Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Theories of Evolution – The Vain Imaginations of Fools

This article was written in response to a letter sent to the Lethbridge Herald in August of 2005. We also include a commentary on the responses of others.

Said the pig in the mire to the sheep in the pasture, “Put up or shut up!”

A Richard Brown, science teacher, wrote the [Lethbridge] Herald, proudly displaying his ignorance, proclaiming that it is creationists, not evolutionists, who are presumptuous and lack honest evidence and credible argument for creationism. He essentially, though not wittingly, demands that God scientifically prove creationism. To meet his challenge, I, not as a “creationist,” but as one who knows the Creator, through Jesus Christ, by virtue of a new birth, by His Spirit, will put up. When I am done, this fellow, unless entirely without reason, will be the one forced to shut up, he and his silly, evolutionary companions in this world of darkness, who have swallowed one of the stupidest and most blatant of lies ever believed or told.

Of evolutionists, it is written:

“Because, knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, neither were thankful. But they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, and birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things” (Romans 1:21-23 MKJV).

Before we present a sound declaration and irrefutable argument for creationism (and we are not remotely the first to do so), let me ask you evolutionists this: Why should it be incumbent upon “creationists” to prove the self-evident to be true, while you smugly, self-righteously believe lies, which are manifest, pure idiocy, and expect creationists to prove your lies for what they are? Nevertheless, we will do so, because we are with substance, and we will prove that you, Richard, and all evolutionist dupes, have failed to practice that which you demand of those who know creation to be true, to “put up or shut up.”

Is there indeed “no scientific controversy over evolution,” Richard? What a bigoted, ignorant statement! Where have you been? There are multitudes of scientists who would rise up and tell you to “put up or shut up,” these being no slouches in the field, Isaac Newton to name only one. Go to the suggested web sites and find dozens or hundreds of reputable, competent scientists, in the present day, not that numbers matter. But do not insult the intelligence of others or use deception, commonly utilized by evolutionists, to press your inane ideology, or more accurately, “theology,” because this is a spiritual issue involving God.

You write: “The theory of evolution could have been refuted by geology, paleontology and genetics but it has only been strengthened and refined.” Pure rubbish! Again, I say to you, Richard: Heed your own challenge; put up or shut up. Your alleged evidence is out of deception and foolish reasoning, flying in the face of all truth (scientific included) and practicality.

You say that “as a democratic society, we value a person’s right to practise their own religion.” I do not believe you. My religion is to have the truth spoken everywhere at all times for the good of all. What is yours? To speak lies in the name of science, and condemn those who believe the truth? Why should you have the right to teach falsehood in schools while others are denied the right of their religion, to have the truth taught in schools? You may argue that your point is that all things have their places and proper designations, that creationism is for churches, not schools, and that it is religion and not science. I say to you that if you truly respected others’ religious rights, it would be out of recognition that God is above religion or science, and you would not teach lies to their children and take pride in doing so.

Let me ask you more: Why should we avail ourselves of the sources of authority on evolution, such as your university texts, when they are written by fools with anything but authority or scientific knowledge on the subject? They are as you, ignorant and foolish, if not proven liars, so why, I ask, would we go to them?

We have true and viable sources of knowledge and authority:

One, we have all of nature and the sciences to display and prove intelligence and deliberation behind all that we know to exist.

Two, plain God-given reason has been made available to us, though obviously not to evolutionists. Logic and wisdom cry out everywhere against your foolishness on behalf of a Creator.

Three, we have the Holy Scriptures, God’s Word, of which you, my confident and presumptuous friend, are grossly ignorant and contemptuous, which Scriptures I have discovered and proven to be sure and perfectly substantial. I, as many others, have staked my life on the Truth they proclaim, and have come out the other side of the grave, very alive; praise God! That makes me, and not your university books and authors, the authority; me, and not a deceived science teacher, who revels in his abject poverty of reason. And you are teaching our future society?! Parents, do you realize what you are doing to your children under the present educational systems?

A) The Testimony of Science and of the Nature of Things

    1)What are the chances of a watch, with its precision and intricacies, or a book, any book, with subject matter, theme, appeal to emotion, and general spirit, not to mention binding, color, size, diversity, and type of print, coming together independent of intelligence, given a thousand eons? Stupidity says, “Maybe very little, but given enough time, 100%.” Just how much time is “enough,” Richard? Have you determined that scientifically, statistically? You attribute the complexity, multiplicity, precision, diversity, and beauty of an immense reality with all its components, millions of which are more sophisticated than a watch or book ever can be, to what? An explosion of gases! How foolish! In authority and elementary wisdom, not to mention plain reason, I say the chances are absolutely nil.
    2)Speaking of gases! Where did they come from? Or the spark to ignite them? Or the theatre of space?
    3)How is it there are several theories of evolution, each contradicting the other? Which one are we to believe? Science? If that is science, then monkeys have changed its meaning and practice. Let them teach you; they know more.

