Are You Being Brainwashed?

[Charity]

Are You Being Brainwashed By Your Public School Science Textbooks?



What all students should know about the creation-evolution controversy.

By Dr. Kent Hovind

[Charity]

Introduction
It has always amazed me how two different people can look at the same thing and reach two completely different conclusions. Two different people can look at the Grand Canyon. An evolutionist would say, "Wow, look what the Colorado River did over millions of years." The creationists would say, "Wow, look what the flood did in about thirty minutes!" Did it form slowly over millions of years? Or did it form rapidly during a giant flood like the one in the days of Noah described in the Bible.




Since no one saw it form, we must look at all the evidence and decide what to believe.
If there are two or more ways of looking at something and you teach all possible theories, that is education. But if only one theory is taught, that is indoctrination.

There once was a farmer helping a cow with a breech birth, (the calf was coming out back feet first) when a city fellow happened by and saw the ordeal. The farmer was using a calf puller to try and remove the calf from the mother cow and he needed help. He asked the city fellow if he had ever seen anything; like that. The city fellow said, "No." The farmer asked him if he had any questions. The city fellow said, "Yes. This has been bugging me for the last ten minutes. How fast do you think that calf was going when it ran into that cow?" No, no, no! They were not separating a wreck! Sometimes two people look at the same thing and one of them gets the wrong idea. The city fellow was looking at the situation all wrong.

Students today are only being shown one theory of the origin of the universe. Textbooks today contain many lies used to make the students believe in the evolution theory. The purpose of this booklet is to expose these lies in today's textbooks and present another more reasonable view of origins. Throughout this booklet we will refer to videos from our seminar series that will provide much more information. These are available from our office or can be accessed on our web site www.drdino.com.


Only Two Choices
The Creation vs. Evolution argument has been raging for years with no end in sight. An atheist Russian astronomer visiting America once said, "Either there is a God, or there isn't. Both possibilities are frightening!" The Russian astronomer was right: either the universe was designed, or it came about by random chance. These are the only options. The view you adopt as your philosophy of life will have a profound effect on many decisions you make and your eternal destiny when this life is over.

If there is a Creator, we need to find out who He is, what He wants and do what He says! If there is no Creator, the evolution theory is true and the universe was formed by chance, then there are no absolutes regarding right and wrong - there are no rules! Man becomes God. People who believe this are called humanists.

Everyone faces four great questions in life:

1. Who am I? (What am I worth?)

2. Where did I come from?

3. Why am I here?

4. Where am I going when I die?

Your answers to these questions will depend upon which of these "world-views" you have chosen. Many major decisions and topics of debate in this life (like abortion, genocide, premarital sex, etc.) are determined by which philosophy you adopt. This creation vs. evolution subject is extremely important! Hopefully this booklet will be helpful to show you that the evolution theory presented in your textbooks is not true. The universe had to be designed, and the Designer loves you and has a plan for your life.

[Charity]

Who Started This Lie of Evolution?
Plain and simple, the devil started this lie. The Bible predicted that this would happen. In II Peter 3:3-5, the Bible says that in the last days there would be scoffers. These scoffers scoff at the Bible because of their lusts, not their science. They will teach uniformitarianism, "all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." They are willingly ignorant of the Creation. It is a conscious decision for them! In spite of the overwhelming evidence, they reject Creation.

These scoffers are also ignorant of the Flood. They reject anything that proves that there is a God. The flood shows God's right and willingness to judge His Creation. They are rejecting God because of His rules! Rather than get right with God, they choose to deny His existence.

By rejecting the Bible and God, it is easier for the scoffers to justify their sins and lusts. It makes it easier to justify abortion and euthanasia. Satan hates humanity and abortion kills people! He has been using evolutionary ideas since the Garden of Eden, and evolution is a primary method to destroy humanity. If evolution is true there are "inferior" people on earth, and this world would be better off without them. Hitler felt this way due to his belief in evolution.


The Scopes Trial
Until the 1925 so-called "Scopes Monkey Trial"1 most public schools taught the divine creation theory. Students in those days studied the facts of science and were told that evidence indicates there was/is a Creator who designed the universe and that only minor changes were possible within the boundaries of basic created "kinds" of plants and animals.

The evolutionists lost that famous case, and it remained illegal to teach evolution in many states until the 1960s. However, in that famous trial, atheist lawyer Clarence Darrow said, "It is bigotry to only teach one view of origins. Students should be taught both the creation and the evolution theories." In the 35 years following the trial, however, the Theory of Evolution was taught more and more in textbooks (in spite of laws banning it), while the creation theory was taught less and less. Today many textbook authors present only the evolution theory as if it is a proven fact of science - inferring no other theories need even be considered. Some teachers mistakenly believe that they are not even allowed to mention the creation theory in the classroom. Today we have the "Scopes Trial in reverse," yet it is still bigotry to teach only one view of origin. Students who believe the creation account as given in Genesis often have a difficult time when the Theory of Evolution is exclusively taught in public school books. They need help surviving the often hostile environment that books (and sometimes teachers) create for their faith. This booklet is designed to help you and to answer some questions you may have.


What Should Be Taught in the Classroom?
The word science means "knowledge." Science is the study of what we know. In order for something to be truly scientific in the strict sense of the word, it must be observable, testable, and demonstrable. The entire subject of origins (both creation and evolution) is actually outside the field of science. No one alive today has observed the creation of the universe, and we cannot "do it again" in the laboratory to demonstrate how it happened. Nor is anyone alive who observed the "big bang" or the creation of life from non-living matter. Any theories about the origin of the universe are inherently religious (what we choose to trust, to believe in).

