Challenging the Naturalistic Philosophy of Evolution

William Kilgore

Nearly a century and a half have passed since Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859, setting forth his theory of how life evolved through a process called natural selection. Darwin would eventually come to be regarded, along with Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx, as one of the three most influential men in the shaping of twentieth century Western civilization. Today, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, Darwin's self-confessed theory is a "fact" that much of the scientific community is dedicated to supporting, much of the educational establishment assumes, and much of public is confused about. The non-evolutionist is usually dismissed by the scientific establishment with the ad hominem attack that they are touting "religion" in opposition to "science." In this paper I will define some key terminology, survey the debate, examine why evolution is to be regarded primarily as a philosophy, briefly address four main arguments offered in support of evolution, present arguments for a non-evolutionist position, and offer some personal conclusions regarding the issue.


Terminology surrounding the debate over life's origin often contains loaded words that tend to cause confusion if left undefined. For instance, I have often heard my college professors demonstrate their contention that "evolution is scientific fact" by offering some irrefutable example. Yet every specific example I have heard is a case of adaptation within a species - finch beaks, longhorn cattle, swimming iguanas, and so forth. After the example is given, one that no one in their right mind would disagree with, the professor concludes their case by restating their initial claim for "evolution."

Looking around a classroom where this has occurred will immediately reveal that hardly anyone catches what just took place. Perhaps even the instructor does not realize what has happened. When "evolution" is first mentioned, it is clear that what is meant is a process that takes place on a macro level. When the example is cited, "evolution" is shifted to the micro level. Then, in the concluding statement, "evolution" reverts back to its original meaning. This is an example of a fallacy in reasoning known as equivocation. What is going on here is a kind of logical "bait and switch."

This is the case simply because adaptation of species to their environment in no way demonstrates the broader idea that we are being asked to accept. Namely, that one kind of animal (say, a dinosaur) has evolved into an entirely different kind of animal (say, a bird). Further, implicit in such reasoning is the idea that non-evolutionists reject adaptations within species. This of course paints the non-evolutionist into a ridiculous corner, as such adaptations are part and parcel of what is continually observed in nature. Problematic is the fact that even the most rigid creationists do not, as a rule, deny evolution within a particular kind of animal. To imply that they do is an example of the straw man fallacy.

Due to this and similar situations, it is necessary to define some terms before going further. For the purposes of this paper, evolution refers to change on the macro level unless otherwise noted. The term creationist is used here in its restricted sense, denoting those who align themselves exclusively with that specific movement. However, when I use creationism I am referring to any theory that has as its components intelligent design and the abrupt appearance of life. The term non-evolutionist, though including the creationists, should be understood as also including progressive (old earth) creationists and those participating in the Intelligent Design movement. In addition, while the term Darwinism is mentioned, it is understood that there is a difference among evolutionists regarding the exact mechanism of change. I make no distinction in most cases simply because the theorized mechanisms make no difference as far as my argumentation is concerned. References to naturalism are to be understood as referring to "the philosophical belief that what is studied by the non-human and human sciences is all there is, and the denial of the need for any explanation going beyond or outside the Universe" (Flew 240).


Early scientific views rested largely on the idea that design in nature is evident. In other words, that the creation we observe around us actually had a Creator. This idea was immediately challenged by Darwin's theory, and creationists today still contend with substantially the same theory as that which he promoted. The fact that creationists are not taken seriously by the scientific (evolutionist) establishment often leads to the false notion that no real debate exists. Unfortunately, there is very little independent investigation by the lay person in our culture. The evolutionist waves his/her hand and says something like "Evolution is a fact, pure and simple."

Claims like this are easy to make for a couple of reasons. First, the stereotype promoted by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee's Inherit the Wind (ITW) has a vice grip on our culture that is perpetuated by the educational and scientific establishments. In effect, any and all creationists are painted as ignorant Bible-thumping fundamentalists. Second, the creationists have made some serious strategic errors. These errors include being too quick to pounce on anything that looks like it may be in their favor (e.g., the Paluxy riverbed "man tracks" of Carl Baugh), insistence on flaunting their Biblical presuppositions, and failing to distinguish the main issue of evolution from various secondary issues (e.g., the age of the universe, the Biblical flood) that detract from the main issues in the debate.

