Most people today have learned about “the theory of evolution” at some point during their grade school years, and assume this theory is fact.

In science, theories are never facts. Evolution is a phenomenon of nature which can be observed and measured in the natural world and in the laboratory

Though most people do not know the details behind this theory, who proposed it, and what evidence the theory has been based on.

Quite so, and its a sad reflection on the state of education that this is the case

If anyone stops to take a look at this so-called evidence, they will realize that much of it is not evidence but simply a combination of assumptions and wishful thinking.

I suggest that if anyone bothers to read other than creationist sources they will find that this is simply falst. Darwin's theory is built from the evidence and has been tested exhaustively for well over a century

Below is some information we have gathered from different sources on the subject which we feel are true.

"Feel to be true" is evidence of nothing other than wishful thinking and ignorance

Throughout the centuries, Scientists have always argued where life on earth came from.

Quite so. What has that to do with the validity of evolutionary theory?

“Creationists” are people who believe we were created by God.

This is rather disingenuous as it would identify many who believe in God as "Creationists" even if they are strongly opposed to creationism. A better definition would be that creationists are those who claim scientific support for their religious dogma.

People who do not believe there is a God find the idea of life being created by a superior being unthinkable.

No, they find ideas which cannot be supported by empirical evidence to be useless.

So these people have been forced to try and think of other possible ways how life could exist on earth in so many different forms (from single cell all the way up to complex life forms called Homo Sapiens or human beings).

No, they and religious believers  investigate the workings of nature using the tools of science and formulate theory based in evidence

In the 1800’s, Scientists normally examined rocks and fossils (“or the fossil record”) to determine what life forms existed during different periods in history.

It's a bit of a quibble, but they started several centuries earlier.

At that time several scientists had proposed different theories of evolution which they felt could explain our existence.

Actually, theories of evolution date back the the ancient Greeks - as the author would know if had actually read "Origin of Species'

Most notable among these men was someone named Charles Darwin who, observing that in some cases plants and animals showed an ascent of increasing complexity in strata (layers of rock and dirt), proposed his own theory of evolution.

Darwin's theory is not based in the fossil record, but on studies of extant plants and animals. He was not notable as a geologist or palaeontologist. It's worth pointing out the many of the leading figures in those sciences at the time were also Christian ministers.

In other words, Darwin was saying that over many many years, small living organisms must have evolved into more complex creatures, which evolved into fish, which evolved into birds, which eventually evolved into larger animals, then into people,

...and he sypported his conclusions with copious evidence

all by themselves.

...which is flatly false. One may as well claim that apples fall to the ground "all by themselves". Darwin described the mechainsms whereby this could occur.

Charles Darwin then devised a theory in 1859 which stated that there is always a “struggle for existence” among living creatures and that only the fittest survive.

Is the author denying that this is the case? By the way "fitness" in the context of evoutionary theory does not carry the same meaning as when we desribe someone as fit.

In addition he stated that nature, over longer periods of time, gradually selects and promotes features of increasing complexity and usefulness for survival.

..and supported his conclusions with copious evidence from the natural world

He called this built in feature “natural selection”.

...and provided copious evidence to support his conclucions

Scientists who did not believe in the creationist point of view (that we are created by God), were quick to adopt this new “theory of evolution” (having nothing else to go on at that time), and a battle between the “Creationists and Evolutionists” was born.

Flatly false. There were (and still are) many scientiss who beileve in God and find no conflict between their beliefs and the findings of science. The "battle between the “Creationists and Evolutionists”" started when some religious groups claimed scientific support for their religious dogma, and this only took off in the second half of the 20th century

By the year 1900, this new theory was well accepted by a large number of scientists and the battle between both sides was still ongoing.

Actually this is not the case,. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection was not widely accepted by science until after the study of genetics provided a mechanism for particulate inheritance.

Throughout the 1900’s, Scientists continually studied the fossil records to try and determine if the theory of evolution was really the “fact of evolution”.

