the ducts and a few of the tubules.

In the male, the Wolffian ducts persist and give rise to different portions in the sperm canal (epididymis, ductus deferens and ejaculatory duct). In females, the Wolffian bodies and ducts degenerate and disappear, while the Wolffian tubules leave behind two small collections of blind tubules between the ovary and the uterine tube. (9) This stage of development of the baby in the mother's womb shows clearly that these tubules are not leftovers from a male reproductive system that has lost all function from lack of use, but the remains of an embryonic structure.

In the female, the Müllerian ducts-the second pair of ducts which develop shortly after the formation of the Wolffian ducts?, develop into oviduct, uterus, and the upper vagina. In the male, they degenerate and virtually disappear, and their remnants can be found as small sacs (hydatids of Morgagni) on the testes, and as a sac on the lower part of the prostate in the urinary tract, urethra. (10) It is therefore wrong to describe the remnant of the embryonic Müllerian body as a womb that has lost its function. To claim that these sacs are the remnant of a womb that later lost its function is to admit one's ignorance of embryology.

THE PYRAMIDALIS MUSCLE

This muscle, Hurriyet Bilim says, is absent in 20% of modern human beings, and is thought to be a remnant from marsupial, or pouched mammals. This idea, based entirely on Darwinist preconceptions, has no scientific foundation whatsoever.

Even according to the theory of evolution, it is impossible to propose a marsupial ancestor for human beings. Marsupials comprise one of the three main mammal groups. According to evolutionary theory, they developed some 50 to 60 million years ago by splitting away from the placental group (to which human beings belong). In other words, even according to the theory of evolution itself, there is no "marsupial ancestor" from which human beings could have inherited this muscle. Not only is Hurriyet Bilim claim invalid, but internally inconsistent.

THE VOMERONASAL ORGAN

Some findings reveal that the sense of smell is actually divided into two. The first sense perceives the aromas we are all familiar with, but the second, little known and generally overlooked, detects pheromones. The structure responsible is a small piece of tissue inside the nose known as the vomeronasal organ.

Evolutionist claims are based on the fact that some animals' vomeronasal organs are much more sensitive than ours. Snakes and various reptiles use their tongues for vomeronasal scent detection, and various mammals have powerful abilities to detect scents. Evolutionists maintain that our low level of vomeronasal perception stems from "vestigialization."

In fact, however, if we possessed greater vomeronasal sensitivity, then we could be said to have evolved very well. Creating various scenarios by making such comparisons between living things is far from scientific. Eagles have far sharper eyes than we do, but that does not mean that we evolved from eagles, or that our vision became "vestigialized" during this evolutionary process.

The fact is, every living thing has been equipped with the ideal senses it needs in its own particular environment. Sensory organs that function with exceedingly complex designs are proof of creation, not of evolution.

CONCLUSION:

We have looked briefly at 18 of the organs Hurriyet Bilim has labeled as "vestigial." Today, all of them, and other alleged vestigial ones as well, have been found to fulfill specific functions, either in their full-developed state, or else during embryological development.

It's interesting that Hurriyet Bilim should bring up these hoary old "vestigial" chestnuts, with no anatomical or physiological foundation. The theory of evolution, devoid of supporting evidence, has eventually collapsed in the face of advances in medicine and all other related branches of science. The conclusion that modern science advances is that man is not a creature that evolved by chance. Humans and all other living things were created by God.

1 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 3rd. ed., Chapter 13: Mutual Affinities of Organic Beings: Morphology: Embryology: Rudimentary Organs.
2 S. R. Scadding, "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?", Evolutionary Theory, vol. 5, May 1981, p. 173.
3 www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/6562/evolution/designgonebad.html.
4 M.S. Leonard, 1992, "Removing third molars: a review for the general practitioner," Journal of the American Dental Association,123(2):77-82.
5 M. Leff, 1993, "Hold on to your wisdom teeth," Consumer reports on Health, 5(8):4-85.
6 Daily T. 1996. Third molar prophylactic extraction: A review and analysis of the literature. General Dentistry, 44(4):310-320.
7 "Evidence of Comparative Structure and Function", http://www.ibri.org/Books/Pun_Evolution/Chapter2/2.5.htm#6.
8 http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=32&threadid=32851.
9 Gray's Anatomy of the Human Body, 20th edition, 2000.
10 Ibid.