Creationists have fought an uphill battle for approximately thirty-five years now. Although making some headway among individuals, little has happened within the established scientific community. Leading creationists are ridiculed and denied publication in scientific journals, in spite of the fact that nearly all of them hold doctorates earned in major secular universities. Due to the deeply ingrained ITW stereotype, the creationists' viewpoint is dismissed as "religion" before one argumentative syllable is uttered. The evolutionists have successfully cast the debate within a "Bible vs. Science" context.

However, the scales are beginning to tip in the non-evolutionist direction. The twentieth century witnessed the effective demise of the influence of both Freud and Marx. Some are predicting that the twenty-first century will witness the fall of Darwinism, the last of the "big three." This turn of events is largely due to an interdisciplinary revolution termed the Intelligent Design (ID) movement.

Beginning in 1985 with the publication by Michael Denton of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, the ID movement has been gaining ground ever since and shows no signs of abating. Denton created a stir by presenting his intense criticism of Darwin's theory entirely outside the circle that evolutionists have drawn around the creationists. He left no doubt as to his conclusions, calling evolution "a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support"(Denton 77). A molecular biologist, no one could say he was not qualified. A non-Christian and self-professed agnostic, his arguments were immune to the ITW stereotype. Criticism came, but some in the scientific community began to seriously consider what Denton had to say.

Organization of this movement came with the involvement of Berkley law Professor Philip Johnson, a Harvard graduate who recognized the potential among those being affected by Denton and others abandoning Darwin's ship. Johnson put his expertise in logical analysis to work and challenged evolution in 1991 with his book, Darwin on Trial. Other books have followed, and so have more scientists and other academics.

Among those in the ID movement are researchers like biochemist Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box), mathematician and philosopher William Dembski (The Design Inference), biologist Jonathan Wells (Icons of Evolution), chemist and molecular biologist Dr. Charles Thaxton (The Mystery of Life's Origin), UT zoologist Martin Poenie, philosopher Paul Nelson (On Common Descent), Cambridge science historian Stephen Meyer (Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula), and Princeton mathematician David Berlinski (A Tour of the Calculus). Unlike the creationists before them, those in the ID movement are speaking at prestigious universities, holding major conferences, getting published in journals previously reserved for evolutionists, and actually attracting some positive media attention.

What the ID movement has done is rather simple. They changed the rules while the evolutionists were busy ridiculing the creationists. They are getting a hearing precisely because they have strategically exchanged the stereotypical "Bible vs. Science" context for a new one: naturalism vs. the empirical data. This new interpretive framework is built on the conviction that evolution is currently resting on a foundation of bad philosophy while the empirical evidence is going in the opposite direction. Further, the ID scientists are not content simply to attack the philosophy of naturalism. Books like Behe's are taking the offensive with the empirical data as well. Despite cries of "backdoor creationism" and the like, the steady trickle of evolutionists defecting to ID is growing.

Scientists like Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins are no longer laughing; now they are angry. This in and of itself is interesting. Why would scientists become angry when presented with empirical evidence? Could this be an indication that what prominent evolutionists are in fact committed to is not some iron-clad scientific theory, but rather a philosophical agenda? Could it be dawning on them that some of their peers actually have solid reasons to question evolution, entirely apart from what anyone may think about the Bible?


Both sides in this debate have philosophical presuppositions. In the West, the non-evolutionist is typically a Christian theist (though this is not always the case; e.g., Michael Denton). But the evolutionists also have an underlying philosophy. As mentioned above, they are naturalists. Unfortunately, those who continually make statements like "Evolution is science; creation is religion/faith" do not seem to realize this. This is an odd situation. Especially so in light of the fact that prominent evolutionists have had honest moments when they have stated their unwavering commitment to naturalism in no uncertain terms. It is all there in their own writings for any who care enough to look.

Strictly speaking, neither evolution nor creation are empirical science, nor can they be. This is evident in that they both seek to address the question of life's origin, something that cannot be repeated nor put into a test tube. Neither theory is subject to repeatable experimentation or observable processes. However, both can be described as forensic science, in that they seek to reconstruct a theory about a past event based on empirical data presently observed. Origin science, whether evolutionism or creationism, is analogous to what forensic specialists do at a crime scene and what archaeologists do on a dig. Most importantly, both theories are first and foremost a philosophical framework for interpreting the data.