Flatly false, and a demonstration of the ignorance of the author. Theoris in science don't become facts. That evolution occurs is a fact. Evolutionary theory provides a mechanism

If the theory of evolution were fact, then the fossil records would clearly show the gradual transformation over long periods of time that Darwin spoke of.

Again, a demonstration of the ignorance of the author. The fossil record is only one of many strands of evidence demonstrating that evolution occurs

But despite intense research for over 150 years since the theory of evolution was proposed, no instances of a transitional form have been found in the fossil records.

This is quite simply a flat and blatant lie. Collections all over the world house thousands of transitional fossils. Tens of thousands of scientific papers have been published describing them. These are tranitional in the sense for which the term was coined by the people who coined it.

What the fossil records do show is each life form suddenly appearing, full blown, without any apparent relationship to what we went before it.

Again, a flat and blatant lie. Virtually every fossil we find can be linked to its ancestral and derived forms.

 Why evolutionists look the other way and call this a lie is incredible.

I suggest that what is incredible is that creationists claim the moral high ground whilst lying about science in this way.

These few quotes on the subject speak for themselves!

No, they don't. Creationist "quotes" are notorious for taking passages out of context to misrepresent the author, and in some cases are shown to be outright fabrication.

As an example, if the theory of evolution were true, then the fossil records would ALWAYS show a smooth transition from one life form to another, such that it would be difficult to tell where invertebrates ended, and vertebrates began.

Flatly false, given the imperfection of the fossil record. It's worth adding that in spite of such imperfection we have many transitional series including that of the origin of vertebrates. What is striking about that series is that it is impossible to identify a single organism which is the earliest vertebrate, but that it shows the incremental acquisition of characters such as a notochord, segmentation and a bony skeleton.

Though this is NOT always the case.

Yes, but it is the case in a large number of instances.

Instead, fully formed life forms have been discovered to suddenly jump into fossil record seemingly from nowhere, with illogical gaps before them where their ancestors should be.

Flatly false. Pretty well every fossil we find has ancestral forms in the fossil record.

Many evolutionists do not dispute this fact, while others look the other way.

No "evolutionist" would claim that we have complete transitional series for every species. That would be impossible given the nature of the fossil record.

Darwin was aware of the gap in the fossil records though he felt there was more to his theory which explained this.

Not even sure what the author is saying here. Darwin looked to his theory as an explanation for the fossil record, and one which made predictions about fossils which had not yet been found. He didn't however consider that record as fundamental to his theory.

Since human beings can breed living things for special characteristics (i.e. breed sheep for heavier wool, breed horses for extra strength, and roses for color and size), Darwin reasoned that if man could bring about small improvements in living things in such a short period, then nature could surely bring about similar tiny improvements over millions of years in living cells, which could allow them to evolve all the way up to the human beings given enough time.

Quite so. And he has been proved correct.

In other words, Darwin felt plants and animals could vary to an unlimited degree, and given a time span of say, a hundred million years, it could close all of the gaps in the fossil records.

Flatly false. Natural selection sets strict limits on variation.

Next we will see that this is not the case.

Straw Man argument coming!

While Darwin expressed plants and animals could vary to an unlimited degree, breeders were discovering otherwise.

Darwin "expressed" nothing of the sort!

They were discovering that even though it was possible to breed a sheep with short legs, it was NOT possible to breed a plum the size of a watermelon, or breed a horse with tusks.

...though its worth pointing out that one ton pumpkins have been bred, and that the acquisition of a novel system such a tusk would require numerous generations of selection, adn there is no commerical or practical reason to do so.

Each living thing was found to have built in limitations which prevent it from moving too far from the norm.

Any cursory look at modern agricultural products shows that they are vastly different from their ancestors

Excessive breeding for a characteristic was also found to either result in a reverse back toward a given average after many generations, or it resulted in dead end species which were unable to reproduce (like the mule which is a cross between a horse and donkey).

...any cursory look at modern agricultural products shows that they are vastly different from their ancestors. And by the way: ignorance showing again. A mule is a hybrid, not a species and whereas in most cases hybrids are sterile there are instances in which they produce viable offsping. This is one of the observed and measured mechanisms for speciation

To date no breeding experiments have ever resulted in major, new traits resulting in a completely new species.

