liberals, but also notably compromising
evangelicals) triumphantly going
around condemning creationism and
Intelligent Design, and proclaiming
that God and evolution are effectively
bosom buddies. Get real!
Clearly, the icons of evolution
are no innocent little errors. They
are intentional—done to promote
evolutionism and its materialism at all
costs. They are a form of intellectual
dishonesty—but some evolutionists
are OK with deception if it furthers
belief in evolution. 6 The fact that
unsuspecting children and uninformed
young adults are the main target of this
evolutionary propaganda makes it all
the more inexcusable.
1. Wells, J. and Sjogren, J.F., Icons of Evolution,
Regnery Publishing, Washington, DC, 2002.
2. Barker, J. and Philip, J., Phylogenetics of
man-made objects: simulating evolution in the
classroom, Science in School 27: 26–31, 2013.
3. Woodmorape, J., Walking whales, nested
hierarchies, and chimeras: do they exist?
J. Creation 16( 1): 111–119, 2002.
4. Marjanović, D. and Laurin, M., Assessing
confidence intervals for stratigraphic ranges
of higher taxa: the case of Lissamphibia, Acta
Palaeontologica Polonica 53( 3):413–432, 2008.
5. See ReMine, W.J., A review of The Altenberg 16:
An exposé of the evolution industry by Suzan
Mazur, J. Creation 26( 1): 24–30, 2012; creation.
6. Sarfati, J., Evolutionist: it’s OK to deceive
students to believe evolution, creation.com/
deceive, 24 September 2008.
The pretence of the compatibility
of God and evolution
(the universal acid)
Evolution is not ‘just a theory’.
It is not for nothing that it is called
the ‘universal acid’, as it profoundly
transforms whatever it touches.
Reality cannot be compart-
mentalized. Those who accept
evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould’s
rather disingenuous dictum, about
evolution and religion belonging to
‘non-overlapping magisteria’, are out
of touch with reality. To begin with,
science is supposed to deal with factual
matters, while religion is relegated to
subjective feelings and imagination.
This, right there and then, is prejudicial
to religion. Wells quips:
“In effect, this is just a restatement
of materialistic philosophy. It’s a
bully tactic to convince religious
believers that they are not entitled
to say anything about objective
reality” (p. 172).
The more and more that is
claimed for the explanatory power of
evolution, the greater the overlap of
the two magisteria. Additionally, the
magisterium assigned to religion keeps
shrinking and shrinking.
Now consider some painful real-ities. Wells cites studies that show that
a significant number of those raised
as Christians have turned away, and
now are ‘nones’. Of these, about half
indicated that they had done so because
they had stopped believing what they
had once believed. Of the latter, a
large fraction indicated that this had
happened because of the conflict of
their previous beliefs with the ‘facts
of science’. Surely they are not
referring to Newton’s Laws of Motion
(discovered by a creationist!). It is
vividly obvious that the dominant and
constantly repeated “You can believe
in God and evolution at the same time”
mantra did not impress them. Yet, as
elaborated by Wells, we see all kinds
of Christian clergymen (and not only