One of the primary flaws with evolutionists is their stubborn propensity to confuse the data itself with data-interpretation. The very same data is viewed by both evolutionists and non-evolutionists, but because each is working within a different paradigm the interpretive conclusions are very different. Yet evolutionists call their own (naturalist) interpretation "science" and the non-evolutionist interpretation "faith."


What kind of data do evolutionists interpret as proof of their position? While this paper cannot be exhaustive, four major areas will be examined: common ancestry, the fossil record, embryology, and vestigial organs.

Common Ancestry

Common ancestry rests on the presupposition that similarity in life forms (homology) is to be equated with descent. Here again we are dealing not with the empirical data, but with a philosophical presupposition. The evolutionists interpret the data in accordance with their theory, committing with great regularity the fallacy of begging the question. Such similarities can just as easily be attributed to intelligent design, and in fact were prior to Darwin.

Furthermore, even the evolutionist is forced to concede that there are similarities that cannot be attributed to common ancestry. This is called convergence, a term which denotes similarity among unrelated life forms. Examples of this would include the biological sonar system possessed by both whales and bats or the striking similarities to several distinct lines present in the platypus. Columbia zoologist Thomas Hunt Morgan, an evolutionist, has commented on this:

If, then, it can be established beyond dispute that similarity or even identity of the same character in different species is not always to be interpreted to mean that both have arisen from a common ancestor, the whole argument from comparative anatomy seems to tumble in ruins (Bird 194).

The fact is that the evolutionists' philosophy assumes the absence of a Designer. Empirical evidence put forth to demonstrate common ancestry, some of which is discussed below, is selectively chosen and interpreted within the bounds of this assumption. It is only by the fallacy of exclusion that the evolutionist is able to present the public with convincing evidence.

Perhaps one of the most popular claims for common ancestry today rests on the similarities in the DNA between chimpanzees and humans. The claim that chimp DNA is 96-99% identical with human DNA was popularized by Gribbin and Cherfas' The Monkey Puzzle (Pantheon Books) in 1982, and again by Ann Gibbons in 1998 (Science 281:1432-1434). Again, here we have the assumption that similarity is to be equated with descent. Nevertheless, the claim does sound compelling. In fact, some activist groups have carried this to its logical conclusion by actually lobbying for equality on behalf of chimpanzees and other primates. Ironically, consistent suggestions like this make even the evolutionists uncomfortable.

However, there are some details that should be known by anyone impressed by the 96-99% claim. First, the basis for this percentage is not nearly as simplistic and straight forward as it sounds. The conclusion does not rest on a detailed sequencing of DNA, but on a more imprecise method. Berkeley Professor of Anthropology Jonathan Marks, an evolutionist, explains:

Because DNA is a linear array of those four bases - A, G, C, and T - only four possibilities exist at any specific point in a DNA sequence. The laws of chance tell us that two random sequences from species that have no ancestry in common will match at about one in every four sites. Thus even two unrelated DNA sequences will be 25 percent identical, not 0 percent identical…. The most different two DNA sequences can be, then, is 75 percent different (Marks).

Marks goes on to explain that, even given the evolutionary model, our DNA "is over one-third the same as a banana's" (Marks). Second, this "genetic comparison is misleading because it ignores qualitative differences among genomes" (Marks). Third, and perhaps most importantly, there is once again an overriding philosophical interpretive element:

The fact that our DNA is 98 percent identical to that of a chimp is not a transcendent statement about our natures, but merely a decontextualized and culturally interpreted datum…. In spite of the shock the figure of 98 percent may give us, humans are obviously identifiably different from, as well as very similar to, chimpanzees. The apparent paradox is simply a result of how mundane the apes have become, and how exotic DNA still is (Marks).

The Fossil Record

Fossil evidence, as Darwin realistically predicted, should make or break the theory of evolution. In our day, the fossil record has been largely uncovered. Yet very little of the plethora of transitional forms that Darwin predicted have been revealed. But evolutionists do point to some. The most significant of these include alleged transitional forms between dinosaur and bird, and various "missing links" between ape and man.