Flatly false, and any investigation of the scientific literature will show.

Darwin had no answer for this limitation and simply assumed variations could continue to an unlimited degree without evidence.

Flatly false. Darwin formulated a theory which explained why there are limitations!

And that is still the case to this day.

No, that is a pack of falsehoods and distortions.

Some evolutionists like to refer to speciation via breeding in plants as a proof of evolution.

No "evolutionist" worth his salt would be so ignorant as to do so. It is a fact that evolution occurs.

Though breeding experiments in animal and humans has always run into limitations and has NEVER been shown to produce a brand new species.

Flatly false, as any honest investigation of the scientific literature on the subject demonstrates

So breeding cannot be used as a proof for evolution.

Here we go again! Science doesn't offer proof. That evoluton occurs is a fact.

Some quotes regarding breeding can be seen here.

...and no doubt they are up to the same standard of dishonesty as any other creationist quote mine

Since breeding was found to have limitations, this put a road block in the way of theory of evolution.

Flatly fase. To repeat, Darwin formulated a theory which explained why there are limitations!

Though Darwin also felt that if breeding were not the answer, then mutations might be.

...which would be very clever of him, because the role of mutations in evoluton was not discovered until several decades after his death.

In other words he felt maybe it was possible for forms of life to inherit changes, which could explain changes from one form of life to another over long periods of time.

What nonsense! Darwin saw one of the biggest flaws in his theory that it was unclear how traits could be inherited. He wrote extensively on the subject. The prevailing view in his time was the inheritance is blended, which would prevent traits becoming fixed in populations. It was the genetics which provided the mechanism for particulate inheritance which filled this gap in his theory several decades after his death.

Creationists and even many evolutionists immediately pointed out that all observed mutations, whether laboratory induced or occurring naturally, have typically been harmful, or in some cases neutral.

If creationists did so, they were lying. Although the majority of mutations are neutral or harmful, the number which provide selective advantage occur at frequencies which have been shown mathematically to be suitable to drive evolutionary processes.

Mutations are typically a copying error or mistake, which cause things like disease or monstrosities and put the organism at a disadvantage.

They can also lead to variations which provide selective advantage

In addition, mutations have discovered to be an extremely rare event since genes have a built in function to stabilize and resist change.

They are not "extremely rare". In any case, their observed incidence is fully adequate to drive evolutionary processes

So in other words, mutations are rarely seen and when they do occur, they do not bring out an advantage to any living thing.

Once again, flatly false.

Evolutionists like to use the example of beneficial mutations in antibiotic resistance to bacteria, or in mutation of the tomato for example, though none of these types of mutations are relevant to any ideas about one kind of creature changing to another.

Wow! There go the shifting goalposts! Not the biologically meaningless creationist notion of "kinds"?
"Evolutionists" use those as examples of evolution in action because they are examples of evolution in action - using the term in the sense for which it was cloined by the people who cloined it.

One kind of creature changing into another via beneficial mutations has simply NEVER been shown.

Nor could it be, because the term 'kind' is biologically meaningless

For evolutionists to state that many favorable, random mutations have occurred is completely unfounded.

Flatly false, It is a statement which can be supported by very robust and extensive evidence

Mutations simply cannot be the cause for evolution into new, healthy, more complex living organisms.

And we should believe this assertion from someone evidently deeply ignorant not only of evolutionary biology but of science in general because ...?

Again, many evolutionists simply state this fact is not true, when proof is everywhere.

And we should believe this assertion from someone evidently deeply ignorant not only of evolutionary biology but of science in general because ...?

These evolutionists are simply in denial.

Somewhat ironic as this comes from someone whose main argument seems to be blanket denial

Some quotes regarding the mutation theory can be seen here.

..and no doubt they are up to the same standard of dishonesty as any other creationist quote mine

Another evolutionist from Harvard named Stephen Gould next proposed a possibility on how evolution could be taking place, which he felt may also explain the gaps in the fossils records.