B) The Testimony of Plain Reason

Theories of evolution are a blatant disregard for science:

    1)The Second Law of Thermodynamics declares that everything tends toward disorder. How then does man come from a monkey, unless he is more disordered than one? Even then, there is not one example, not one shred of evidence that one species ever came from another, whether for the better or worse. Not one. Evolution contradicts the laws that are manifest. Fairytales teach that princes come from frogs. Evolution eclipses the nonsense of fairytales, and teaches that kings and queens come from amoeba.
    2)Evolution teaches that the “Fossil Age” is determined by the strata. How do evolutionists say strata ages are determined? By the fossils! “The chicken came first because it hatched from an egg and the egg came first because the chicken laid it!”
    3)There is not one fossil of a transitional species found before or since Darwin made his speculations on evolution, not one. If all evolved as evolutionists suppose, with so many on the lookout the world over, there ought to be many millions of examples. There is not one.
    4)Branches of science have now extended so far as to bring even atheists to acknowledge that the complexity of things demands the conclusion that a Supreme Intelligence is behind it all. Why do not evolutionists prove scientifically, seeing they are so intelligent, that God did not create everything? Is that not the starting point? You certainly are not proving anything contrary. We, as “creationists,” do not profess to prove creation scientifically. Why should we? We believe God, what He says, and what He has made. However, seeing that you do not, prove Him wrong.
    You argue, saying, “Who said God says? That is religion!” Maybe, and maybe not. God has spoken to some; to many He has not. Some make religion of anything; some can reason. Do you have a nose on your face? Did God tell you so? No. Yet you know you have one, presumably. One does not need God to tell him he has a nose on his face. Why should we prove a Creator? Why should “science” be God (the ultimate or final authority)? You prove scientifically that there is no God. Prove it any way you can; we will give you room to work here. Having said that, science is indeed proving the fact of intelligent design and purpose in all there is, and has been from the beginning, not that the vain in mind will recognize it, or acknowledge it if they did.

C) The Testimony of Holy Scripture

Archaeology has proven the veracity and dependability of the historical record of the Scriptures countless times. Not once has it or any other science proven the Bible to be wrong. However, more importantly, countless numbers of people have proven the spiritual truthfulness, quality and reliability of the Scriptures. Many have laid down their lives, willingly and unselfishly, giving up all earthly possessions to bring the Good News of the Creator of all things to His world, as personally directed and honored by Him, the Author of the Scriptures. The historical ministry, suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are solemnly and accurately recorded. The preponderance of evidence would stand up in a just court of law. There is no book, I repeat, no book in the world as the Bible. Many can personally vouch for it, and have, with their blood. I know its Author. He is the one true Way of knowing anything to be true or false.

    1)The Bible plainly declares many things, not the least of which is that there is One, First Cause, referred to as God, and that from, by, and for Him has come all. Jesus Christ came, according to recorded prophecies coming forth by several messengers, centuries and millennia before His manifestation, to redeem mankind from its waywardness and death. Jesus Christ plainly declared that God is over all, and that nothing exists or operates without Him. However, it is also a fact, recorded in Scripture, that man likes to do his own thing, and refuses accountability to any superior authority, except for selfish purposes. To acknowledge God’s existence as our Source of sustenance and proper way of life is to curtail our “freedom,” our independence. We all wish to live as “free radicals,” refusing to answer to anyone. I do not regret to inform Richard and all others that it never did, does not, and will not work. Only proud and blind fools think otherwise. I know; I was one, but God had mercy. He will have mercy on you too, Richard; you will see. Outside of God, there is ultimate death, disease, destruction, failure, unfulfilment, suffering, and sorrow; you need but look around. Jesus said:
    “The thief does not come except to steal and to kill and to destroy. I have come so that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” (John 10:10 MKJV).
    2) Evolutionists declare that various species have evolved from other species. There is not a shred of evidence to support this notion, as mentioned. Concerning this matter of creation, the Bible records:
    “And God said, Let the earth bring forth tender sprouts (the herb seeding seed and the fruit tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself) upon the earth; and it was so. And the earth brought forth tender sprouts, the herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed was in itself. And God saw that it was good” (Genesis 1:11-12 MKJV).
    And: “And God created great sea-animals, and every living soul that creeps with which the waters swarmed after their kind; and every winged fowl after its kind. And God saw that it was good” (Genesis 1:21 MKJV).
    “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creepers, and its beasts of the earth after its kind; and it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth after its kind, and cattle after their kind, and all creepers upon the earth after their kind. And God saw that it was good” (Genesis 1:24-25 MKJV).
    Richard Brown, you put up or shut up. We see things reproducing after their kind, just as the Bible and God say. You say we come from monkeys and back all the way from rocks! Fools! Where is your “scientific” evidence? You put up! Why should the wise prove themselves to fools?