Are birds the evolutionary ancestors of the dinosaurs? According to many modern evolutionists, the answer is yes. This is an old theory of Thomas Huxley's, revived and developed in its present form by paleontologist Robert Bakker in his book The Dinosaur Heresies. Bakker's theory is very familiar to the public, being popularized in the Jurassic Park films. Three examples often used, but with little agreement among paleontologists, are Archaeopteryx, Protoarchaeopteryx, and Caudipteryx. Bakker and others have pointed to the presence of both bird and dinosaur features in these fossils.

However, again we have some similar features that are easily accounted for as instances of convergence among two unrelated bipedal life forms (Rana). Furthermore, all of these features can be observed either in bona fide ancient birds or in birds today (Sunderland 71-75). Finally, the dating of these fossils puts them after the fact, not before it (Ross 2). Based on a presupposed theory, today's paleontologists are on the lookout for "feathered dinosaurs."

Certainly most everyone has seen the "ascent of man" chart which shows the successive stages from ape to man. This chart, in spite of assertions to the contrary, does represent the conclusions of many prominent evolutionists (Bird 233). What many do not realize is that the history of this chart is fraught with significant blunders, like the misinterpreted extinct pig's tooth that became "Nebraska Man" (Bird 227) and the dolphin's rib thought to be a "hominid collarbone" in 1983 (Bird 286). Then there is the infamous "Piltdown Man," an alleged hominid discovered in 1913 by Charles Dawson and exposed as a hoax in 1953 by a group of English scientists (Walsh).

Neither are the remaining "missing links" nearly as solid as is often claimed. More than a few physical anthropologists consider the various Australopithecines and Ramapithecus to be extinct apes. No less an authority than Mary Leakey admits that homo erectus coexisted with the Australopithecines (Bird 229). E. Dubois, who discovered homo erectus ("Java" or "Peking" man), eventually concluded that these fossils were an extinct form of gibbon rather than human (Bird 231).

Likewise, many authorities also consider the much celebrated Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon Men to be nothing more or less than ancient homo sapiens. Princeton anthropologist A. Montagu concluded that "Neanderthal man walked as erect as any modern man [and] was every bit as intelligent as we are today" (Bird 231). Even "Lucy," the hominid everybody loves, has not fared so well. "Lucy's" legs have been analyzed as being more ape than human and reputable anthropologists have seriously questioned her supposed upright posture (Bird 230).

By now, the philosophical pattern should be expected. Berkely anthropologist T. White, another evolutionist, has written, "The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone" (Bird 228). Consider the damning words of Harvard anthropologist A. Hill, also an evolutionist:

Compared to other sciences, the mythic element is greatest in paleoanthropology. Hypotheses and stories of human evolution frequently arise unprompted by data and contain a large measure of general preconceptions, and the data which do exist are often insufficient to falsify or even substantiate them. Many interpretations are possible (Bird 233).


Evolutionist embryologists have long promoted the idea of biogenesis. This is the concept that animal embryos are virtually identical, thus demonstrating their theory of a common ancestor. Going even further, many early evolutionists believed the embryonic stages to be a sort of "instant reply" of the evolutionary process. This idea was set forth in the phrase ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. This latter idea is largely discredited today even among evolutionists, but the former continues to be used to demonstrate that all life is virtually identical in its early stages.

Biologist Ernst Haeckel first set forth these ideas in great detail in 1891, basing his research on a theoretical statement made by Darwin in The Origin of Species. Haeckel produced the famous set of drawings depicting these ideas that showed up in biology textbooks for years. Yet the 1999 edition of Biology, a popular college-level textbook written by Neil Campbell, omits the illustrations entirely. The same year, a pro-evolutionist biology journal published an article refuting Haeckel's ideas written by molecular biologist Jonathan Wells. Wells is very forthright in his comments:

Haeckel's drawings misrepresent the embryos they purport to show and Haeckel entirely omitted the earliest stages of development in which the various classes of vertebrates are morphologically very different. Biology teachers should be aware that Haeckel's drawings do not fit the facts (Wells, "Haeckel's Embryos").

Now it is true that Wells aligns himself with the Intelligent Design movement, but ardent evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould writes of this as well:

We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks (Wells, "Lerner Report").

Vestigial Organs

Vestigial organs are organs that are of limited or no use to the organism. These organs are said by evolutionists to be "leftovers" from previous stages in the evolutionary process. This argument is normally used as a component of the embryological arguments discussed above. R. Wiedersheim composed a list of about one hundred vestigial organs in humans alone. Yet S. Scadding, a zoologist and himself an evolutionist, has concluded Wiedersheim in error and dismisses this entire line of evidence:

I would suggest that the entire argument that vestigial organs provide evidence for evolution is invalid on two grounds … The practical problem is that of unambiguously identifying vestigial organs … As our knowledge has increased the list of vestigial structures has decreased. Wiedersheim could list about one hundred in humans; recent authors usually list four or five. Even the current short list of vestigial structures in humans is questionable…. The other major objection … is a more theoretical one based on the nature of the argument. The "vestigial organ" argument uses as a premise the assertion that the organ in question has no function. There is no way, however, in which this negative assertion can be arrived at scientifically…. 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 (Bird 197-198).

Immediately evident is the fact that none of evolution's most promoted "evidence" really demonstrates the theory. This is especially true when we view the overwhelming evidence against evolution, evidence that tends to support several tenants of creationism.


Overall, the fossil record reveals not the process of evolution, but rather the abrupt appearance of life forms. One of the most stunning examples of this is what is called "the Cambrian explosion." All major phyla appear in the geologic age designated Cambrian. They all appear together and they appear abruptly. Darwin himself wrote of this: "The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained [i.e., evolution as explained in On the Origin of Species]" (Bird 53).

Evolutionists have another general problem with the fossil record. The most plentiful fossil group should yield the greatest number of transitional forms. Yet the greatest number of fossils by far are those of marine life, a group that has yielded no transitional forms. Marine biologists are continually referencing alleged transitional forms among the non-marine species to support evolution (Johnson 59-61). But it seems that this is a common problem. Consider what Niles Eldridge, evolutionist expert on invertebrate fossils, writes:

No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen…. Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution (Johnson 60-61).

All modern paleontologists can do with these realities is to engage in a bit of wishful thinking, hoping that there are still "gaps" remaining in the fossil record that will eventually be filled (Bird 52-54).

Nature in general supports the idea of Intelligent Design. It is significant that virtually all popular analogies used by evolutionists are actually indications of design: Tim Berra's "corvette assembly," Crick's "dog breeding," Williams' "book and author," and even Dawkins' "random computer generation" (Johnson 62-64, 72-74). Dawkins himself, as staunch an evolutionist as there is, concedes that the world certainly does "appear" to be a product of design (Dawkins 1).

Less than ten percent of the American population embraces evolution as taught by most scientists, while the rest of the nation is evenly divided between creationism and theistic evolution (Johnson 10). Is it simply religious sentiment or a lack of education that causes this overwhelming feeling that our universe was designed? Personally, I think there is more to it than that. The story of evolution, when heard by those not indoctrinated by the minority of "experts," simply sounds ludicrous. There are reasons for this that go beyond mere ignorant intuition.

Mathematicians have stated that the probability that life came about by chance is "highly implausible" and "not conceivable" (Bird 78-83). In normal statistical terminology, evolution sets forth a process that is an impossibility. The number representing the probability is so high that we do not even have a name for it. Things with that kind of probability just do not happen.

Complexity of life forms is providing empirical evidence for Intelligent Design, as well as further indications that evolution is impossible. This has come about with the revolution in microbiology. We now know things that Darwin could never have imagined in his wildest dreams. The significance of this is found in Darwin's own words: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" (Behe 39).

Michael Behe, Associate Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, has stirred up the scientific establishment with his concept of irreducible complexity. This concept, by Darwin's own falsification standards, effectively dismantles evolution. Behe defines what he means by an "irreducibly complex system": … a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional (Behe 39).

Behe spends the remainder of his landmark book, Darwin's Black Box, offering example after example of just such systems. Many scientists, including evolutionists, have taken notice. Richard Dawkins has even conceded that if Behe is correct, then so is Intelligent Design. Dawkins has further admitted that, being a zoologist, he is not qualified to debate Behe's concept (Johnson 78-79).

