Evolutionists keep pushing false theory which is against science

The Associated Press published the following:

The Scopes monkey trial took place 100 years ago, but the fight isn’t over

March 13, 2025

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — They called it the “monkey trial.” It was supposed to be a publicity stunt.

A hundred years later, it is remembered as far more.

In March 1925, Tennessee became the first state in the country to ban the teaching of evolution in public school classrooms. Strong reactions rippled across the United States. The eventual upshot: a legal battle that became one of the most renowned in the nation’s history.

Historians say the trial started as a tourism gambit on behalf of the small town of Dayton, Tennessee — where the landmark case unfolded. The town’s leaders were eager for an economic boost and encouraged a local teacher to challenge the law. They wanted the debate over the controversial anti-evolution mandate to take place in their own backyard while the rest of the country eagerly followed along.

But amid the spectacle, the arguments and tensions raised during the eight-day trial persist. The rift over evolution and creationism — particularly in classrooms — has never fully been put to rest, and questions over how students should be taught about life’s origins still spark debate among educators, lawmakers, and the public. …

In the 1960s, the ACLU filed an amicus brief on behalf of a zoology teacher in Arkansas, challenging a state law that banned teaching “that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals.” Unlike the Tennessee case, the Arkansas legal battle went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court where justices declared the anti-evolution law a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. …

Last year, West Virginia enacted a law permitting public school teachers to answer student questions “about scientific theories of how the universe and/or life came to exist” that supporters said was needed to foster discussions beyond evolution.

And in Texas, new state curriculum has sparked criticism due to its inclusion of biblical references, a lesson that asks students to repeat the phrase that starts the creation story in the Book of Genesis and an activity requesting that children remember the order in which the Bible says God created the universe. https://apnews.com/article/scopes-monkey-trial-tennessee-evolution-creationism-1db282339a6f5a6b6d4a8b52dfdf45f3

It was foolish and entirely UNSCIENTIFIC for the US Supreme Court to rule in favor of teaching of evolution as it does NOT explain the true origin of life.

Yet, the pseudoscience, actually anti-science, theory of evolution keeps being pushed by the mainstream as a fact, when it is false.

Scripture teaches us:

1 The fool has said in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt,
They have done abominable works, (Psalms 14:1)

Notice some foolish nonsense that Scientific American published the following several years back:

Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy

July 5, 2021

The global scientific community overwhelmingly accepts that all living humans are of African descent. Most scientific articles about our African origins focus on genetics. The part of the story that is not widely shared is about the creation of human culture. We are all descended genetically, and also culturally, from dark-skinned ancestors. Early humans from the African continent are the ones who first invented tools; the use of fire; language; and religion. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/denial-of-evolution-is-a-form-of-white-supremacy/

Well, actually human beings started in what is called Mesopotamia.

Africans did not invent religion.

God gave instructions to the first human beings, as well as intervened with others as we can see in books of the Bible, beginning with Genesis.

We do not know the skin color of the first people who invented tools. Since the Bible indicates that the inventor of musical instruments, Jubal (Genesis 4:21), was likely dark skinned (cf. Genesis 4:16-20), maybe the first tool inventor was dark skinned, but maybe not. The Bible is NOT a white supremacist text.

The article published in Scientific American further asserted:

I want to unmask the lie that evolution denial is about religion and recognize that at its core, it is a form of white supremacy that perpetuates segregation and violence against Black bodies. Under the guise of “religious freedom,” the legalistic wing of creationists loudly insists that their point of view deserves equal time in the classroom. Science education in the U.S. is constantly on the defensive against antievolution activists who want biblical stories to be taught as fact. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/denial-of-evolution-is-a-form-of-white-supremacy/

Well, I want to unmask the lie that evolution is scientific.

It is not.

Acceptance of evolution is a denial of science.

While biblical stories and accounts are fact (for some proof, see the free online books Is God’s Existence Logical? and Proof Jesus is the Messiah), evolution as the origin of life most certainly is not. It goes against science.

So, is it scientifically logical to believe in God?

Yes, most certainly.

Instead of believing in Divine creations, is it logical to believe the view of ‘spontaneous generation’ of life which is often pushed by well known evolutionists claiming to be scientists?

No.

Even Charles Darwin saw people making too much out of his writings when he was alive:

Darwin himself said: “I am in a hopeless muddle concerning the origin of things. Our ignorance of the derivation of things is very profound. I must be content to remain agnostic.”