He (Jesus) has proven His words to me personally, and to others I know. Who am I to believe? The foolish evolutionists or Jesus Christ? Many will consent that Jesus Christ was a wise teacher, or even a prophet, but who believes what He said? I tell you He is much more than a prophet but even if He were only a wise teacher or prophet, then why not believe Him? Nobody on earth in all of history has come even close to His wisdom, power or authority over all creation. He raised Himself from the dead! Evolutionists, in all their “wisdom,” cannot create a hair. They cannot even change its natural color or texture. Without intelligence or power, they cannot do the simplest of things, yet they propose that they came from an incidental explosion of gases or some such inane conjecture. Fools! As it says in the Book of books:

“The fool has said in his heart, There is no God! They acted corruptly; they have done abominable works, there is none who does good” (Psalms 14:1 MKJV).

While evolutionists condemn creationism as “religion,” what is evolution if not religion? Creationism says, “God is,” while evolutionists say, “God is not” or that “God is not as creationists say He is.” The difference is not that one is religion and the other science. The difference is that one is true religion, and the other false religion, deceptively called “science,” having nothing to do with true science. The Bible has something to say on “evolution-type” science or knowledge:

“And oh, my dear Timothy, guard the treasure you were given! Guard it with your life. Avoid the talk-show religion and the practiced confusion of the so-called experts” (1 Timothy 6:20 MSG).

There are those who claim they believe in God and in evolution both. This cannot be. The logic goes this way: Evolution contradicts the Bible, both of which they presume are from God. However, if one believes in evolution, one must, of necessity, not believe the Bible. If one does not believe the Bible, one does not believe God, seeing that God wrote the Bible.

Jesus said:

“Why do you not know My speech? Because you cannot hear My Word. You are of the Devil as father, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and did not abide in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own, for he is a liar and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, you do not believe Me. Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do you not believe Me? He who is of God hears God’s Words. Therefore you do not hear them because you are not of God” (John 8:43-47 MKJV).

For a poetic summation of the madness of those who think we simply materialized, and continue to advance, read Evolution – A Poem of Tact, Diplomacy, and Gentle Persuasion. For some science-worthy reading on what is true, a good site to set all evolutionists on their butts is Another is Let Richard Brown submit scientific evidence that there is no God. Let him and his crowd put up or shut up.

It is time that God, and not idiots, is glorified. It is time that God had someone stand up and declare, in no uncertain terms, the sheer foolishness, yes, wickedness of ignorant loudmouths who think themselves intelligent, educated, and progressive. It is time to tell them plainly they are utterly stupid and damned fools. Look condescendingly over your reading specs at “creationists,” you nephews of monkeys, present your degrees and PhDs, hold your impressive offices, soak up the acclaim of others such as yourselves, teach school children lies you have learned, but know this: in due time, your folly will be known to all, and God says so.

Putting up, but not with evolutionists,

Victor Hafichuk


The following are some of the erroneous notions submitted to the Herald, which I hereby address:

Rob Sutherland writes:

There are two common ways of deciding on beliefs. One is faith, not depending on any test or observation. This is essential; if evidence is required, it is not faith.

I reply, “That depends.” If you speak of religious or other “blind faith,” you are right; if you speak of Biblical, godly faith, you are wrong. The Bible says (and this is a Word for you personally):

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1 MKJV).

Faith in God and what He says is not based on nothing. It is founded on sure evidence, though not seen. There most definitely is “observation.” You have not experienced this gift of faith.

