This PowerPoint/Keynote presentation is part of the
apologetics course entitled An Unshakeable Faith.
Copyright 2011
Way of Life Literature
P. O. Box 610368
Port Huron, MI 48061
866-295-4143
http://www.wayoflife.org
fbns@wayoflife.org
In Canada
Bethel Baptist Church, 4212 Campbell St. N., London,
Ontario N6P 1A6
519-652-2619
Before viewing the
slide presentations
on evolution, the
teacher should first
present the
introduction to the
evolution section
from the apologetics
course “An
Unshakeable Faith.”
Icons of Evolution
Fables in Textbooks and Museums
Icons of Evolution are
evidences that are
commonly offered for
evolution in textbooks and
natural history museums.
They should actually be
called MYTHS OF
EVOLUTION, because they
provide zero scientific
evidence for Darwinian
evolution. In fact, they refute
evolution!
This is why we evolution
cannot rightly be called a
“theory.”
“Evolution does not warrant
being called a theory or a
hypothesis.”
David Stone, Ph.D. physics
“A theory arises when a
hypothesis has stood up to
repeated tests under a wide
variety of conditions and
cannot be broken. Evolution
warrants neither term.
Evolution qualifies as a
philosophical, even a
religious idea, void of
scientific support, and
intended to replace biblical
truth with stories.”
David Stone, Ph.D. physics
“For the time will come when they will not
endure sound doctrine; but after their own
lusts shall they heap to themselves
teachers, having itching ears; and they
shall turn away their ears from the truth,
and shall be turned unto FABLES”
2 Timothy 4:3-4
Homology
Practically every modern biology textbook
and every natural history museum uses
homology as an evidence for evolution.
Charles Darwin
“I should infer from analogy
that probably all the
organic beings which have
ever lived on this earth
have descended from
some one primordial form.”
“These homologous structures ... provide
evidence of a common ancestor” (Prentice Hall
Biology 2002).
Homology is used to demonstrate the evolution
of the horse.
Homology is used to demonstrate the evolution
of man from apes. The famous Parade of Man is
an argument from Homology.
Homology is
used to
demonstrate the
evolution the
whale.
1. The argument from
homology is based
entirely on
evolutionary
assumption.
similarity of structure
between creatures is zero
evidence for evolution. It
could as easily mean
common design as
common descent.
It would be reasonable for
the Creator to use similar
structures and processes
in creatures designed to
live in the same
environment.
engineers use devices like
gears, wheels, ball joints,
solenoids, switches, etc.,
repeatedly in all different
kinds of machines.
“Roller skates, bikes, cars,
trucks, busses and trains
all have wheels, but one is
not the ancestor of the
other. They are similar
because intelligent human
designers have all thought
that wheels are a good way
to move things on land. ...
Good designs can be, and
are, easily modified for
different applications” (Dr.
Terry Mortenson).
“Slapping down eyes of
varying complexity on a
chart and then drawing
arrows from less complex
to more complex does
nothing to explain how the
eyes emerged” (William
Dembski, The Design
Revolution).
2. Homology is based on
the unproven
assumption that
evolution has a
mechanism that could
create complex
structures.
The two classic mechanisms of Darwinism are
natural selection and genetic mutation. Neither
of these have creative powers.
Natural selection might be able to “select” a
certain beak size on a finch, but it can’t create a
beak or a finch.
Genetic mutations are overwhelmingly
harmful and do not add the information to
the genome that would be required to create
complex new structures.
Another proposed mechanism is
“geographic or reproductive isolation.”
This says that when a small group of
creatures is isolated by geographic
barriers, “evolution” will occur more
quickly because of the smaller gene pool.
But this only deals with existing genes and
offers no possibility of being a mechanism to
add new genetic information and create new
structures and organs and creatures.
Since Darwinists won’t allow “a Divine Foot in
the door,” they are back at square one with no
answer to the million dollar question: What is the
power that fashioned such an amazing world of
living things?
3. The founders of the
biological
classification systems
did not believe that
homology pointed to
evolution.
Carl Linneaus, who
formulated the system for
classifying plants and
animals that is is still used
today, was a creationist.
Georges Cuvier, one of
the founders of
comparative anatomy,
was a creationist.
“It is ironic that many
modern scientists quote
classification trees,
comparative anatomy and
paleontology as evidence
for evolution, when the
founding scientists of
these subjects were
strong supporters of
biblical creation” (Stuart
Burgess, Hallmarks of
Design).