Questions for Evolutionists

The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Some well-meaning, but misguided, people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man's questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory—it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

2. Where did matter come from?

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

13. When, where, why, and how did:
a) Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
b) Single-celled animals evolve?
c) Fish change to amphibians?
d) Amphibians change to reptiles?
e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
f) How did the intermediate forms live?

14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
a) Whales evolve?
b) Sea horses evolve?
c) Bats evolve?
d) Eyes evolve?
e) Ears evolve?
f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

15. Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?
a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body's resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
i) The immune system or the need for it?

16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?

18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

19. How did photosynthesis evolve?

20. How did thought evolve?

21. How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?

22. What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?

23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?

24. Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

25. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?

26. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.

1. Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)

2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?

3. Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?

4. Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?

5. What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?

6. Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
a) It is all they have been taught.
b) They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
c) They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
d) They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
e) Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.

7. Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don't have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?

8. Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?

9. What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."

10. Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.

11. Aren't you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true? Wouldn't it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness?

12. Would you be interested, if I showed you from the Bible, how to have your sins forgiven and how to know for sure that you are going to Heaven?

See http://www.creationscience.com/ for more tough questions for evolutionists

The Theory of Evolution (In Summary)

A lot of people might wonder why we're trying to disprove evolution when most believe it as fact. Let us just remind you that the full title is "The Theory of Evolution". Any theory in science should be supported by facts to be proven correct. Unfortunately for evoltuionists, there is no empirical evidence for their religion.

The theory began with Charles Darwin when he noticed the unique similarities between different types of finches. He came to the conclusion that the birds must've had a common ancestor. (We agree with that Darwin...hmmm... the ancestor was a bird.) He then concluded that all living things must be related to eachother, given enough time. This basically sums up evolution: Over billions and billions of years, animals evolved from lower life forms to what we have today. All plants, animals, people, unicellular organisms, and even rocks are related! Though there is no factual evidence for this claim, it is being taught in every public school in the United States and throughout the world.

"The Theory of Evolution" starts 20 billion years ago when "nothing"* exploded after violently spinning out of control. It shot particles and gas into the universe that then somehow evolved into stars (though no star has ever been seen evolving), planets, moons, galaxies, different gases and elements and then the earth appeared. In the 1800's, evolutionists believed the earth to be 76,000 years old. When America landed on the moon, it was 3.5 billion years old. Today, evolutionists nod their head in agreement that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. And so, in the beginning (4.6 billion years ago) the Earth's first formation was a hot molten mass of rock with no signs of life. Approximately 3 billion years ago, it began to rain on the rocks for millions of years. This rain cooled the rocks down and created "primordial soup" or pre-biotic soup. The soup then came alive with the first unicellular orginisms and over the next few billion years, more complicated life evolved.

Sounds like a pretty theory for evolutionists but where's the evidence? Wouldn't there be thousands upon thousands, even millions, of "intermediate species" showing the gradual change from less evolved species into more evolved species? If the theory is correct, there would be. But there isn't. All the evidence for evolution that is shown is based upon invalid inferences and bad judgment. Most of the "ape-men" have been proven false and are artist's depictions of what bones looked like!

We'd like to sum up with a few more questions. A termite eats wood but it cannot digest it. Little critters inside the termite digest the cellulose for it. One cannot live without the other. Which evolved first? Actually, millions of symbiotic relationships exist in nature. Which one of the two evolved first? Also, if evolution is correct, how do we get males/females and non-material things such as emotions, i.e. love, care, affection? The only possible answer to these questions would be that a Designer made them all within a few days of eachother.

We here at E.L.I.E believe that Designer is the God of the Bible. He made it all in 6 literal days about 6000 years ago. Got questions? Shoot.