Rob refers to the Bible as “an old book.” He speaks of Biblical information being antiquated. Indeed, the Bible is an old book, having stood the test of time, never proven wrong, and if people were to treat it as a new one, and pay attention to its counsel, they would be immensely fortunate. It was called an “old book” in the 19th century too, yet if during the American Civil War, they had followed the Biblical principles of sterilization in tending to the wounded, for example, many lives would have been saved. Ignorant doctors scoffed at the notion, killing all the way. It is said that more men died from “friendly” doctors than enemy soldiers.

He blames “faith” for ignoring and suppressing scientific information. That is because he does not understand what faith is. Man’s religion, in the name of faith, in the names of many gods, including Jesus Christ (God), has done those things, but genuine faith in the Lord Jesus Christ has not.

He speaks of “anxiety” among religious people, and that their sad condition leads to reactions contrary to those things they find a threat. He is right. But I know in Whom I have believed, and know that He will keep me regardless of the darkness and foolishness of this world. So it is with all those who have not dead religion, but true, living faith.

On the other hand, if Rob understood the value of Scriptural laws and principles, he would discover that he has been helped, protected and enriched by those who had the courage and ability to establish these in society. For example, the Bible says, “Do not murder.” Cannibalistic societies do not have a problem with killing and even eating. Hutus and Tutsis do not have a problem killing. Catholics and non-Catholics have not had a problem with killing. Many died because there was an absence of regard for Biblical law. He could thank God there are such laws put in effect. They did not come by evolution or by atheism.

Rob, you speak of the “discoveries of many missing links.” Name one, Rob. You do not know what you are talking about. Are you referring to the “Nebraska Man”? The tooth was found to be that of a peccary, a type of pig. Or the “Piltdown Man”? He was ultimately shown to be a fossil created from the skull of modern man and the jawbone of an orangutan. Perhaps you refer to the “Heidelberg Man”? He was built from a jawbone that was conceded to be quite human. What about the “Peking Man”? No evidence at all. The “Neanderthal Man”? At the International Congress of Zoology (1958), it was announced, after examination, that it was an old man who suffered from arthritis. The “New Guinea Man” dates back to the antiquity of…1970! The “Cro-Magnon Man” was in all ways as a modern man, so what is the difference? What links, Rob?

Rob declares: “What a wonderful opportunity to teach what is seen through the lens of science…” As long as science sticks to lenses and Erlenmeyer flasks, it may not do too badly. Dabbling in fairytales and falsifying tests and materials, declaring there is no God, is another matter altogether; it is witchcraft. There is nothing wonderful about that.

He concludes that faith is something embraced regardless of evidence. Again, this is true of false or religious faith; absolutely. I have been there. However, I am so very pleased to announce to you and all that there is a true faith, which does not at all match your definition but is real, substantial, genuine, powerful, and living. God gives it to whom He wills, when He wills. You may ask Him about it. The Bible is a record of both false and true faith and their people.

Ryan Reamsbottom says (indirectly) that science compiles evidence on evolution. It does nothing of the sort. There is none, not a shred of it.

Ryan thinks that because the Catholic Church does not reject the concept of evolution that therefore creation and evolution “are not mutually exclusive concepts.” I do inform Ryan that the Catholic Church has also murdered millions throughout history. It is responsible for the butcherous and blasphemous inquisitions and “crusades,” for example. The Catholic Church, in vehement and ruthless opposition to truth, burned people at the stake, persecuted and hunted them down like animals, and still names those who did it as “saints,” namely, “Saint” Ignatius Loyola. In other words, the RCC has not changed one whit, contrary to pretences and spurious claims. How then should wedding creationism with evolution be any more right than wedding two men according to the Bible? The Catholic Church is the farthest thing from an authority on truth; I solemnly guarantee you.

As for Darwin, he may have been a nominal, man-made Christian, but he was not a Biblical, God-made Christian. The difference is that of night and day. In his defence, if one reads his writings, one would come to conclude it highly unlikely that he would believe a fraction of the crap concocted by evolutionists today. Was it not the father of evolutionary theory who wrote, “Not one change of species into another is on record…we cannot prove that a single species has been changed”? –Charles Darwin, My Life and Letters. Not that it matters if this is true or not.

A Word for you, Ryan:

“For such are the false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. Did not even Satan marvelously transform himself into an angel of light? Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves as ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works” (2 Corinthians 11:13-15 MKJV).