4. The limbs and
creatures are actually
more different than
similar.
A man is dramatically different from an ape!
A bat’s wing is dramatically different from a human
arm!
5. At the genetic level
the structures are not
formed in the same
way.
This biology textbook
wrongly claims that
homologous structures
can be traced to the
genetic level.
“The limbs ... derive from
the same structures in
the embryo.”
This is not true.
Consider the formation of
human and frog digits.
In humans, cell death
divides the ridge into five
regions that then develop
into figures and toes.
In frogs, the digits grow
outward from buds.
Homology offers zero
evidence for the doctrine of
the evolution of life.
It teaches us that evolution
does not qualify as a
scientific theory or even a
hypothesis. It is a mythical
story.
The Peppered
Moth
The peppered moth is a
major icon of evolution. In
the New Guide to
Science, Isaac Asimov
used it as his sole
evidence.
Most biology textbooks
use the Peppered moth as
evidence for evolution
It’s been called
“evolution’s prize horse”
“The slam dunk of natural
selection”
“The thundering left hook
to the jaw of creationism”
During the 1800s there
were two kinds of
peppered moths in
England--light-colored and
dark-colored.
During the industrial
revolution pollution killed
the lichen on trees so that
they became darker in
color.
About that time the
number of dark moths
increased dramatically.
This was said to be
because the light moths
were easier to see against
the tree trunks so birds
ate them first.
The simple change in the
equilibrium between light
and dark moths is
supposed to prove that
evolution occurs.
The adaptation is
supposed to demonstrate
the power of natural
selection or survival of the
fittest.
The dark-colored moth
was even given a new
name, Biston betularia
carbonaria, a supposed
new subspecies.
The original research into
the peppered moths was
done by Bernard
Kettlewell, who quit his
medical practice in order
to prove evolution.
He proclaimed that he had
discovered “Darwin’s
missing evidence.”
He published a photo that
became a major icon of
evolution. It shows two
peppered moths resting
on a tree trunk.
1. The moths are
still moths.
Adaptation of a species to
its environment and variety
within a species is not
evidence for Darwinian
evolution.
The Peppered Moth is still
a moth. In fact, it is still a
Peppered Moth. There
were light and dark
Peppered Moths to start
with. Nothing evolved!
Adaptability of species
within the bounds of “kinds”
is evidence for creation, not
evolution. God designed
the creatures to adapt to
changing environments on
a fallen earth.
2. Subsequent studies
have debunked the
correlation between
pollution and the change
in moth color.
“Field studies have
demonstrated that
pollution and tree lichens
are not always correlated
with a greater proportion
of darker moths” (John
Day, Darwin Day in
America).
“In one place, for
example, the number of
darker moths increased
after pollution decreased.”
3. The evidence was
doctored.
Further research has proven
that the Peppered Moth
doesn’t typically rest on tree
trunks.
The photos of moths
resting on tree trunks are
FAKES!
“The well-known
photograph of the black
and white species that
appears in high-school
textbooks was taken using
two moths glued to a tree”
(In the Minds of Men).
Finnish zoologist Kauri
Mikkola found that the
normal resting place of a
peppered moth is beneath
small branches. In
decades of field work he
and his colleagues found
only one moth naturally
perched on a tree trunk.
In fact, the original
researchers knew that the
moths don’t rest on tree
trunks!
Cyril Clarke, a close friend
of Kettlewell, said, “In 25
years we have only found
two Betularia on the tree
trunks or walls adjacent to
our traps.”
Jonathan Wells debunked
the Peppered Moth myth
in his book Icons of
Evolution.
Biology professor Kenneth
Miller tried to refute
Jonathan Well’s
statements about the
Peppered Moth, but he
ended up deleting it from
his own biology textbook.
In 2003 Judith Hooper
debunked the Peppered
Moth icon in her book “Of
Moths and Men.” Though
she is an evolutionist, she
has been treated roughly
by the evolutionary
establishment.
Yet again we see that
evolution does not qualify
as a scientific theory or
even a hypothesis.
Darwin’s
Finches
This is a finch that lives on
the Galapagos Islands
that Darwin visited on his
travels.
The fact that its beak size
can change according to
environmental conditions
is supposed to prove
Darwinian evolution.
For example, during
drought when only big
tough seeds are available,
finches with slightly larger
beaks survive better than
those with smaller beaks.
Jonathan Weiner called
this “the best and most
detailed demonstration to
date of the power of
Darwin’s process” (The
Beak of the Finch).