..and here comes the distortion and misrepresentation of what "punctuated equilibrium" means

He proclaimed that maybe evolution does not occur gradually, but maybe rapidly.

No, he proposed that under some circumstance evolution occurs at greatly increased rates. He didn't claim that this was always the case

He proposed a scheme called “punctuated equilibrium”, where he mentioned that maybe it was possible that large populations of species live unchanged for millions of years, then for some unknown reason, some of the species become isolated, and by unknown means evolve into new species.

Flatly false. He proposed no different mechanism, only variation in rates of evolutionary change under known mechanisms.

Thus this new isolated species would appear suddenly in the fossils records, which would explain the gap before them.

"Isolated species" has nothing to do with Gould and Eldridge's proposal

Since there were no other explanations which could logically explain the gap in the fossil records, many evolutionists accepted the “punctuated equilibrium” theory initially.

Flatly false. The theory was never widely accepted by palaeontologists because it is very hard to test against the fossil record. It is by no means as radical as Gould (who was very good at self-promotion) claimed. That evolutionary rates can vary was suggested by Darwin well over a century earlier.

Notice that Gould’s proposed “punctuated equilibrium” was filled with “what-if’s” and was purely speculation.

Flatly false. It was proposal about variation in the rates of phenomena we can observe

To use an unfounded “punctuated equilibrium” theory to try and explain gaps in the fossil records without providing any proof does not give any more credence to the evolutionist position.

Just as well that he didn't do it "without providing any proof " isn't it? Not that science offers proof of course, but I'm making allowances for the ignorance of the author

In addition, “punctuated equilibrium” opposes all known rules of genetics.

Flatly false. It is based on the same evolutonary theory - the modern synthesis - as other papers written at the time

For example the genetics apparatus of a lizard is devoted 100% to producing another lizard.

Again, flatly and blatantly false! The genetic "apparatus" of a lizard contains genes inherited from its more remote ancestor.

The idea that such an indescribably complex, finely tuned, highly integrated, amazingly stable genetic apparatus involving hundreds of thousands of interdependent genes could be drastically altered and rapidly reintegrated in such a way that a new organism is actually an improvement over the preceding organism is contrary to all known laws of genetics and is pure speculation and groundless.

Actually, it is very robustly supported by numerous strands of evidence as even a rudmentary education in biology would reveal.

It’s interesting to see that creationists have always stated that gaps in the fossil records are proof of special creation, and now the evolutionists, with the new “punctuated equilibrium” theory, were starting to say that gaps in the fossil records were evidence of evolution!

As creationists demonstrably and persistently lie about the fossil record, so what?

In a nutshell, up to this point there is no proof of gradual evolution (over long period of time).

Only if we ignore virtually all of the fossil record and lie about it.

And rapid or sudden evolution is indistinguishable from special creation!

Flatly false. Rapid evolution is something we can observe in action in the natural workd and replicate in the laboratory

As a part of theory of evolution, Darwin also proposed that each time any organism evolves, every stage must be an immediate advantage to the species because “ natural selection” is a mindless process with no idea where it is going, so it cannot plan and conceive an end goal.

Quite so. How refreshing that for once the author has made a statement which is actually true

Creationists immediately argued

No, they didn't. They didn't exist at the time

that how could many organs of the human body, such as the incredibly complicated human eye, develop bit by bit by chance mutation, not knowing it is going to be an eye? Of what use would a half developed eye be? How could each step have been an advantage until the entire eye was complete?

A question Darwin addressed in considerable detail in chapter 6 of 'Origin of Species'. He demonstrated the viability of a long series of intermediate forms from a patch of light-sensitive cells to a complex eye by reference to extant organisms.

How about other parts of a body such as a kidney or jaw? How about the wings of a bird? What good is half of a jaw or half of a wing? We could give endless examples here.

..and scientists could provide excellent and detailed explanatations for them if you were prepared to listen.

Some quotes regarding the “natural selection” theory can be seen here.