If Bill Waugh were to receive revelation from God, he would discover that evolution and creationism are as compatible as oil and water, or fire and water…no “common ground” at all. He believes God was big enough to inspire men to write the Bible but not big enough to get the record straight. Bill, do you not contradict yourself? If God created man, He is bigger than man. If He wants to send a message, or write a Bible, do you not think He would do His job and do it right? Who are you to criticize Him? Your diplomacy and mediation serve no good cause. Your having no problem reconciling your Christian beliefs with scientific theory generally is not necessarily a problem, but reconciling them with the theory of evolution necessitates your re-examination of your beliefs. That is, if you wish to believe the truth, and not what you have been taught in religion to be the truth.

He points out that intelligent design is not a theory. Very true. It is fact, except that it is only “theory” to those who cannot reason, in which case, a nose on the face is a theory. Furthermore, he may be right in criticizing those who try to present creationism as a scientific study. Why should it come under the category of “Science”? Why not, “God” (He is big enough to be a category all by Himself), and learn of Him as He is, though not imposed upon those who have no heart to learn?

A Word for you:

“But let your word be, Yes, yes; No, no. For whatever is more than these comes from evil” (Matthew 5:37 MKJV).

Austin Stephens brings up implausible fables and condemns the truth as one of them. He cannot discern between a mother and Santa Claus. He points out what he judges to be a flaw in the forming of the eye, as though he knows better by his ancestors’ genes. No camera has been able to match the eye, Austin, and the camera was not formed from gases as you think, but by intelligence, inferior to that of the One Who created that intelligence. If you think you can do better with an eye, give it your best shot. There is such a thing as false and true, Austin, but seeing as you are an accident having happened, how would you know?

A Word for you:

“And you shall grope at noonday, as the blind gropes in darkness, and you shall not prosper in your ways. And you shall be pressed down and spoiled forever, and no man shall save you” (Deuteronomy 28:29 MKJV).

George Hofer tells it as it is. Creation is a fact not needing proof. Evolution needs to put up or shut up (Richard’s words). Thus far, understandably, it has put up absolutely nothing. How can one prove that the Herald was not printed?

Barb Marchuk refers to creationism as “theory” and repeats a myth that sinks her credibility. Creationism is more than a theory, Barb, as much as you might have simply suffered a poor choice of words. However, if you are going to speak the truth, then speak it, without apology, and try to be sure of what you are saying. To do that, you need to examine yourself before God and seek His grace.

A Word for you:

“Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might; for there is no work, nor plan, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave where you go” (Ecclesiastes 9:10 MKJV).

Hans Visser blandly defends the case for creationism, saying, “Nothing to be afraid of, ” which is true, but also false. The fact is that mankind is full of fear, in pride and independent spirit. To acknowledge and yield to a Supreme Authority is the most fearful thing man can conceive. On the other hand, Hans is right in saying there is nothing to fear, in that if man yields to God (though it costs him his craven life), he will have life and peace for the first time.

Ron Oswald does not know what to call what, or to think or say. He suggests that creationism is a “theory” that should not be called, “intelligent design,” except in “religion.” Why must we relegate the Creator of all things, our Maker, to vain religion? What if we had a course called, “Reality and Truth,” and forget religion? Religion, as it exists and is commonly known, is by, and for, narrow-minded bigots building their own power structures, and people creating their own security blankets, contrary to Jesus Christ, Who came to give us life and not religion.

A Word for you:

“He who believes on the Son has everlasting life, and He who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides upon him” (John 3:36 MKJV).

Eliane (Elaine?) Beresford writes to the Herald: “God created and all evolution followed.” If you speak of microevolution, I can agree, but if macro, you are not right. (By the way, I have appreciated some of Preston Eby’s teachings. Get in touch if you will).

A Word for you:

“And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creepers, and its beasts of the earth after its kind; and it was so” (Genesis 1:24 MKJV).

Ray Sheen was presentable, diplomatic, not with contempt, as I am of evolution and those fool enough to believe it, but he fails to recognize the folly and drive home the truth that God is.

A Word for you:

“But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of all those who diligently seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6 MKJV).

Amen to Richard Friesen‘s words. Thank you, Ruby deGroot.

For both of you, this Word:

“And seeing that he answered intelligently, Jesus said to him, You are not far from the Kingdom of God. And no one dared to question Him anymore” (Mark 12:34 MKJV).

Bruce Raphael speaks up for science as though evolution is legitimate science, which it is not. He suggests creationism is religion and should be kept out of schools. Says who? An atheist? I would like to point out that the truth is legitimate everywhere, and ought to be embraced. Knowing God is not about religion. It is about reality, about knowing the Creator of all things, us included. Why should God be excluded from any portion of that which He created and is His? Defend the legitimacy of lies and false religion if you will, but you are not justified in doing so. When it comes to God, we are not entitled to our opinions, as many opine. That is where strife and war enter. Many divers and contradicting opinions cannot be right. We need to know the truth, and the truth does exist. I know; I have found Him; rather, He has revealed Himself to me. That is the only way anyone can know the truth.