[Charity]

What Do We Mean by the Word "Evolution"?
Before we present the creationist view in this booklet, it is important to define some terms to prevent misunderstanding. First of all, the word evolution has six very different and unrelated meanings. Confusing these six meanings causes most of the disagreements. Most scientists refer to changes within a basic kind (dogs producing a variety of dogs or roses producing a variety of roses over a time or bacteria becoming resistant to drugs) as micro-evolution. Numerous examples of micro-evolution can be cited. Both the creationists and the evolutionists agree that these changes happen. They are observable facts of science. The word "Evolution" has many meanings, only the last one is scientific.


1. Cosmic evolution-the origin of time, space and matter; Big Bang.

2. Chemical evolution-the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

3. Stellar and planetary evolution-origin of stars and planets.

4. Organic evolution-origin of Life.

5. Macro-evolution-origin of major kinds.

6. Micro-evolution-variations within kinds. Only this one has been observed.


The evolutionists believe that these micro-changes can add up to macro-evolution, which would teach that dogs and roses have a common ancestor, if you go back far enough in time. Macro-evolution has never been observed in nature, the laboratory, or the fossil record. Micro-evolutionary changes do not add up to macro-evolutionary results. Some people might believe that small variations add up to major changes, but no evidence supports this. Learning to distinguish between the science of micro-evolution and the religion of the other five is an important skill for science students to develop. Micro-evolution is better called simple variation within the kinds.

The next section is an alternative interpretation of the scientific evidence that is frequently used in public school textbooks to promote evolution. Even though slightly more scientists may currently believe evolution, truth is not determined by the majority. There is no way either side can claim to have proven their case using the scientific method.


What Do the Creationists Believe?
While there are about as many types of creationist theories as there are evolutionist theories, creation theories generally fall into one of the following three categories:

View #1
A Creator (God) designed and created the universe sometime within the last 6,000 to 10,000 years, giving existence to basic forms of plant and animal life that were able to produce varieties of offspring, some of which would be able to survive in various types of climates and/or changing conditions. The "adaptations" or variations of which these offspring were capable have definite limits. For example, some rabbits have adapted to 130°F desert temperatures and others have adapted to -30°F arctic temperatures, but none can ever adapt to 5000°F or -400°F! There are limits to the adaptations. (By the way, they are still rabbits!)

Sometime after the creation (1656 years later, according to the Bible account), the world was destroyed by a global flood, whose force totally disrupted the surface of the earth and formed great oil, coal, and gas deposits from the buried plants and animals. This flood also deposited thousands of feet of stratified sediments containing billions of fossils from the creatures and plant life that perished in the flood.

As flood waters receded from rising mountains, geological features such the Grand Canyon and the Badlands formed rapidly while the sediments were still relatively soft. Rushing water cuts canyons quickly.

Recent surveys show that over half of the United States population believes the universe was created only a few thousand years ago. There is much scientific evidence to indicate this view is valid. (See my videotape #1.)


View #2
A Creator made the universe billions of years ago and guided the evolutionary process to bring everything to the present state of affairs.


View #3
A Creator made the matter for the universe and then allowed evolutionary process to take it from there. If a Creator still exists, he/she/it does not (or cannot) interfere with the workings of the universe.

The majority of creationists (including this author) believe the first view. The latter two views are closer to the evolutionary view. Since nearly all public school textbooks already teach the evolutionary view, only the view of the first category of creationists will be presented here. For the rest of this booklet when I use the word creationist, I am referring to the beliefs of those in the first view.

[Charity]

Lies in the Textbook
Having taught high school science for 15 years, I will be quick to admit that there is much good science in most textbooks. However, there is some poison mixed in them. Did you know that rat poison is 99.99% good food? It is that .01% that is deadly. Please keep this in mind as you study your book;
you will learn many facts from science that will help you for the rest of your life. I do not object to all the good things taught in science books, but I caution readers to be aware that most textbooks these days are filled with their authors' philosophy of evolution.
To refute every place where evolution crops up in every textbook would require many pages, so I will only deal with a few specific subjects to show the reader how to separate the facts of science from the teaching (religion) of evolutionism, and how to give the creationist interpretation of the facts. I will also show you places where many textbooks still present information that has been proven wrong or is grossly exaggerated.




Naturalism?
Many scientists today approach the study of science with the idea that nothing beyond the natural, observable world exists. To them, everything must be explained without appealing to the supernatural. They do not seem to be able to distinguish between the operation of complex systems and the origin of these systems.

For example, I can explain the operation of a complex machine such as a watch or a car in purely naturalistic terms. Machines operate according to known laws of the natural world. We would not need to appeal to the supernatural world to explain how it works. This would not, however, explain the origin of the machine! Machines do not build themselves. To explain its origin we would have to claim there was a designer. We do not have to be able to see the designer of the machine to believe the designer exists. The complexity of the design demands a designer; machines never come into being on their own.

While it is true that many of the complex living systems in the world today are capable of being understood as far as how they are designed and how they operate, this has nothing to do with how they originated! There must have been an intelligent force outside the machine that brought it into existence.

Some textbook authors will try to give you the impression that the creation story is not "scientific" because it involves an unseen and unprovable Creator. They do not seem to realize (or admit) that the evolution theory is not scientific either. They assign the attributes of God to time, space, matter, and energy. In their mind, such forces are capable of creating, designing, sustaining, and producing the universe and life itself. The "god" of evolution is time and chance.

Geologic Time
Most textbooks teach the concept of what is called "geologic time." The authors frequently promote the theory that layers (strata) of the earth represent different time periods laid down over "billions of years." Creationists believe that nearly all of these layers were formed rapidly during a global flood. The general lack of erosion between the layers and the existence of many fossilized trees that extend straight up through many different layers indicate that these layers were not formed slowly over billions of years.2 Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980 and made great geologic changes in the surrounding area in a few days, not billions of years. Hundreds of feet of stratified sediment were laid down quickly.3The principle of uniform process to which authors often refer does not take into account that many catastrophes like floods, earthquakes, or volcanoes can make rapid changes in an area in a very short time. (See videotape #6 of my series for much more on this.)

In the early 1800s evolutionists assumed that evolution had occurred and they arranged the life forms from what they thought were simple to complex forms. Next they gave an age to


Polystrate fossils such as this one are found all over the world. They run through many rock layers proving the rock layers are not different ages as the textbooks teach. Much more on this topic including many more pictures is on Videotape #4 from CSE.


each rock layer, based on how long they thought it would take these life forms to evolve from one kind into another.



Today the evolutionists date the rock strata by the fossils they contain, then turn around and date the fossils by the strata they are in! 4 This is called circular reasoning! Even if fossils were found in order from so-called simple to complex, (and they are not) it would not prove the evolution theory. Order of burial does not prove any relationship. If I was to get buried on top of a hamster, that does not prove it is my grandfather!


"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results."5

"Ever since William Smith at the beginning of the 19th century, fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur. Apart from very 'modern' examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils."6

Students need to realize that such a geologic column cannot be found anywhere except in the textbooks and in the minds of those who believe in it.7 While there is no question that the earth has many layers of sediment, there is great disagreement about how they formed. Evolutionists believe that each layer represents a different time period, but creationists believe that the normal sorting action of moving water during a world-wide flood would form thousands of feet of sediments and separate the different types of plants and animals based on their body density, habitat, mobility, and intelligence (the ability to avoid drowning until the last minute in a catastrophe would put you on top of the pile).

Evolutionists will teach that clams are found on the bottom of the fictitious geologic column because they are a "simple life form" that evolved first. They claim that birds are found on the top because they evolved last. It may be that clams are on the bottom because they were already at the bottom when the flood started; that's where they live. They would be the first ones buried; plus clam shells are heavier than bird feathers. A global flood, not evolution, is the best explanation for the geologic features and the fossil record. (See videotape #6 for more on this.)

[Charity]

Absolute Time
Many textbooks deal with radiometric dating methods. The creationists believe that students should be told the many assumptions involved in such dating methods. Science books often present a good explanation of how these dating methods work, but avoid mentioning the problems with them. Many scientists are skeptical of the results obtained. For example, when moon rocks were tested to determine their age, the results ranged from 10,000 to 18 billion years from the same rocks! I spoke with James P. Dawson (Chief of Engineering and Operations for the Lunar Science Division in Houston from January, 1965 to August, 1969 and Co-Investigator of Lunar Samples until September, 1978). You may reach him at P.O. Box 1328, Edmond, Oklahoma 73083 or call him at [phone]. His web site is www.jpdawson.com. He worked on lunar samples including the Genesis Rock and told me they found ages from 10,000 years to several billion years for the same rock. Living animals have been dated to be many thousands of years old as well.


Students are often led to believe that carbon dating or one of the other radiometric dating methods are accurate. Anyone who understands how these methods work will admit that all of the radiometric dating methods involve making unprovable assumptions: assuming that the rate of decay remains constant, that the initial content of the tested material can be known, and that there has been no contamination of the material for all those assumed billions of years.

"One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000. One part of Dima (a baby frozen mammoth) was 40,000, another part 26,000, and the "wood immediately around the carcass" was 9,000-10,000."8

"The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY. The two Colorado Creek mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850±670 and 16,150±230 years respectively."9

For a clearer picture of radiometric dating, read Scientific Creationism by Henry Morris or In the Beginning by Walt Brown (both available from CSE at [phone]). You may also want to watch my videotape question-and-answer session (videotape#7) where I cover the subject in much more detail, or check my FAQ list at www.drdino.com.

[Charity]

Do Fossils Prove Evolution?
The very existence of trillions of fossils found in all parts of the world (including a 3000 foot layer of rock containing millions of seashells at the top of Mount Everest 10) indicate to creationists that there was a worldwide flood. Animals and plants that die today do not become fossils unless they are buried rapidly under layers of mud.
Textbooks often state that "fossil evidence shows that organisms have been changing continuously since life first appeared on earth. Evolution is the pattern and process of change in life forms through time.11 Statements like this appear throughout most books, yet are not scientifically valid.
No author can know this as a fact of science since he did not observe the formation of life or new life forms. Just because this type of story has been told for years does not make it true. No one has ever documented a genuine transitional fossil linking major kinds of animals.12 If the fossil remains of an animal are found in the ground, there is no way to know if it had any descendants!

Many molecular biologists strongly disagree with textbooks that teach that life slowly came about by chance from non-living matter. Living things are extremely complex and could not have evolved by slow, random processes. Even so-called simple cells are thousands of times more complex than the most complex machine ever made by man-the space shuttle! Darwin himself admitted the absurdity of believing that something as complex as the eye could have been formed by natural selection.13 One may believe living cells evolved by chance over billions of years, but believing something does not make it happen. It is unfortunate that dogmatic statements such as, "life began on earth 3.5 billion years ago" are found throughout most public school textbooks. (The number changes from 3 billion to 4.2 billion depending which textbook you use. What's a few hundred million between friends?)

Even many respected scientists who believe in evolution would disagree with the idea that fossils prove life evolved slowly by chance. Many scientists have admitted in print that there is no real evidence for any major changes in the fossil record.14

Because they can find no evidence of gradual change, (missing links) these men (and others like them) have a new theory to explain why the "missing links" are still missing. They call the theory Punctuated Equilibrium.15 This theory basically says that evolution happened in rapid spurts so no fossils were preserved. The choice for them seems to be, did evolution happen slowly? Or, did evolution happen rapidly? They don't seem to be able (or willing) to consider that there may be another option. Maybe they don't find the missing links because evolution didn't happen at all! They seem to be saying, "Because we don't find proof of evolution, that proves it happened."

Origin of Life
Life cannot begin by chance! Many textbooks teach that life began by chance from non-living matter. The evolutionist must believe this to be true to his theory.

Creationists believe that life is too complex to have originated by a random shaking of molecules, no matter how much time elapsed. Life on earth is so marvelously designed that it could never have arisen by chance! They believe that life had to be designed by a Designer/Creator. Even a single-celled organism contains millions of complex proteins. Each protein is made up of thousands of amino acids in a very precise sequence. There is less probability of a single cell arising through chance than there is of a tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747.

Many books contain the improvable assumption that life arose from non-living material.16 This can only be speculation on the part of the author. To make the claim that all life forms came from a "simple, single-celled organism" takes incredible faith! No one has ever observed this happening. Numerous experiments in labs have confirmed that life could not have arisen by chance and that animals always produce the same basic kind of life.17 The Bible says the plants and animals will "bring forth after their kind." (Genesis 1)

Though scientists and people in general are welcome to believe life "just happened," that is not science! Even if a group of intelligent scientists could spend millions of dollars and produce life in a laboratory, that would only serve as evidence that it takes intelligence to create life-it certainly would not prove that life came by chance!

The impossibility of life coming by chance has caused many scientists to begin teaching that life came from outer space! This does not answer the question of how it started but only makes it happen "long ago and far away" like all other fairy tales. (See Seminar Part 4 for more).

Have Scientists Created Life?
Many failed experiments have proven that life cannot come from non-living matter. In the 1950s, Miller and Urey tried to make life in the laboratory.18 They circulated a mixture of gasses through some tubes where they would pass an electric spark supposedly to simulate lightning strikes in nature. The resulting substance was trapped out and analyzed. After several days they found it contained some amino acids. The experiment was a failure in creating life, or even explaining how it could evolve, for many reasons:

1. They excluded oxygen from the experiment and used what is called a reducing atmosphere. There are several problems with this approach: Oxygen is essential to form ozone, which blocks Ultra Violet light. UV light would have been destructive to any of life's building blocks that would have formed. Ammonia (one of the gasses they used) is also destroyed by UV light. So you cannot get life to evolve without oxygen.19 But since we know the lowest rock layers show us the earth has always had an abundance of oxygen this is no problem.20 They excluded oxygen in their experiment anyway because they knew that any oxygen would destroy (oxidize) the very building blocks of life (amino acids) they were trying to make. This creates a real problem if you cannot get life to evolve with oxygen and you cannot get it to evolve without oxygen!

2. A second problem with their experiment arises because they filtered out the product produced by the spark. This of course is not realistic for real life. If life were to evolve in the "soup," it would not be protected from future lightning strikes. They had to filter it out because it was thousands of times more likely to be destroyed than produced.

3. A third problem your textbook will not tell you about is the fact that the product they made was 85% tar, 13% carboxylic add, (both toxic to life) and only 2% amino acids. Problem: mostly only 2 of the 20 different amino acids life needed were produced, and they are much more likely to bond with the tar or acid than they are with each other.
Half of the amino acids were right-handed and half were left-handed. This is a problem because all proteins are left-handed and even the smallest proteins have 70-100 amino acids all in the precise order. DNA and RNA are made from many thousands of all right-handed amino acids. In addition to this, proteins are millions of times more likely to un-bond in water than they are to bond, and the oceans are full of water.

No one has made life in the lab or even come close to making life. It takes more than the proper ingredients and added energy to create life. If that were the case, you could put a frog in a blender, turn it on and let it run for millions of years. How long would it take before the frog is reassembled? It will never happen!! Any textbook author that says scientists have made life or that life can come from non-living matter is either confused or lying.

[Charity]

Amino Acid Sequences
Amino acids are the small building blocks of complex proteins just like letters of the alphabet are the building blocks of paragraphs and books. The letters of the alphabet must be in a precise order and they must be facing the right way for the paragraph to make sense. In the same way, amino acids must be in precise order and facing the right way in order for the protein to function properly. The probability of dropping letters randomly and forming a complete paragraph is close to zero. The probability of amino acids arranging themselves in the right sequence to create even one protein is even less than that. It is calculated that the probability of one protein arising by chance is less than one in 1x l0119000 (a one with 119,000 zeros behind it). It will never happen by chance.

Many textbook authors like to point out that sequences of amino acids between humans and apes are 96% similar.21 To them, this appears to be evidence of a common ancestor. Of course, it could be evidence of a common designer.

By the way, only 1/3 of one human chromosome has even been analyzed. Percentage of differences may not mean anything anyway. Watermelons are 97% water; clouds are 100% water. That is only a three percent difference. Does that prove that watermelons are related to clouds? Jellyfish and snow cones are both 98% water. Does that mean they are identical twins and the missing links between watermelons and clouds?


Horses Had Four Toes?
Textbooks often state that the horse evolved from a four-toed ancestor. Othniel C. Marsh invented this entire series back in the 1870s. He gathered animals from all over the world and arranged them in the order he thought they would have evolved, though the animals are not found in the right order. Even if they had been found in order, that would not prove evolutionary relationships. The entire horse evolution series was disproved years ago.22 No knowledgeable scientist would support the horse evolution as depicted in textbooks.

Modern horse skeletons have been found in layers older than (at least according to the evolutionist view of geology) the so-called four toed ancestors. Also, an animal nearly identical to the Hyracotherium (the so-called ancestor of all horses) is a small, four-toed, meat-eating animal that is still alive in South America today!23 In addition, the fossils in South America show one-toed horses in lower layers than their supposed three-toed ancestors.





In 1995 the Tulsa, Oklahoma Zoo removed the display showing this disproved claim about horse evolution (after over 2,000 area residents signed a petition demanding that it be removed, and elected officials and news media got involved.24) Pages that show the horse evolution should be deleted in future editions of textbooks and a warning label placed in the front of those that include it, warning students that the book contains outdated, false information. Call or write for more information about the long-disproved horse series if you would like.


Vestigial Organs?
When the evolution theory first became popular in the early 1800s, some people said the human body had over 200 organs that were no longer needed. One of the organs mentioned was the appendix. "Long regarded as a vestigial organ with no function in the human body, the appendix is now thought to be one of the sites where immune responses are initiated."25 That sounds like a good organ to have. They said the existence of structures like these was proof of evolution. According to the theory, we used to need these structures in the past but lost the need for them as we evolved. Evolutionists say that humans used to have tails. Why don't we have them now? A tail would certainly be handy to carry in the groceries!

One evolutionist said that one of the proofs of evolution was the human tailbone! He said it was a vestigial organ that we no longer need. I told him that I had taught anatomy and biology and that I know there are 9 small muscles that attach to the tailbone that are very important for him to be able to perform certain functions; but, if he felt the tailbone was vestigial that I would pay to have his removed! (In less than 24 hours he would realize what a mistake he had made.) Any textbook author that claims there are vestigial organs is either misinformed or deliberately using false information to promote his theory.



Some textbooks say the whale has a vestigial pelvis that proves the whale used to walk on land!26 Any textbook author that makes a statement like that is either ignorant of whale anatomy (those bones are essential for muscle attachments that allow for whales to reproduce), or he is deliberately using false information to promote his theory. The whale does not have a vestigial pelvis.

There are no vestigial organs! Evolutionists don't seem to realize that this type of evidence is the opposite of what they need to prove their theory. Vestigial organs (if they existed) would be examples of losing something, not gaining something!

[Charity]

Embryology Many textbooks today show embryos of various animals as they develop inside the mother. Often the books will say the embryos of humans, birds, reptiles, etc., have "gill slits" or "gill pouches." This false idea was first proposed in 1869 by the German God-hater, Ernst Haeckel. He altered the real drawings of various animals to make them look more alike, then traveled extensively around Germany with big charts, holding meetings and publishing books to prove his evolution theory. His drawings were exposed as frauds in 1874 by the famous embryologist professor, Wilhelm His, Sr. Haeckel was even convicted of fraud by his own university.27


In spite of the fact that embryos of various organisms are different from the moment of conception and Haeckels' drawings are completely fake, they are still in most Biology textbooks today!28 If your textbook shows the so-called "gill slits" on various embryos as evidence for evolution, you can be sure that the author is either ignorant of the truth or deliberately lying to promote his religion of evolution.
For an in-depth article about the gill slits and Ernst Haeckel's other frauds, see pp. 33-36 of Creation ex nihilo (March-May 1996 available from Answers in Genesis, 1-800-350-3232).

Natural Selection or Survival of the Fittest?
Charles Darwin's book was titled The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.

One of the problems in a discussion on this subject is with the definition of the word species. It is true that our current classification system has a dog and a wolf as different species, but they are still the same kind of animal. The creationists believe that dogs, coyotes, wolves, foxes, and possibly a few other species of dog-like animals may all have a common ancestor. That is not proof that they all came from a rock over the last 3.5 billion years! The Bible teaches that the plants and animals would "bring forth after their kind." Nothing other than this has ever been observed in all of human history or in the fossil record.

It is amazing that some textbook authors and scientists still believe that natural selection can lead to new kinds of life forms.29 While it is true that forces in nature tend to select the strongest to survive and pass on their genetic information to the next generation, this does not explain the origin of the life form, nor can this process create anything new. Survival of the fittest does not explain the arrival of the fittest!

If a factory produces any complex product such as computers, it is normal for that factory to employ quality control people to check the product after assembly to make sure it works. If some of the computers are rejected because of deficiencies, that does not prove that the computers are making themselves! The selection process will only keep the quality of the product high; it will not create the product. Quality control will not change a computer to a helicopter. Natural selection cannot change the product to be anything fundamentally different, nor can it explain how it came to be a computer in the first place. By the same token, natural selection will only keep the species strong and healthy; it will not create anything of a different kind nor explain the origin of the kind.30


Peppered Moth
Many textbooks show pictures of the two different colors found in populations of peppered moths and claim they represent some of the best evidence for evolution.31 In the early 1800s about 95% of the moths were light-colored because trees had light colored bark and offered good camouflage. Very few of the dark moths survived. During the industrial revolution when coal was being burned in the factories, many trees turned black from the soot. Surveys revealed that the moth population had changed to 95% dark colored moths near factories. When the factories stopped using coal, the trees turned light again and the moth population changed back to 95% light-colored moths. This observation is often referred to as one of the best examples known for evolution! It started off as a moth and ended up as a moth! Is this supposed to prove that we slowly evolved from a rock over the last 3.5 billion years? Here we have yet another example of a good observation with a bad conclusion.

The peppered moth experiment was recently proven to be a fraud. After 40 years of watching, only 2 moths were found resting on trees, so dead moths were glued to the trees to take the picture shown in many textbooks!

The creationists see the moth as an example of the Creator planning ahead. The moths are designed to be able to survive as a species even if some changes happened to their environment. General Motors puts both a heater and an air conditioner in most of their cars. This is not proof of evolution. It is proof that they are planning ahead. Some of their cars go to warm climates and some go to cold climates.
Variations do happen but: 1. They have limits.

Farmers have been trying for years and years to breed bigger pigs, but they will never get one as big as Texas.

Some insects become resistant to pesticides, but they will never become resistant to a sledgehammer.

2. They are still the same kind of animal or plant.

Dog breeders may be able to get big dogs or little dogs, but they never get elephants or pine trees.

3. The information was already present.

The peppered moths were able to produce dark or light varieties, but they never got pink or purple.

4. The gene pool is now more limited.

A Chihuahua has a very limited gene pool. You will never be able to in-breed Chihuahaus and get a Great Dane. The genetic information is no longer present.


Homology
Often textbook authors show pictures of the front limb structure of various animals and point out a common pattern.32 The fingers, wrist, and arm bones of the human, ape, whale, bat, bird, and horse are indeed similar in their design. This fact does not necessarily mean they all had a common ancestor. It might be because they have a common designer! Maybe the same Creator designed all life forms using common patterns. Why don't the textbooks teach you that as an option?
True science students keep alert to the possibility of other explanations for the things they observe. If I prove a Cadillac engine can fit in a Chevy, does that prove they both evolved from a skateboard?

[Charity]

Dinosaurs
Most textbooks state authoritatively (as if the author were there at the time) that dinosaurs were the dominant life form for 150 million years and that they became extinct 65 million years ago. Creationists believe that dinosaurs lived with man at the beginning of creation,33 and that over time man hunted most of them to extinction (hence all the legends of people killing "dragons").

Many scientists alike believe that a few small dinosaurs may still be alive in remote places like the swamps in Africa, Loch Ness, Lake Champlain, etc. Making statements about dinosaurs living millions of years ago shows the textbook authors' faith, not facts from real science. (See videotape #3 for much more information on this topic. See also Claws, Jaws & Dinosaurs available through Creation Science Evangelism.)34



Birds Evolved from Dinosaurs?
Nearly all new textbooks teach that dinosaurs evolved into birds.35 The movie "Jurassic Park" made that thought one of its main themes. The one "evolutionary link between the two life forms" that the textbooks give is the fossil bird called Archaeopteryx. Several things need to be kept in mind by observant science students. Only 6 of these 12-inch bird fossils have been found. Many scientists do not think they represent a "link," but were simply an unusual bird with 100% normal feathers.36 They have claws on their wings, but so do at least twelve species of birds today like the ostrich, hoatzin, and turoco. The heart, lung, brain, skeleton, nervous system, body covering, and reproductive system are totally different between birds and reptiles. Billions of changes would be required to change a reptile to a bird. "The [evolutionary] origin of bird is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."37
Archaeopteryx was one of the first fossils found after Darwin's book was published in 1859. Since Darwin had predicted that billions of "missing links" would be found in rock strata, many people began looking for them. Scientists in Darwin's day quickly realized that archaeopteryx was only an unusual bird.

It was not a missing link. As the years went by and no missing links were found, Archaeopteryx was "resurrected" to be a much needed missing link. (See video tape #4 for more on this.) Many textbooks claim that missing links have been found. This is not true. Absolutely no missing links exist between major kinds of animals, as many major evolutionists have admitted.38

Not only can the intermediates not be found, they cannot even be imagined! How can an animal with half wing and half leg survive? It couldn't fly and it couldn't run! In addition, who would it marry? And who would its offspring marry? The evolutionists must imagine that this same change happened to two individuals of the opposite sex, at the same time, in the same location! Nobody has ever observed any animal change into any other kind of animal!

[Charity]

Human Evolution?
Did man evolve from an ape-like ancestor? Over the last 100 years many "cave-men" have been proven to be frauds or misidentified. The famous "Piltdown Man" was in the textbooks for over 40 years before it was proven to be a fake. The skull was human and the jawbone was from an ape.39 This clever forgery fooled the world's best experts for a long time. Hundreds of papers were written about the Piltdown fossils!
The famous so-called missing link dubbed "Nebraska Man" was built from one tooth! All that was found was one tooth, yet museums had the entire "man" and his wife on display! Two people from one tooth! Later it was discovered that the tooth had belonged to a pig!40
Experts agree that "Lucy" (found in most textbooks today) is not a missing link. It is just an unusual monkey. There is some evidence that a few may still be alive in the jungles of Sumatra! For a thorough treatment of the subject of these "ape-men," I recommend Bones of Contention, by Marvin Lubenow. (Available from CSE.)




Plate Tectonics Textbook sections on this subject need to be read with caution. While it is true that the earth has several "plates" that are moving and causing earthquakes, volcanoes, etc., it cannot be proven that they have been moving for millions of years. The Pangea theory teaches that all the continents broke apart 200 million years ago. They show students how the continents seem to fit.41


Things the textbooks do not tell you:


1. Africa has been shrunk 40% for the drawings


2. Mexico and Central America are gone


3. Europe and South America have been rotated counterclockwise and Africa clockwise.


Textbooks often show pictures of the ocean floor in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and say that there is evidence of magnetic reversals down there.42 This is simply not true. There are areas of weaker and stronger magnetism, but there is no place on the ocean floor where a north-seeking compass will point south.

Creationists believe that Noah's Flood destroyed the world and caused the surface features we see today. The Bible teaches that in the days of Noah "all the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights." (Genesis 7:11-12) The water rushing out of the cracked crust would widen the gap causing the top layer of rock to slide away as the sublayer of basalt rock lifted up. The basalt split, allowing the water to flow into the cracks. This cooled the hot rock, locking in the magnetic field along these cracks. Hot rock will not store a magnetic field. As the rock cooled, the magnetic field is locked in place. The scientists were measuring stronger and weaker magnetism, not magnetic reversals.43 There is evidence that the plates are moving, but don't believe the lie about reversals in the magnetic field of the earth. The magnetic field is getting weaker so the earth cannot be billions of years old. The reversal idea attempts to rescue the teaching of "billions of years." The plates may only have been moving for a few thousand years since the flood, as a result of "the fountains of the deep" breaking open. (See videotape #6 for more on this subject, and also the book In the Beginning.)






Cracks in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (In the Beginning, by Walt Brown, p. 91)


Is Evolution a Part of Science?
While there is no question that many scientists have chosen to believe in the theory of evolution for one reason or another, belief in evolution is not scientific proof. There are many who believe the creation theory. As you read your textbook, I suggest you keep an open mind and try to identify scores of other references that may have an explanation besides the one evolutionists present. There is a great deal of good science to be learned from science textbooks. It is a shame that the evolution religion is intermingled with science so often.

Why is Evolution Being Pushed in Public Schools?
Nearly every public school science textbook published in the last 40 years has been full of the evolution philosophy. Why? Having studied this subject for many years I have come to four conclusions as to why this theory is pushed so hard by some textbook authors and science teachers:


1. They don't know any better. It may be that they really have never seen a clear presentation of the evidence for the creation side. Many teachers are just parroting the things they were taught in school. False science often gets passed on for many generations this way, as any study of the history of science
will show.


2. Some promote the evolution theory because it is the only way to eliminate the concept of God. They want to be god of their own lives and make their own decisions about what is right or wrong. The idea that they may have to face a judgment day and give an account of their life sounds terrible to them, so they look for a theory that removes God and puts man in His place. They really don't like the God of the Bible! Evolution is a great theory to eliminate God, at least in their own mind (for now).


3. Some promote the theory for fear of losing their job. They know it is not true or at least have strong doubts about it, but they teach it anyway to keep the paycheck coming in. Scores of teachers, authors, museum personnel, and science writers have already lost their jobs for speaking out against evolution. Many others have decided to remain silent or pay lip service to the theory out of fear.


4. Some teach evolution because they understand clearly the link between this theory and their dreams of a "New World Order". The evolution theory is the very foundation for Mother Earth worship, Communism, Nazism, Socialism, Marxism, and a host of other anti-God 'isms.' God must be eliminated for their political agenda to go forward. They know that evolution is the only alternative to special Creation.



What Should Students, Parents and Teachers Do about False Information in Textbooks?
Most states have laws that require textbooks to be accurate. If your state does have such a law, see that it is enforced. If it does not, you may want to have this law passed. I believe it is only fair that false, outdated information be removed from the books. Until the time and money become available to replace the book, several options are available:


1. Have false information cut out or blacked out.


2. Have pages containing false information glued together.


3. Have stickers placed in the front of each book warning of false information by page number.


4. Require students be given a booklet detailing errors in their textbooks.


As a more long-term goal toward fixing the problem, students and parents alike should find out about how the textbooks are selected in your area and get involved in the process. Many school board members have not had the time to read all the books for themselves; they just go along with the recommendation of the committee reviewing the books. Students and parents can certainly get on the textbook selection committee or at least attend the meetings and voice their opinions and objections. If you are able to get on the textbook selection committee, select the least "poisonous" textbook. You could tell the other publishers why you didn't select their book (evolution content). Then you could tell the publisher you chose why you chose them this time. Be sure to tell them if you find a textbook with less evolution in it next time, you will pick that one instead. Book publishers may also be willing to print a special, error-free version for your school district or state. See Mel Gabler for help with this. [phone]

Do not confront your teacher publicly if it can be avoided. Try to talk to the teacher after class to share your concerns about the false information in the book. Most teachers are intelligent, sincere professionals who are only teaching what they have been taught. It may be that they have never seen the other side. Many teachers are creationists and would love to discuss the subject in class. "Teachers may discuss Creation in science classes if they wish."44 (See Public School Video for more on this topic.) You may find your teacher very supportive and would welcome the opportunity to discuss creation in class if a student brought it up. However, if you are late to class frequently, the class trouble-maker or goof off, never do your homework and don't pay attention in class, then please don't tell them you are a Christian!

Many students let their teachers watch my video series in class or allow other students to borrow them to watch at home. Scores of teachers have shown the series in their public school classrooms. This is perfectly fine and legal for them to do, even though some may be unnecessarily afraid of doing this.

If your teacher refuses to even consider the creation option, ask them to give me a call. I would be glad to answer any questions they have. Good educators educate students, they do not indoctrinate them with only one belief.

Get or make copies of this booklet or my video tapes and give them to all the students in your class. Even if you cannot change the books or the teacher, you can help the rest of the students get unbrainwashed.
You might want to consider starting a Bible class as part of the curriculum in your school. Several schools have done this already. Call or write Elizabeth Ridenour for details. [phone], National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, P.O. Box 9743, Greensboro, NC 27429.

Call to schedule a time for me or one of my staff members to speak in your class or school assembly. I speak in scores of public schools free of charge each year and would be glad to help as time permits.

[Charity]

Steps to Handle Evolution in Class
First of all, it is important to know your rights. Not knowing your rights can be as bad as not having any rights at all. Public schools cannot teach against your religion contrary to your will. You can ask to be exempt from evolutionary material.45 States can require teachers to discuss evolution, but there are no rules stating it must be taught as fact. It is important to understand that the Supreme Court did not remove the Bible from school. Publishers and the NEA removed the Bible. In fact, the Supreme Court stated that, "The Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like"46 So it is within your rights to be dismissed from this false teaching. However, if you choose to remain in the class and you continue with the work, there are other ways around the situation. If test questions come up about evolution, say: "The textbook says... however this is not correct." Another approach is to just learn the material; however, don't believe it.


Practical Steps to Change Schools
Here are some ways that you could use to attack the problem from a different angle. Many times, all that it takes to make a difference is one strong and determined individual. You can make a difference in your school or community by running for or influencing the school board. You could try to get on or influence the curriculum committee or write some textbook publishers. Pass or enforce laws requiring textbooks to be accurate. Keep an eye on your local newspaper. When they have articles on evolution, write the editor and express your view. Another way to help is to donate Christian books and/or videos to your school's library. Educate others! Use Creation for evangelism as in Acts 17. But most importantly, pray for your teachers and classmates and try to win them to Christ.

If you have any questions or comments or would like more information on this vital subject, feel free to contact me. I speak free of charge all over the world to various audiences, including public schools. I would also be glad to supply you with a free catalog of my materials. Just call or write for one.

Enjoy studying science, but don't get brainwashed!

Dr. Kent Hovind




Creation Science Evangelism (CSE)


c/o 29 Cummings Road


Pensacola, Florida [32503}


(850) 479-DINO (3466)


e-mail: [e-mail]


Other web sites with information on creation:

[Charity]

Other web sites with information on creation:



Institute for Creation Research
www.icr.org


Answers in Genesis
www.answersingenesis.org


Center for Scientific Creation
www.creationscience.com



Or see our site (www.drdino.com) for more good links.
(You can now see our seminars online!)



Sources:
1. Worlds Most Famous Court Trial, Rhea County Historical Society, Bryan College Dayton, TN 37321
2. Bob Jones Earth Science, p. 306
3. See ICR.org or call [phone] for more information on Mt. St. Helens
4. Glenco Biology 1994, p. 306-307
5. J.E. O'Rourke, American Journal of Science 1976, 276:51. See also In the Beginning by Walt Brown, p. 64.
6. Ager, Derek V., "Fossil Frustrations," New Scientist, Vol. 100 (November 10, 1983), p. 425
7. HBJ Earth Science 1989, p. 326
8. Troy L. Pewe, Quarternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Cov. printing office, 1975), p. 30
9. In the Beginning, by Walt Brown, p. 124.
10. Holt Modern Earth Science 1983 edition, p. 207
11. Health Biology 1991
12. Dr. Stephen J. Could, Evolution Now, p. 140. Marxist Professor at Harvard University in Boston
13. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, by Charles Darwin 1859, p. 217
14. See The Revised Quote Book or That Their Words May Be Used Against Them. Both available from CSE for $3.50 and $21.50 respectively, for many quotes from leading evolutionists about the absence of missing links.
15. Richard B. Couldschmidt The Material Basis of Evolution, Yale University Press 1940, p. 395
16. HBJ 1989, p. 357
17. Evolution, A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton
18. Glenco Biology 1994, p. 325
19. Origins of Life Vol. 12 1982
20. See Michael Denton's book Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, p. 61
21. Glenco Biology 1994
22. Simpson, George Gaylord "Evolutionary Determinism and the Fossil Record," Scientific Monthly Vol. 71 (October 1950), p. 254
23. Please speak with Frank Sherman of ICR (Institute for Creation Research) or visit their web site at www.icr.org
24. ICR (Institute for Creation Research) 1995, p. 3
25. Roy Hartenstein, Grolier Encyclopedia 1998
26. Holt Biology 1994, p. 182
27. New Scientist September 6, 1997, p. 23
28. Merrill Earth Science 1993, p. 451
29. Holt Biology 1994, p. 186
30. Parasitoloty, 6th Edition Lea and Febiger, p. 51631
31. Holt Life Science 1978, p. 360
32. Glenco Biology 1994, p. 309
33. Genesis 1:20-28
34. More resources for this topic: Incredible Life: An Handbook of Biological Mysteries by William R. Corliss, A Living Dinosaur? By Dr. Roy P. Mackal, On the Track of Unknown Animals by Bernard Heuvelmans
35. Holt Biology 1994, p. 214
36. Alan Feduccia a world authority on birds from UNC Chapel Hill quoted in "Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms," Science Feb. 5, 1994, p.764-765
37. W.E. Swinton, British Museum of Natural History, London
38. Dr. Colin Paterson, Senior Palentologist, British Museum of Natural History in Correspondence to Luther Sunderland quoted in Darwin's Enigma 1988, p. 89
39. Alien L. Hammond, 'Tales of an Elusive Ancestor,77 Science 83, November 1983, pp. 37 and 43
40. In the Beginning by Walt Brown, p. 11
41. Merrill Earth Science 1993, p. 343
42. Burdett & Ginn Earth Science 1987 Edition, p. 301
43. Hall, J.M. and P.T. Robinson, "Deep Crustal Drilling in the North Atlantic Ocean," Science Vol. 204 (May 11, 1979), p. 578
44. Educational Research Analysts, P.O. Box 7518, Long View, TX 75607, [phone] Mel Gabler
45. Student's Legal Rights on a Public School Campus, J.W. Brinkley with K.C. Crump, p. 53
46. Stone vs. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 42 1980

[Charity]

Bump to the top

[Charity]

www.fillthevoid.org/Creation/Hovind/Brainwashed.html