...and yet again there is no doubt that they are up to the same standard of dishonesty as any other creationist quote mine

Darwin has always stressed that “survival of the fittest” was an underlying component of his theory of evolution.

Flatly false, as Darwin didn't coin the term though he used it in some of his later writing

Though evolutionists cannot identify which aspects are important for survival because survival cannot be seen or proved.

Flatly false as there is a huge body of research and publication exploring many aspects of this

No evolutionist really knows how “natural selection” really works, or if it is currently working.

Flatly false. It has been recorded in action both in the laboratory and the natural world many, many times and is there in the scientific literature

Neither has a “struggle for existence” been found to exist among plants and animals.

Really? That would mean that all offspring of every organism survives. In case you haven't noticed, we are not knee-deep in rats and beetles

Yet evolutionists continue to preach the theory of evolution without any proof for what they are claiming.

Flatly false. "Evolutionists" don't preach - they leave that to the religious. Evolutionary theory is extremely robust and supported by mountains of evidence

There have been several claims of fossils found that show evidence between man and ape

Actually, man is an ape

Neanderthal Man – When the first “Neanderthal Man” was discovered in about 1856, it was thought to be true link from ape to man.

Showing how far science has advanced since then

Though well–known biologists such as Virchow

... back in 1856, by the way

and many other Scientists and medical authorities since that time have all declared the Neanderthal skulls shows signs of severe rickets

They have? Not to my knowledge and I suggest that it is clear that I know rather a lot more about this than the author of this drivel

(a deficiency disease characterized by defective bone growth) which explains why it’s appearance is slightly different.

Flatly false. The differences are clear and distinctive

Other authorities have also claimed that there have been skulls of modern man found over the last century which look very similar to the Neanderthal Man skull

There have been skulls which suggest a hybrid of Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis, and the presence of neanderthal DNA in our own genome supports this. However, the evidence shows the H.sapiens and H.neanderthalensis evolved as separate lineages from common ancestry.

In addition, there have been instances where the Neanderthal Man bones were put on display in museums and it was later discovered the bones were arranged to give it the “hunched“ appearance.

..which museums have in general corrected in the light of better knowledge

When this incorrect arrangement was brought to light, it was still left on display as is.

Possibly as a consequence of poor curation or lack of funds, but generally not the case. It's worth pointing out that the better understanding of neanderthal anatomy came from palaeontologist and anthropologists using the tools of science.

Quotes regarding Neanderthal Man Can be seen here.

..and yet again there is no doubt that they are up to the same standard of dishonesty as any other creationist quote mine

The “Piltdown“ skull was first “discovered” in England in1912 by Charles Dawson.

True

For 41 years it was the leading evidence for evolution until in 1953 it was discovered to be a forgery.

Not really. It's valdity was questioned from the beginning

It was actually found to be a recent human skull combined with a female orangutan jaw, and was dyed and slightly modified to give it the appearance of age.

Quite so

It’s interesting to note how all textbooks before 1953 showed Piltdown man in every human’s family tree, then one day it was no longer “true”.

That's because it was shown to be a forgery. Unlike creationists "evolutionists" acknowledge their mistakes and don't promote known falsehoods

The British Museum has documented other "discoveries" by Dawson as forgeries as well.

Imagine that! All those evil "evolutionists" trying to find out if they have been decieved so that they can identify forgeries!

When this was “discovered” in 1891 by Dr. Eugene Dubois, two other skulls were found in the same formation and of the same age which were no different from skulls of modern Australian aborigines.

A flat falsehood found only in creationist sources. They were found in a different and much later geolgical context

Dubois formed java man from a chimp-like skullcap, human thigh bone, and teeth, all found within 50 feet of each other, and he simply put them together, assuming they were from the same man.

A reasonable assumption given their close proximity, and one which has been well-supported by later and more complete specimens.

Java man was later discredited by the finder himself, Dr. Eugene Dubois, as actually being a gibbon in 1938.

Complete and utter bunkum! Dubois became increasingly eccentric as he aged and deveised some very idiosyncratic evolutionary theories, but the status of Homo erectus as a valid taxon was not in doubt.

Yet despite Dubois recanting, java man was left in many text books.

Quite so. That's because it is the holotype of one of the best known species of the genus Homo. Dubois' eccentricities are irrelevant

As we can see many scientists who claim “scientific evidence” may simply be making guesses.

As we can see, the author is relying on a string of outright falsehoods and a profound ignorance of the nature of science.

True science has no place for guessing.

It has if those guesses can be tested by the acquistion of evidence

Nebraska Man - In 1922 a tooth was discovered in Nebraska by Dr. Henry Fairfield Osborn who examined the tooth and claimed it had characteristics of a man, chimp, and Java Man.

NO, it didn't. It had characters from which it was described as an anthropid ape of uncertain affinity

Years later it was determined the tooth was actually from an extinct pig.

Not than many years later, and an excellent example of how science corrects mistakes

In summary, when bones are found, there is no way for even the best of scientists to state with certainty that they all came from same being, or what that being looked like, or what type of life that being lived .

We can get pretty good clues to all sorts of aspects of the biology of the animal from studying its bones, and if we find complete articulated skeletons it is certain that they came from the same animal

Yes, educated guesses can always be made, but they will be always guesses.

Not if they are tested against the evidence. In any case, they are a lot better than the uneducated guesses of creationists.

There are several other claims by evolutionists over the past 150 years that have been used as arguments in favor of the theory of evolution.

Actually  there is a vast body of scientific research and publication in the field

Here are few of them and evidence that they are false:

and no doubt that "evidence" will be misrepresentation and falsehoods

Vestigial Organs - Organs such as tonsils and appendix were originally thought to be useless vestiges of organs once used by man's ancestors.

Still are in many cases

At one time there were over 100 vestigial organs listed.

Quite so. The point?

All have now been shown to have useful functions.

They have? That will come as news to the scientific community!

In addition, if there were such a thing as vestigial organs, we would see emerging organs in process of development on extinct and existing life forms, since if evolution is a fact, all organs must have rudimentary beginnings.

We do. For example, we have an excellent fossil record of the evolution of whales which show the gradual loss of hindlimbs.

The complete absence of these emerging organs is passed over quietly by evolutionists.

Actually, their existence is published in the scientific literature

Another interesting point to be made here is that evolution scientists claim that apes are our closest relatives and that man has vestigial organs that were used once, but are being phased out by evolution.

Bit of a non-sequitur here

If this is so, then scientists should be able to look at the ape (and other lesser animals) and determine how these vestigial organs were more fully functional.

They can and do, and publish their findings in the scientific literature

But you'll notice no scientist will touch this subject!

Flatly false, as numerous scientific papers demonstrate

Many claim that transitional forms have been found, but this is simply speculation and there is no proof of it.

Flatly false. The nature of transitional forms is predicted strongly by evolutionary theory and numerous instances of such forms are described in the scientific literature

For example, at one time the Archaeopteryx, a fossilized bird-like creature, was used as an example of transition from reptile to bird.

It still remains an excellent example of a transitional form

This has since been discredited by many since many other birds were since found in the same strata

Flatly false. Archaeopteryx is the only bird known from the Solnhofen Limestone

, many birds from that time were found to have teeth,

Quite so. It's a characteristic of transitional forms

and many known birds existed at that time that could not fly

They did? None are recorded in the scientific literature

This is just one example.

Yes - of a transitional form, using the term in the sense for which it was coined by the people who coined it

From time to time we see other claimed discoveries come forward in the news which are claimed to be a type of missing link.

Transitional fossils (not "missing links") are bewing found all the time

We see many claims that something lived a certain number of years ago, walked a certain way, ate a certain type of food, and breathed a certain way etc, however we can clearly see these are purely speculation on part of the scientist as other scientists often present completely different scenarios.

Flatly false. Scientist argue over the evidence, and new models emerge from those arguments. It's how science operates.

These are educated guesses and none are conclusive.

The key term being "educated". It is rather better than uneducated guesses

If transitional forms exist, then they should be commonly found everywhere, across all lifetimes, and in all parts of the world,

They are

which even Darwin himself admits is not the case (in the quotes link below).

Darwin died in 1882. We have made many, many more discoveries of transitional forms since then

A few educated guesses in our day and age is not going to change this fact!

No, but the existence of numerous transitional forms shows that they exist

Also see the quotes from others regarding transitional forms.

..more creationist quote mines...

Despite the fact that no facts have ever been produced making the "Theory of Evolution" the "Fact of Evolution",

That evolution occurs is a fact. EVolutionary theory provides a mechanism. Theories don't become facts

many people still blindly cling to it since they do not believe in creation and feel it is the best and only thing they have to go on.

No, they accept it because that is what the evidence shows regardless of personal faith. The fact that many evolutionary biologists are religious believers demonstrates this.

Throughout the 1900's there have been numerous trials regarding teaching of evolution, creationism, or both in the public schools.

Not that many, and in most case creationism lost

The Creationists have always fought to have the Theory of Evolution taught as THEORY, not fact, since it truly is only a theory to this day.

Flatly false as well as demonstrating yet again an ignorance of the nature of science. Creationists have fought to have their religious dogma taught as science in science classes, and persitently and systematically lied about evolution to promote their cause

The evolutionists on the other hand have always fought to have creationism NOT MENTIONED AT ALL in the schools.

Flatly false. They have fought to prevent religious dogma being taught as science in science classes

They have always refused to have creationism taught as an alternative to evolution.

That's because it is not a scientific alternative

Since many people group creationism into a religious category,

That's because it is religious

and religion was not to be taught in the public schools, evolution came out on top as what was to be taught to children in the public schools.

That's because evolutionary biology is science and creationism is not

The crime of the matter is that it is taught in the schools without mention of creation as a possible alternative, children assume it is fact.

The crime actually rests with the creationists who have lied under oath to support their agenda. It's called perjury

In addition, the theory of evolution has been taught as fact

Not by anyone who knows the difference between fact and theory in science

in every other branch of knowledge in the world, to the point where you may be laughed at or even refused funding (in the case of scientists) if you do not believe in the theory.

If you or any other creationist can propose an aternative, testable theory with the same explanatory power as evolutionary theory, feel free to do so. Until then, there is no reason to teach religious dogma as science.

It's been over 160 years since the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted throughout the world, yet to this day we know little more about the origin of species then we did then, and the proofs mentioned above have been thrown out by most evolutionists.

What a load of complete and utter nonsense! We know vastly more about how species originate now than we did in the middle of the 19th century, and there is a huge body of scientific literature on the subject

And despite all of the facts against each evolutionist argument, the evolutionists continue to grasp at straws and blindly accept a theory which is CLEARLY not fact.

More complete and utter nonsense, and once again a demonstration of the scientfic illiteracy of the author

Many do this simply because they refuse to believe the alternative (creation), or because they fear to be at odds with their colleagues.

More complete and utter nonsense. "Creation" is not a valid scientific theory, let alone an alternative to evolutionary theory

Here are some quotes that show how evolutionists cling to the theory of evolution regardless of proof against it.

..and once again we have the creationist quote mine

To determine if the theory of evolution is a fact, one has to look at scientific evidence first, regardless of belief in any religion.

No, to establish the validity of evolutionary theory, one has to look at the scientific evidence. Theories don't become facts. Those are different concepts. Evolutionary biologists have been studying the evidence for centuries and the theory remains soundq1

All true scientists (creationist or evolutionist), if they are TRUE scientists, study the scientific evidence first, and make a decision from there.

Quite so. The problem creationist have is that they approach the evidence with the a priori determination of the truth of their religious dogma and ignore or lie about any evidence which contradicts it

Creationists dispute the underlying theories of natural selection, breeding mutations, and other facts above not because of their religious beliefs,

My word, what a whopper! It is only their religious beliefs which lead them to dispute the science!

but because no scientific research or laboratory observations over the past 160 years have shown these individual sub-theories can possibly be.