A Word for you, Bruce:

“All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being” (John 1:3 MKJV).

John Shaw tries to wax intelligent. All he needs is some revelation, knowledge, understanding, information, wisdom, common sense…all of which he can receive if he heeds these wise words:

“To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the LORD. Stupid people have no respect for wisdom and refuse to learn” (Proverbs 1:7 GNB).

Peter Dibble writes:

We do not teach religion in science class, and therefore we do not teach creationism, intelligent design or any other religious doctrine concerning creation in a science classroom.

There are several points I wish to make here:

Evolution is not science. It is pseudoscience. True science condemns it by proven laws and principles. Creationism and intelligent design are not religion. They are truth. The fact that some have made a religion of it is not the fault of truth. It ought not to be the purpose of education to teach falsehood and nonsense, be it in science class or anywhere else. If one is willing to teach foolishness in a science class, what would be so wrong in teaching the truth and fact in science class?

You see, the problem is that the world has no understanding. It is in abject darkness and poverty of reason, not able to see or to comprehend the perfectly obvious. The Bible says this of Jesus Christ (and this Word is for you, Peter):

“All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not” (John 1:3-5 KJV).


Creationists need to put up or shut up


Despite president Bush’s and creationist claims to the contrary, there is no scientific controversy over evolution. The appeal for “balance” and “teach the controversy”, while sounding noble and fair, is a taunt. Science endeavours to provide testable and naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. Intelligent design is the latest “wedge” of creationists to distort the very definition of science and insert non-testable, supernatural explanations into science class. There is no testable scientific theory of either intelligent design or, so-called, scientific creationism. There are no articles on either that have been subjected to peer-review in the scientific literature. Therefore, there is nothing to teach on these topics in my science class.

Visser’s claim evolution is “not observable” and is therefore not scientific but that ID is, is classic creationist nonsense. The fossil record is there for continual observation, and genetic research piles on more refinement and corroboration. Evolution could be easily falsified by the discovery, say, of fossil rabbits in the Precambrian period. Mr. Oswald assertion creationism and evolution are both sciences is also nonsense. Their claims and tons of others have all been debunked, but still get rehashed simply because people won’t stop pushing their religious agenda onto others. If Mr. Visser, Mr. Oswald, and others truly wish to understand science, they need to spend a little time and elbow grease on the matter – not lazily regurgitating spurious creationist claims and idly philosophizing on the front porch. Check out and see if that helps to “balance” some of your misunderstandings. For that matter, visit the bookstore at a university where students buy their texts. Biology: Concept and Connections (4th Ed.) by Campbell et al, has no less than seven chapters devoted to evolution. The University of Calgary offers Biology 411: Evolution to senior year students. Not a science? An elaborate conspiracy of the secular humanists? Oh please.

If anyone cares to dispute my claim, please submit your scientific theory of intelligent design or scientific creationism and describe how it can be tested using the scientific method. Send it in to Nature for peer review and you could very well win a Nobel Prize. Despite 150 years of bashing evolution and demonizing Darwin, it hasn’t been done.

Now put up or shut up!

Richard Brown
Pincher Creek

Here is Richard’s response to Victor’s letter as it was posted in The Lethbridge Herald:

Saturday, September 24, 2005 *Creationist claims no threat to science* Editor: Mr. Hafichuk’s letter of Sept. 10 could not have provided a more definitive illustration of the “controversy” regarding what is taught in a science classroom. If this letter is an example, then it is clear that creationism is an expression of one particular religious belief system. Why should we be bullied by them in particular? Every religion has a creation story, not just theirs. Asserting that creationism is self-evident and should be exempt from the rigours of science betrays the emptiness of creationist claims. Criticizing evolution does nothing to establish creationism or intelligent design as a science. You have to stand on your own two feet in that regard, hence my challenge for creationists to “put up or shut up.” The various attacks on evolution merely demonstrate either a poor grasp of science or a willful desire to deceive others for the sake of a cause. There isn’t space in an opinion page to deal properly with all of the nonsense in that letter, so I will address just one: the second law of thermodynamics. The letter stated that the second law of thermodynamics says “Everything tends toward disorder.” and that “Evolution contradicts the law.” This is simplistic, out-dated, self-serving and just plain wrong. The second law states that elements in a closed system tend to seek their most probable distribution; in a closed system, entropy always increases. The earth is not a closed system; it receives a continuous input of energy from the sun. Complexity is not only possible; it is unavoidable. Otherwise, snowflakes would be impossible, yet there they are. Check out ** [webpage defunct] to learn more. This and all creationist claims are absolutely no threat to either science or the theory of evolution. Have a field day at * *checking them all out. They are superficial, sounds-good-to-me, sophistry and don’t withstand objective analysis. If you want creationism in the science class, then you’d better be able to do the science. If you can’t run with the big dogs, then you’d better stay on the porch. Now where is the scientific theory of creationism or intelligent design that we can test with the scientific method? The search goes on. RICHARD BROWN Pincher Creek