However, as he lay dying, he embraced the concept of creation. He also reflected on his life work, saying: “I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them. (Keith B. Scopes II: The Great Debate : Creation Vs. Evolution. Huntington House, 1982, p. 47)

Sadly, many who wanted reasons NOT to believe in God pointed to his writings and claimed that they were more enlightened and/or scientific than the biblical account. They made a religion out of his theories.

Furthermore, Darwin himself seemed to acknowledge that life could not have started on its own. He seemed,to some degree, to rely on the biblical account in the Book of Genesis as he wrote:

There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers,having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one. (The Origin of Species By Charles Darwin, 2nd and subsequent editions)

Nobel Prize winner Dr. George Wald, from Harvard University, stated the following:

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation (life from nothing); the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position . . . One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are, as a result I believe, of spontaneous generation. (Scott I. The God Solution: Are You Ready? Xlibris Corporation, 2013, p. 41)

This is an astounding admission. Dr. Wald is saying that he chose to believe the impossible. And “scientists” claim that those who believe in a Creator have blind faith with no proof, but instead believe the impossible!

Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines impossible as “incapable of being or of occurring.”

It is a falsehood to believe in something that is impossible–it is illogical.

It is NOT a form of white supremacy or being anti-science to believe the Bible.

Consider the following from the Bible:

¹⁴ Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. ¹⁵ But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie. (Revelation 22:14-15)

Would not professing belief in something you know is impossible be loving and believing a lie?

It rarely fails to astound me how the supposedly educated can insist that evolution is scientifically accurate and why they want people to mindlessly accept such a preposterous explanation of the origins of life.

The fact is that evolution functions as a false religion that many cling to. Therefore, many who hold to it do not bother to look into the truth about why they are on this planet nor what their life really is supposed to be about.

The Continuing Church of God put out two short animations related to this general topic on our CCOG Animations channel:

13:48

Big Bang: Nothing or Creator?

Colleges and universities teach variations of a godless ‘Big Bang theory’ as science. But is it scientific or simply the musing of scientists? The late Dr. Stephen Hawking stated that there was nothing before the Big Bang. Is it logical that nothing became everything? What should have happened then according to scientists? What happens to radioactive materials like uranium? What does the Bible teach about errors called science? Is God’s existence more logical than a godless ‘Big Bang’? Which has more actual proof? In this animation, a university student asks a professor questions and provides information that students and those out of school should know. A free online booklet is also available:

Here is a link to our video: Big Bang: Nothing or Creator?

15:06

A Lifegiver or Spontaneous Evolution?

Did life just spring up on its own? Is this possible according to a Nobel-prize winning scientist who believes in ‘spontaneous generation’ and other aspects of evolution? Is there any possibility that life could have just started on its own and thrived to the point of being able to reproduce? Is the academic community biased against those who believe in a Divine Creator God? Does it make scientific sense to believe in the atheistic position? Is there more proof of God’s existence than there is for ‘spontaneous generation’? What about DNA and Charles Darwin? What about the RNA first hypothesis? What about matter, entropy, biogenesis, and abiogenesis? Is evolution possible, probable, or impossible? Dr. Thiel addresses these issues and more.

Here is a link to our animated video: A Lifegiver or Spontaneous Evolution?

The Apostle Paul warned about false claims of science:

²⁰ O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge — ²¹ by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith. (1 Timothy 6:20-21, NKJV)

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)

Problems of contradictions of what is called ‘knowledge/science’ exist to this day.

As far as things falsely called science goes, the author in the Scientific American article did not write a scientific paper–but it was published anyway. The author denied the account of Adam and Eve in Genesis, and then basically claimed that Protestant misunderstandings of the Bible prove that accepting the Bible, instead of evolution, is racist.

That, of course, was not real proof of biblical racism. Furthermore, racism is a serious issue and it is wrong and belittling to the issue of racism to falsely tie it in with believing the Bible.

The premise of the article was so wrong.

The Bible is scientifically accurate when it covers matters of science.

If there ever is an apparent contradiction between the Bible and what is called ‘science’ remember that the Bible teaches:

⁴ … Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. (Romans 3:4)

The Bible is scientific and reliable. Not all scientists are. Nor are all theologians.

The Apostle Paul also wrote the following to Timothy about some who were:

⁷ always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. ⁸ Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith; ⁹ but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, (2 Timothy 3:7-9)

Believe the truth. Belief in God is logical.