* Sinse the begining of the Theory of Big Bang, the concept of its size has changed dramatically. Originally it was thought to be light years wide, but then coaxed down to "the size of the period at the end of this sentence" like many science books will state. Today, however, many scientist agree that the Big Bang began as a ball of "nothing". Taking up no space, or mass. Funny theory, no?

What does the Law say?

It has never been illegal to teach Creation Science in public schools. All through the 1800's and even into the 1900's the Bible was used in public schools for various reasons. The evolution religion is what crept in later but Creation Science has never been made illegal. It's only illegal to forcefully try and convert one's religious beliefs on students but it is perfectly fine to teach about creation.

The evolutionist Steven Jay Gould said,
"no statute exists in any state to bar instruction in 'creation science.' It could be taught before, and it can be taught now"
---The Verdict on Creation Science, New York Times July 19, 1987, p.34

Evolutionary biologist Micheal Zimmerman said,
"The Supreme Court ruling did not, in any way outlaw the teaching of 'creation science' in public school classrooms. Quite simply it ruled that, in the form taken by the Louisiana law, it is unconstitutional to demand equal time for this particular subject. 'Creation science' can still be brought into science classrooms if and when teachers and administrators feel that it is appropriate. Numerous surveys have shown that teachers and administrators favor just this route. And, in fact, 'creation science' is being taught in science courses throughout the country."
---"Keep Guard Up After Evolution Victory." BioScience 37 (9, October 1987):636

President of NCSE, Eugenie Scott said,
"The Supreme Court says only that the Louisiana law violates the constitutional seperation of church and state: It does not say that no one can teach scientific creationism--and unfortunately many individuals do. Some school districts even require 'equal time' for creation and evolution."
--National Center for Science Education, Nature 329 (1987):282.

Evolutionist William B. Provine said,
"Teachers and school boards in public schools are already FREE under the Constitution of the USA to teach about supernatural origins if they wish in their science classes. Laws can be passed in most countries of the world requiring discussion of supernatural origins in science classes, and still satisfy national legal requirements. And i have a suggestion for evolutionists. INCLUDE discussion of supernatural origins in your classes, and promote discussion of them in public and other schools. Come off your high horse about having only evolution taught in science classes. The exclusionism you promote is painfully self-serving and smacks of elitism. Why are you afraid of confronting the supernatural creationism believed by the majority of persons in the USA and perhaps worldwide? Shouldn't students be encouraged to express their beliefs about origins in a class discussing origins by evolution?"
--Biology and Philosophy 8(1993):124


Now let's see what some of the cases say!

In the landmark ruling of School District of Abington Towship v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225,(1963)the court held that,
"it certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may be effected consistently with the First Amendment."

In 1980 The Supreme Court said,
"the Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like."
--Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 42(1980)

In 1987,
"Teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of mankind to school children might be done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction. Teachers already possess the flexibility to present a 'VARIETY of scientific theories about the origins of humankind'...and are 'FREE TO TEACH ANY AND ALL FACETS OF THIS SUBJECT."
--Edwards vs. Aguiliard, 482 U.S. 96(1987) p.14

As for Kitzmiller v. Dover,
"to preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment … , we will enter an order permanently enjoining defendants from maintaining the ID policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."

Simply put, in that case the court ruled against requiring teachers to teach the faults in evolution. It also ruled against REQUIRING the teaching of Creation. That DOES NOT mean it cannot be taught.
I hope this clears up any confusion people may have about the law and the Bible. Our aim is get the lies out of the textbooks that support the Religion of Evolution. Truly, a class on origins should either discuss all the theories or none.