Here is a series of letters to the editor, responding to Richard Brown’s reply:

Regarding Richard Brown’s reply to Mr. Hafichuk’s Evolutionist Challenge, I would like to say that creationism does not offer a threat to science any more than oil offers a threat to an engine; the two go hand in hand. To say that creationism would in any way be “exempt” from the rigors of science is an idea that has long been damaging to humanity.

Mr. Brown asserts that the universe is not a closed system and constantly receives energy from the sun, making sophisticated chemistry unavoidable. That is part of the picture, but far from the whole thing. Snowflakes are hardly to be compared to biological formations. They are not living things, but simply water that has bonded due to a drop in temperature. How does this compare to a biological organism? Take the eye for example: It is a camera device so sophisticated in its simplicity that the most expensive and powerful cameras and computers cannot match its ability to perceive light, color, or coordinate movement. It can do instantly what a camera must be adjusted to do, and the Cray Computer must have time to do.

The human brain is a mega-sophisticated computer, which controls every function of the body, muscle movement, thought, reaction, etc, often with unperceivable speed.

I have several human skeletons, and contemplating the design and functionality renders the idea of comparing this to a snowflake, silly.

With regard to, I have challenged them, and a number of atheist web operators who swear by them, to come forward. If they insist on bashing creationism and forcing our children to learn it, then they must answer some basic questions themselves. For example, I have challenged these great minds to explain how sexual reproduction evolved in TWO SEPARATE entities, male and female with SEPARATE chemicals, SEPARATE anatomies, and yet evolved in perfect harmony and timing, managing to create replications. NOT ONE REPLY WAS GIVEN BY TALKORIGINS. The atheists at least made a stammering effort, but their concept was to hurl names and insults. Is this the evolutionist idea of “PUT UP OR SHUT UP”? Sounds more like run in fear to me.

The bible points out scientific knowledge of medicine, diet, chemistry and other basics, but the evolutionists I have encountered keenly steer away from those. It is frightening to think people would base their lives and total devotion on a concept they must wrap in secrecy to avoid having crushed. Running with the big dogs does not seem to be a problem; it appears the big dogs have a reason to run in the first place.

Gene Grover


While Richard Brown and others of his mindset challenge creationists to provide evidence that the scientific method be applied to creation, he fails to submit the theory of evolution to the same standard in an unbiased manner. In addition his letters to the editor have been almost completely void of substance. In his letter of Sept. 24th, he says that every religion has a creation story. I wonder if that includes his “religion” of evolution.

While the issue of men not wanting to acknowledge God on the basis of the accountability it would bring has been raised before in debate on this topic, another related issue is that of an actual, literal worldwide flood, which is documented in the Bible. The flood was central to creating many of the topographical features as well as fossil deposits we see worldwide today. One example being the Grand Canyon, which according to geological theory rooted in evolution, was to have been carved over thousands or millions of years by the river that flows through it today. While no eyewitnesses are available to its formation, a remarkable event happened as a result of the eruption of Mt. St. Helen’s in Washington state in 1980, which gives overwhelming evidence to just how such geographic features can be formed rapidly. Mud flows due to the rapid snowmelt on the mountain laid down sediment that dammed up the Toutle River. On March 19, 1982, the lake that had been formed, broke the freshly deposited sediment and cut a river canyon that has very similar horizontal strata to that of the Grand Canyon and roughly 1/40th the scale. How long did it take? One day. Other examples are too numerous to name, but all anyone open-minded enough to take a look at the evidence has to do is to Google “creation science” or related links for themselves.