As far as race goes, the Continuing Church of God (CCOG) put out the following video on our Bible News Prophecy YouTube channel:

22:07

Mystery of Race

Where did the various races come from? Did they evolve? If God created them, why? What is a Cushite? Is one race superior to any other? Why are people different shapes and sizes and with different hair color, etc.? Were Adam, Eve, Noah, Noah’s children and their wives involved? From whom did coastal people descend according to Genesis 10? Why are some weaker and others not? What is the purpose of multiple races? How could this be part of God’s plan? Does God have a plan for each INDIVIDUAL?

Here is a link to our video: Mystery of Race.

The Apostle Paul also warned:

12 Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. (2 Timothy 3:12-13)

Sadly, we are seeing more and more who are deceived and more and more being deceived by the deceived. We are also seeing anti-biblical statements that look to establish grounds for various forms of persecution (including shadow banning).

It is not racist to accept the Bible.

It is blasphemy to claim that it is.

We also put out the following related video:

16:57

Is Believing in Creation Racist?

Scientific American published an article titled, “Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy.” Is that true? Does this article seem to be part of an effort to push people away from the Bible? Is evolution scientific or impossible? Did a Noble prize winner admit that ” spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible”? Are the biblical stories factual? Can you prove Creation vs. evolution? Are there proofs of Creation and that Jesus is the Messiah that people can check out? Are there warnings in the Bible about those who despise His word? Dr. Thiel goes over these matters and more.

Here is a link to our video: Is Believing in Creation Racist?

Now as far as the origin of life goes, evolutionists claim that multiple amino acids lined up and somehow became alive and then evolved to all life we now have. Here is some of why that is not scientific from our free e-book Is God’s Existence Logical?:

If precisely lined-up amino acids/proteins (with other substances coincidentally there) spontaneously became alive they would die because:

All living organisms need biological structures such as organelles and membranes. Within the membranes they contain intracellular water-soluble components. Without a membranous structure, the proteins would ultimately diffuse and destroy the living organism. Living organisms must be somewhat self-contained.

All living organisms need nourishment and direction. Since randomness would not have created the biological structure known as a DNA-containing nucleus (or some primitive equivalent, like a nucleoid), the cell would die. Even if it had some type of nucleus to provide direction, the nucleus would have to have come into existence with the ability to determine what to eat and how to find food, another impossibility.

Proteins cannot survive without DNA and DNA cannot exist without proteins, hence there is no way both happened at the same time.

Even if the cell had all the above with simultaneous protein and DNA, it would die, because there would have been no reason for it to have spontaneously generated a digestive system in order to utilize the food.

Even if evolutionists are granted all the improbabilities and impossibilities this book discusses, the primitive life would quickly die out as there would have been no reason for it to have spontaneously generated an ability to reproduce, nor would it have any innate ability to do so.

Let’s look at this in a slightly different way:

If all the necessary amino acids were to align (as improbable as that would be), it will not become alive. So that step is impossible.

If this primitive amino acid “cell” were to somehow become alive, it would die. Why? Because cells contain intracellular water-soluble components, and it is a fact of physics that water-soluble components will dissipate/destruct without a membrane. Thus, going beyond this step is impossible.

If this “cell” did have a membrane, what would happen next? It would die. Why? Because it needs organelles to survive.

Even if it had some organelles it would not have the innate ability to deduce that it needed to eat as it did not form with a nucleus or nucleoid. The nucleus/nucleoid is the part of the cell that contains DNA and other instructions and it would not have randomly had DNA.

Presuming the primitive amino acid ‘cell’ is in liquid and it runs into food, what will happen? Yes, it will die. Why? Because it was not randomly formed with digestive ability, it will not be able to digest and utilize the food. Thus, going beyond this step is impossible.

Presuming it was randomly formed with a nucleus and digestive abilities, what will happen? It will die out. Why? Because it would also have had to be randomly formed with the instructions that it needed to be able to reproduce as well as the ability to do so. Evolution as the origin of life is not just improbable, it is impossible.

It is in the Bible that we are told that when God made life He intended it to reproduce (Genesis 1:11,28,29).

God is different than the physical universe:

¹¹ He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end. (Ecclesiastes 3:11)

²⁴ God is Spirit (John 4:24).

⁵ Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; His understanding is infinite. (Psalm 147:5)

Scientists may claim that they know what happened at the beginning, but they are physical (not Spirit) and their understanding is finite, not infinite.

Furthermore, consider the fact that the ecosystem does not support the view that randomness could have caused it. Animals give off carbon dioxide and breath in oxygen, yet plants do the opposite. Furthermore, animals eat plants and plants are fertilized by the waste of animals. These are by design, not coincidence.