The Miracles of Evolution

In a debate I watched on Creation vs. Evolution, the evolutionist Micheal Shermer, used the argument that Creationism is a "God of the Gaps" argument: wherever we can't explain something, we throw God in there and He must've done a miracle. I disagree strongly and believe Kent Hovind, the Creatonist, did a great job proving the Biblical account. The naturalistic explanation for how the world came to be is just another religion whose god is nothing. It eliminates the obvious answer for the incredible design of the universe: a Designer must've done it all! Dr. Hovind put it nicely when he gave the example of a computer. He asks us to explain how computers were invented without allowing the answer to be Man. The answer would be a step-by-step, naturalistic explanation for computers existing. Not only is that silly but impossible. Anyway, I strongly believe Evolution is a "God of the Gaps" argument concealed under a veil of science. Before I list the miracles involved in Evolution, let me first define a few terms.

The Six Meanings of Evolution:

(1) Cosmic evolution (The Big Bang)
(2) Chemical evolution (Hydrogen evolving into other elements)
(3) Stellar and planetary evolution (Self-explanitory)
(4) Organic evolution (Life from non-life)
(5) Macro evolution (Change from one kind of animal to another, such as the change from reptiles to birds)
(6) Micro evolution (Change within a kind of animal, such as Pitbull, German Shepard, and Golden Retriever)

The only scientific definition is the 6th one. It is the only one that has ever been seen, observed and tested. The first five are purely religious and based on huge amounts of faith. Now, let's list the miracles involved:

1- The matter from the Big Bang was always there or created itself from literally nothing (no protons, no neutrons, no atoms, nothing)
2- All the matter in the Universe was squeezed into something smaller than a period.
3- Nothing caused it to spin and then explode.
4- All of the elements evolved from helium.
5- The stars formed from the elements but wait, what came first? The stars or the elements? (We've never seen one single star form.)
6- Our own Milky Way gracefully allowed Earth to form safely within a safe zone of its spiral arms.
7- Laws of physics evolved and then stopped. They were finetuned by nothing and allowed for life to be suitable on earth.
8- Earth was amazingly set the exact distance from the sun it needed to be in order for life.
9- The moon formed at a friendly distance and at the same time as earth by itself.
10- The earth's hot molten mass cooled down and formed a rocky crust. Well, how? Theres evidence that it wasn't hot but cool. Check out Dr. Gentry's radium palonium halos in granite rocks. www.halos.com
11- The clouds, however they were formed, became so full and millions of years of rain created great oceans.
12- This pre-biotic soup had the necessary ingredients for life, somehow. Something non-living coming to life is called spontaneous generation and was scientifically disproven over a hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur and others.
13- Once the single celled orginisms came alive, they found food and shelter and flourished for the next 2 billion years. "Suddenly those single celled organisms began to evolve into multicellular organisms (What kept the cells together and safe? Who did they marry? What did they eat? Why not stay asexual creatures and evolve the ability to live forever). Then an unprecedented profusion (Big words to confuse the student) of life in incredibly complex forms began to fill the oceans (MIRACLE). Some crawled from the seas and took residence on land (Who'd they marry? How'd they reproduce?), perhaps to escape predators in the ocean. (Miracle)
14- Macro-evolution has never been observed but given time (Miracle) it can happen with mutations and natural selection.
15- For some reason, the past yielded all the beneficial mutations needed for... (at the same time, for the same creatures, both male and female in the same part of the planet so they were able to reproduce. Miracle) ...macro-evolution even though what we can see and test today shows no evidence of any beneficial mutations. All are harmful and are a loss or misplacement of existing genetic information.
16- Somehow, natural selection had creative properties in the past.(Miracle) Nature can only select from what is already is in an animals gene pool.

I grew up in public education and the theory of evolution was always a hindrance to my faith. It caused me to doubt God and His majesty. As I delved deeper into studying the theory, I now find it increasing my faith in Jesus Christ. Either the world created itself or God did it. I know God did it and I know He has a plan for my life and yours. If you're reading this please know that you're not some mishap mistakenly developed over billions of years of accidents and death. You are a person. A member of the human race which has all fallen from God's grace because of sin. We all, even ELIEM deserve hell because of our sin but Jesus took our place when He died on the cross. He bore our sin because He loves His creation. Ask for His forgiveness. Talk to Him today. Walk with Him the rest of your life.

- Joey, co-founder of ELIE