That said, it comes down to a matter of faith which is a gift from God and no amount of reason can convince someone who is content to remain in their darkness. Also, Mr. Brown’s juvenile and egotistical approach to answering Mr. Hafichuk and others only serves to further demonstrate his disregard for intelligent debate. I think the advice of the Apostle Paul to Timothy applies well to this situation when dealing with people like Richard Brown.

“O Timothy, guard the Deposit, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of falsely named science” (1 Timothy 6:20 MKJV).

Trevor Benson
Lethbridge, Alberta


What is Richard Brown smoking? Mr. Hafichuk did not say that “creationism should be exempt from the rigors of science.” He said that those teaching evolution should walk the talk, and put up some hard evidence before opening their mouths. There is not one single incontrovertible piece of evidence that supports evolution. NOT ONE. And Brown has the nerve to talk about science?

His explanation of thermodynamics is pure deceitfulness. It is common knowledge among scientists, including ones espousing evolution, that there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics, whether in open or closed systems. Honest scientists admit that the organized complexity of biological organisms requires two additional factors besides an open system (sun providing energy). These are: a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity and a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy to maintain life. Evolution has no answer or explanation for the presence of either, the development of which contravenes the second law of thermodynamics.

The formation of ice crystals from water does not answer this conundrum. Snowflakes simply represent water’s movement towards equilibrium at a lower energy level. They are not an example of matter forming itself into more organized or complex systems, but are the result of the intrinsic nature of the constituent elements forming repeating structures with minimal complexity and no function.

Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prigogine puts it this way:

“The point is that in a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures.”

Brown has put up a smokescreen to obfuscate the truth. He has employed sheer bravado to cover over the absolute bankrupt and totally unscientific whimsy called evolution (it cannot even be called a theory because it is entirely unprovable).

Why the determined doggedness to maintain and promote blatant error? Because Brown, along with all mankind, would rather not answer to his Creator. He wants to continue as a free agent, doing what is right in his own eyes. It is the sheer arrogance of the spirit of rebellion that says to God, “Who are You to tell me what to do? I know better!” Enamored of this ungodly position, Brown becomes the consummate fool, espousing and promoting an idea that for pure ridiculousness has never, and shall never be matched. Man, made in the image of God, insists on being the son of amoeba. How great the fall!

Paul Cohen
Helena, MT

Victor Hafichuk’s reply to Richard Brown, also sent as a letter to the editor:

Contemplating the controversy of evolution, I was on my lawn one day. I had spread compost on it. Everywhere I looked, I saw organic material until I spotted a fruit sticker that had not broken down in the composting. It was something obviously foreign. I realized that I could distinguish something man-made, of specific and deliberate design, versus what was natural. What person in his or her right mind could declare that the deliberate, descriptive fruit sticker could have evolved from nothing, or even on its own from something? Yet, with the God-given intelligence granted, we have discovered that the natural substance I put on the lawn has biological, intelligent, living organisms and countless design features that put the fruit sticker to shame, though we obtained the materials for making the sticker from that which already existed.

I had a scientific experience, but not to be appreciated without the gift of reason. Science has observed and verified God’s creation. True science proves creation everywhere in everything, all the time. However, as monkeys cannot manufacture Lego toys in a lab, not having the reason or intelligence, though granted all the time, components, equipment, and even an enormous amount of guidance, so man who denies his Creator cannot discern the obvious. Without God, he has little reason. Without reason, he is an idiot, truly.

Richard Brown dismisses teaching creationism in science class, stating that creationism cannot be substantiated by scientific principles. I may not have made my point amply clear to him, that being that anything unsubstantiated by sound scientific principles should not be permitted in science class. Evolution has not one verifiable fact. It defies all science, not to mention reason, yet its proponents call it “science.” As he has challenged creationists to “put up or shut up,” so I have challenged him to dispense with theory and tell us what sure facts there are to defend the “theory” of evolution. He has not done so. He has used big words, made himself sound like one who understands science, and even creationism, but neither he nor any one else has provided any conclusive proof to defend their ludicrous theories. My point is to address his hypocrisy, point out his sophisticated ignorance, and throw his challenge back to him. You say creationists are without substance. Show us yours.

I know I can be as stupid and ignorant as any person, and could believe in evolution. I acknowledge that it is by the sheer grace of God that I can hear, see and understand. For that, I am so thankful, especially when I witness examples of such darkness in thinking as that of credulously entertaining evolution theory.

Victor Hafichuk

Click HERE to go to “Exposing Evolutionists.”

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Provide your email if you would like to receive periodic correspondence from us.

You can leave a comment herex