1. The finches are
still finches.
The minor change in beak
size and shape is not
evidence of evolution of
species but of adaptation
within species.
The finches have not even
changed into a different
type of bird.
2. the “subspecies”
name game.
Evolutionists have given
some of the finches a new
“subspecies” name, but
they all interbreed.
Giving a slightly differing
creature a different
scientific name does not
prove that evolution has
occurred. It merely shows
that types of creatures can
adapt within “kind.”
The simple modification of
a bird’s beak or a dog’s
tail or a moth’s color does
not prove that a reptile
became a bird or a wolf
became a whale.
The only thing that the
Darwin finch
demonstrates is the
bankruptcy of the socalled “theory” of
evolution!
Four-winged
Fruit Fly
The four-winged fruit fly is
a product of genetic
experimentation.
Many biology textbooks
use the fruit-fly as
evidence of evolution.
The fruit fly has been the
subject of experimentation
since the work of Thomas
Morgan at beginning of
the 20th century.
It was chosen because it
can breed a new
generation of flies every
14 days and a single pair
of flies can produce as
many as 100 offspring.
Fruit flies have been
subjected to radiation,
poisoning, extreme cold
and heat, and many other
things.
Mutations include
deformed wings, different
colored eyes, and eyeless
varieties.
Another mutation is the four-winged fruit fly. At first
glance, this would appear to be evidence that genetic
mutations can add information and produce new
organs.
“The importance of the four-winged fruit fly is that it
demonstrated that a few mutations in a single gene were
able to transform an entire structure” (National Center for
Science Education).
1. It is a crippled
monstrosity.
The wings are not
functional. They lack flight
muscles, so not only do they
NOT help the creature fly
better, they are a hindrance
to flying at all.
“In aero-dynamic terms, a
four-winged fruit fly is like an
airplane with an extra pair of
full-sized wings dangling
loosely from its fuselage”
(Wells, Icons of Evolution).
“As evidence for evolution,
the four-winged fruit fly is no
better than a two-headed
calf in a circus sideshow.”
The extra “wings” are a
distortion of the insect’s
“halteres,” which are
appendages behind the
wings that enable it to
balance in flight.
The loss of the use of the
halteres is a serious
handicap. They “act as
gyroscopic sensors” that
detect the insect’s angle
and velocity and enable it to
make amazing aerodynamic
movements that cannot be
emulated by the most
advanced fighter jet.
2. The four-wing
fruit fly would be
eliminated by
natural selection.
The Darwinian law of
“survival of the fittest” would
not “select” the four-wing
fruit fly, since it is a crippled,
near useless creature.
The same is true for all of
the mutant varieties. “the
mutated offspring are
always constitutionally
weaker than their parent
form, and in a population
with free competition they
are eliminated.”
3. The fruit fly
experiments are
strong evidence
against evolution.
the experiments prove that
mutations do not produce
useful new structures or
new creatures.
The fruit fly experiments
represent millions of years
of “evolutionary time.” There
were 100 labs in the United
States alone at one point.
“Mutants that would make a
major improvement of the
normal organization in the
normal environments are
unknown” (Theodosius
Dobzhansky, who
succeeded Thomas Morgan
at Columbia University).
The fruit fly experiments
demonstrate that species
are stable and that there are
strict limits to the amount of
change they can
experience.
This supports the bible’s
statement that God formed
every creature to reproduce
“after its own kind.”
“No matter what we do to
the genes of a fruit fly
embryo, there are only three
possible outcomes: a
normal fruit fly, a
defective fruit fly or a
dead fruit fly” (Jonathan
Wells).
The fruit fly experiments
teach us that evolution does
not qualify as a scientific
theory or even a hypothesis.
It is a mythical story.
NOTE TO
TEACHERS
There are review
questions and
summaries to this
material in the book
An Unshakeable
Faith.
This presentation is
abbreviated from the
book “Seeing the
Non-Existent:
Evolution’s Myths and
Hoaxes.” This book
has about many more
icons of evolution.
This PowerPoint/Keynote presentation is part of the
apologetics course entitled An Unshakeable Faith.
Copyright 2011
Way of Life Literature
P. O. Box 610368
Port Huron, MI 48061
866-295-4143
http://www.wayoflife.org
fbns@wayoflife.org
In Canada
Bethel Baptist Church, 4212 Campbell St. N., London,
Ontario N6P 1A6
519-652-2619