And again, whether the author is ignorant or just plain lying, there are mountains of research findings which contradict this

Once these individual sub-theories are shown to be false, the theory of evolution falls apart.

Just as well that nobody has succeeded in doing so, isn't it?

Once the theory of evolution is ruled out as being a possibility based on scientific facts observed, the only thing left that make any sense is creation.

Complete and utter bunkum! Even if evolutionary theory were utterly falsified (and it most certainly has not), the alternative is to say "I don't know" and carryon looking for answers. It is not to abandon science in favour of religious dogma

It is a fact that Darwin and many other who had an initial hand in theories surrounding evolution were known atheists or agnostics.

NO, it is not a fact. Although Darwin was agnostic, and Huxley an atheist, it was largely accepted by his Christian contemporaries

The theory of evolution for them was essential to give them a mechanical explanation of the universe without any spiritual principles.

As is the case with all theories in all fields of science. The point?

Without the theory of evolution, atheists and agnostics have nothing substantial on which to base things, hence they tend to cling to the theory of evolution, even when presented with facts that show sub-theories like natural selection cannot be.

What nonsense! There are plenty of atheists and agnostics who know little about evolution but base their beliefs (or lack of them) on completely different things

Creationists on the other hand do not have this attachment since when the theory of evolution falls apart, creation still stands regardless.

Creationists on the other hand have such a strong attachment to their religious dogma that they are prepared to promote falsehoods on its behalf

It is also a fact that many religious people over the centuries who do believe in God, have accepted the theory of evolution and never give it a second thought.

Quite so. It's actually the position of most of the worlds Christians

Again many assume it is true from what they learned in school, and leave it at that.

..or they could just have educated themselves in the subject, and reject creationism because they have found it to be deeply and systematically dishonest

It is when they discover the sub-theories like natural selection and mutations do not line up, that these religious people can easily discard the theory of evolution since they have their belief in creation to fall back on.

Or perhaps they find that the supposed falsification of evolutionary theory by creationists is ignorant and dishonest and don't change their minds?

It is simply a matter of a person who decides to learn about the theory of evolution in-depth, who stumbles on the discrepancies and realizes there is something wrong.

As it is clear that the author of this drivel hasn't studied it in depth and reveals that ignorance in virtually every sentence of this article, perhaps it is the opposite which is the case?

For those that believe in God and in Scripture, many questions arise when discussing the theory of evolution.

...though it would be a good idea if that discussion was based in facts rather than the lies and distortions fo creationists...

First, if every human being is given a soul by God, at what point during the evolutionary process did God step in and give human beings their souls?

...which is question for theology, not science

And when considering the earliest human beings, were their immediate ancestors non-human without souls?

...which is a question for theology, not science...

You may have heard the joke: if Adam and Eve were the first human beings, were their parents apes? This actually becomes a serious question for those who believe in Scripture.

..which is a question for theology, not science, and in any case reveals a profound ignorance of evolutionary biology

According to Sir Julian Huxley, an English biologist and author, he declared that "Darwin's real achievement was to remove the whole idea of God as creator from the sphere of rational discussion. " What this means is, man, being descended from animals, is thus freed from being answerable for his own behavior.

He's entitled to his views. Others disagree

A few results of this are sexual license, the criminal as victim of society, and the Marxian belief that the end justifies and makes "moral" any means.

Which rather fails to explain the fact that by most measures the more religious a society the greater the incidence of many negative social ills.

See the Creation Research website for good scientific facts from creationist scientists.

Or better, go to a proper museum,  read some of the many popular books on evolution and go back to read creationist sources to learn how that science is misrepresented and lied about

As for creationism, what proof is there that we are created? Solid “scientific “ evidence is not available, though empirical evidence is plentiful! Belief in the existence of God stems from looking at the abundant empirical evidence we see around us, as seen on our Don’t Believe in God? page.

Nothing to do with science then. Fine. Just don't claim that your religious dogma is supported by science and demand that it is taught as science in science classes.