With the uncovering of the DNA code, genetics has become another area for evolutionists to contend with. The principal problem for evolutionists concerns the dichotomy of matter and information. Evolution can explain the genes, but not the genetic code. That is, they can explain the matter, but not the information. There is not a mechanism demonstrated by any evolutionist that can explain how information gets into the DNA. Johnson writes concerning this: … information is an entirely different kind of stuff from the physical medium in which it may temporarily be recorded…. the information written in DNA is not the product of DNA. Where did the information come from? Who or what is the author? (72-73).


Having reached several conclusions through extensive research of both sides, I am a convinced non-evolutionist and embrace creationism as the only viable alternative. The theory of evolution rests entirely upon naturalistic presuppositions. Hard data brought forth in support of evolution is of a forensic nature and is interpreted in accordance with those presuppositions. It is my own opinion that evolution is no longer a credible theory in our age of scientific enlightenment. Rather, our culture has been intellectually enslaved by an outdated nineteenth century philosophy. There are solid reasons for rejecting the theory that exist entirely apart from anyone's consideration of the Biblical book of Genesis.

Someone only need scan any book authored by Richard Dawkins or Stephen Jay Gould, today's leading spokesmen for evolution, to see immediately that the philosophy of naturalism pervades their work. In fact, both of these philosophers insist that evolution absolutely excludes theism altogether. The late astronomer Carl Sagan embraced the same philosophy and reached similar conclusions. I actually tend to agree with this idea of incompatibility. But then I am not an evolutionist.

Evolution? Creation? The real question is a philosophical one, as evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin candidly admits:

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door (Johnson 81).

Is naturalism the correct view of things? This is the crucial question. If naturalism is assumed, then any notion of Intelligent Design is automatically excluded by very definition. But if evolution is actually bad philosophy, we are left with a nagging question. If science excludes Design, and yet there is in fact a Designer, then how will anyone ever know? If our idea of science excludes God outright, and He in fact exists, then our "science" is forever damned to be riddled with error. This is a simple logical conclusion, and I am amazed that it is so rarely considered.

Currently, the situation with the debate is rather ironic. We have come full circle, back to Inherit the Wind. Yet the characterization of the creationists as closed-minded with a "don't confuse me with the facts" attitude is now the position occupied by the evolutionists. The situation has entirely reversed. Furthermore, the evolutionists are every bit as interested in maintaining the popular philosophy of materialistic naturalism as the early creationists were in defending the Bible.

In conclusion, I propose that both sides in the debate begin contrasting the philosophical elements with the philosophical elements, comparing empirical data with empirical data, and weighing theory against theory. If we are ever to get anywhere on the questions surrounding life's origin, it will only be by adopting a methodology that addresses the issues realistically. The ID movement has done this very thing, and the evolutionists had better work quickly to catch up. Their house is being eroded at its very foundation.


Bakker, Robert T. The Dinosaur Heresies. New York: William Morrow and Company, 1986.
Behe, Michael. Darwin's Black Box. New York: The Free Press, 1996.
Bird, W.R. The Origin of Species Revisited Volume I. 4th ed. Nashville, TN: Regency, 1991.
Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker. 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987.
Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler, 1986.
Flew, Antony. A Dictionary of Philosophy. 2nd ed. New York: Gramercy Books, 1999.
Johnson, Philip. Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997.
Rana, Fazale R. "Feathered Dinosaur or Flightless Bird?" Connections. Volume 2, Number 4, fourth quarter, 2000. 2.
Ross, Hugh. "Darwinism's Fine Feathered Friends - A Matter of Interpretation." Facts & Faith. Volume 12, Number 3, third quarter, 1998. 1-3.
Sunderland, Luther. Darwin's Enigma. Santee, CA: Master Books, 1984.
Walsh, John Evangelist. Unraveling Piltdown. New York: Random House, 1996.
Wells, Jonathan. "Haeckel's Embryos and Evolution: Setting the Record Straight." The American Biology Teacher 61. 5-99. 345-349.
Wells, Jonathan. "Lerner Report Whitewashes Bad Science."

This article comes from William Kilgore's Scripture Thoughts site and is reproduced here with William's express and kind permission.


Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional