A reader sent me a link to the following:

Evolutionists Against Darwinism
“A 2005 poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research found that 60% of American medical doctors reject Darwinism, stating that they do not believe humans evolved through natural processes alone. Thirty-eight percent of the American medical doctors polled agreed with the statement that ‘Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement.’ The study also reported that 1/3 of all medical doctors favor the theory of intelligent design over evolution. … The prestigious journal Science reported the following in 2006 concerning the United States: ‘The percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005. Meanwhile the fraction of Americans unsure about evolution has soared from 7 per cent in 1985 to 21 per cent last year.’ In January 2006, the BBC reported concerning Britain: ‘Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll. Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons’” (“Evolution,” Conservapedia).
The following scientists do not hold to biblical creationism. In fact, some of them are strongly opposed to creationism. …

Michael Behe, Ph.D. in biology from the University of Pennsylvania … “Over the past four decades modern biochemistry has uncovered the secrets of the cell. The progress has been hard won. It has required tens of thousands of people to dedicate the better parts of their lives to the tedious work of the laboratory. … The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell–to investigate life at the molecular level–is a loud, clear, piercing cry of ‘design!’ The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. … “This triumph of science should evoke cries of ‘Eureka!’ from ten thousands of throats, should occasion much hand-slapping and high-fiving, and perhaps even ben an excuse to take a day off. But no bottles have been uncorked, no hands slapped. Instead, a curious, embarrassed silence surrounds the stark complexity of the cell. When the subject comes up in public, feet start to shuffle, and breathing gets a bit labored. In private people are a bit more relaxed; many explicitly admit the obvious but then stare at the ground, shake their heads, and let it go at that” (Darwin’s Black Box, preface, chapter 11). …
He makes this bold statement: “Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature–in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books–that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred.” …

Paleontologist Niles Eldredge: “No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. … Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else.” … biologists Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders: “… the success of the [neo-Darwinian synthesis] are limited to the minutiae of evolution, such as the adaptive change in coloration of moths; while it has remarkably little to say on the questions which interest us most, such as how there came to be moths in the first place.” … biologist Jerry Coyne: “We conclude–unexpectedly–that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” … geneticist John Endler: “Although much is known about mutation, it is still largely a ‘black box’ relative to evolution. Novel biochemical functions seem to be rare in evolution, and the basis for their origin is virtually unknown.” …
Klaus Dose: “More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.”
Behe examines biology textbooks and how they deal with evolution and concludes: “Many students learn from their textbooks how to view the world through an evolutionary lens. However, they do not learn how Darwinian evolution might have produced any of the remarkably intricate biochemical systems that those texts describe.” …

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, … told the Diplomacy Post in March 2014: ‘A scientific hypothesis should be potentially falsifiable…. However,’ he added, ‘the idea of slow evolution by ‘infinitesimally small inherited variations’ etc. has been falsified by the findings of palaeontology… as well [as] genetics. Yet its adherents principally reject any scientific proof against Neo-Darwinism,’ he said, ‘so that, in fact, their theory has become a non-falsifiable worldview, to which people stick in spite of all contrary evidence.’ Scientists continue to support evolution despite the evidence that actually falsified evolution because ‘without Darwinism, philosophic materialism has lost its battle against an intelligent origin of the world.’ But Wolf had more to say. ‘According to Neo-Darwinism, all important problems of the origin of species are, at least in principle, solved. Further questions on the validity of evolutionary theory are thus basically superfluous. However, such a dogmatic attitude stops further investigations and hinders fruitful research in science.’ …

Francis Crick won the Nobel Prize … he wrote: “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going” (p. 88). Crick rejected Darwinism by concluding that there is no scientific evidence of a “primordial soup” in which life could have risen. He also stated that the beginning of the fossil record does not show evolution. Instead, it witnesses the sudden appearance of complex creatures. 08/14/19 repost https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/evolutionists_against_darwinism.html

As reported here before, over a thousand scientists (including yours truly) signed a petition related to flaws in Darwin’s evolutionary model (see 1,000+ scientists sign declaration of flaws on Darwinian evolution).

Evolution, as normally pushed by academia and the media, is not scientific. It is a seriously flawed model that breaks apart when people are willing to honestly look at its impossibilities and assumptions.

The Bible warns about false science:

20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. (1 Timothy 6:20-21, KJV)

Yes, many falsely cling to what is falsely called science.

Evolution is seriously flawed as can also be seen from our online animation: A Lifegiver or Spontaneous Evolution?

Notice something from our free online book Is God’s Existence Logical?:

Did most species slowly evolve like evolutionists have claimed for over a century?
No. And a study published in 2018 realizes this:
Mark Stoeckle from The Rockefeller University in New York and David Thaler at the University of Basel in Switzerland … published findings … sure to jostle, if not overturn, more than one settled idea about how evolution unfolds.
It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time.
But is that true?
“The answer is no,” said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution. (Hood M. Sweeping gene survey… Physic.org, May 28, 2018)
The study referred to above also concluded that about 90% of species, including humans, arrived at about the same time. While there are dating issues, this basically proves that the explanation of species’ development as evolutionists have long claimed as fact, was false.
The evolutionary theories of every type, from the cosmological evolutionary epochs, abiogenesis claims, and the theory of biological evolution all try to claim they may know how all life, matter and energy developed without a creator. Something that actual laws of science show is not true.
The truth is that for life to randomly begin and have the immediate ability to find/ingest/digest food and to reproduce ignores various laws of science.
The other truth is that evolution is accepted by many who do not actually want to live God’s way of life, nor do those “believers” tend to take seriously the prophetic warnings of the Bible. Actually the Bible is supportive of the idea that those who accept theories like evolution have allowed their minds to essentially de-evolve, in the sense that they wish to believe a lie (Romans 1:18-32).

Scientists who challenge many claims associated with evolution are shunned by many academic institutions, as there is a tremendous amount of pressure at most “leading” academic institutions to squelch research that is not in support of evolution as it will affect their beliefs. Thus, many in the academic world accept evolution, essentially like a false religion, since many of their friends and colleagues believe the evolutionary nonsense. Therefore, they assume that it must have been proven true. But it never has been.

Of course, with the mainstream media being willing accomplices, and being part of an anti-Bible agenda, evolution is treated like fact, without proof.

While species variation is something that God programmed in His creation, evolution, as the explanation for the origin of life, is unscientific and false. It also requires students to accept a belief that violates other known laws of biological science.

By the way, God apparently expects humans to realize that He exists through various aspects of His creation. Notice:

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:20).

Thus since life could not have randomly sprung forth, eaten, and reproduced, only a different type of entity (God) could have caused it to begin.

Evolution has led to the intentional ignorance of appropriate scientific methods. It became a religion for many in the 19th century, and remains one for many today.

Related Items:

Is it logical to believe in God?

Evolution is NOT the Origin of Life

Two animated videos of related interest are also available: Big Bang: Nothing or Creator? and A Lifegiver or Spontaneous Evolution?

Is Evolution Probable or Impossible or Is God’s Existence Logical? Part II

Is It Logical And Scientific To Believe In God?

Is There Another View of Evolution?

Gap Theory: Doctrine or Modern Heresy?

Genesis, 'Prehistoric Man' and the Gap Theory

How is God Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient?

Proof Jesus is the Messiah

Sermons based on the free online book above: