1. In some ancient puddle, lake or ocean, life began when chance chemical reactions produced the first single-celled organism, some kind of self-reproducing bacterium.

2. These bacteria were able to reproduce themselves by cell division, but with occasional very slight changes from generation to generation.

3. Very gradually, very slowly, this process of change was able to "create" new complex biological designs.

4. In some 3 billion years the original organisms were able to change step-by-step as follows:

single cell

many-celled worm without a backbone

worm with a backbone

fish

amphibian

reptile with scales

mammal with hair

ape

university professor

5. This process obviously had to "create," one after the other, thousands of new, complex designs, in order to change a bacterium into a university professor.

B. What is required to prove the evolution case to you and to me?

1. Show us thousands of series of fossils which prove that a slow process of evolution "created", one after the other, thousands of new complex biological designs. For example, there should be a series of fossils to show the slow, gradual evolution of a backbone. There should be a series of fossils to show the step-by-step evolution of reptile scales into bird feathers.

2. Devise an experimentally testable theory of genetics to explain how evolution "created" a backbone or changed reptile scales into bird feathers.

3. Discover the mechanisms of genetics and embryonic development which are able to "create" complex new biological designs.

4. Show us the evolution of complex new biological designs happening in nature today.

C. Have the requirements of Section B above been achieved by evolutionary science? NO!

1. The beginning of life has been neither explained theoretically nor demonstrated experimentally.¹

2. Not even one sequence of fossils has been found which demonstrates that slow, gradual evolutionary change ever "created" a single new complex biological design.^2,3,4

3. There is no experimentally testable theory to explain the "creation" of complex new biological designs by evolution.⁵

4. The required mechanisms of genetics and embryonic development which "create" new biological designs have not been discovered and demonstrated experimentally.⁶

5. The "creation" of complex new biological designs by evolution has not been observed in nature. All that is observed is limited variations of what already exists.⁷

D. Conclusions: Let the students think for themselves!

1. The scientific case for evolution has not been proved.

2. Therefore, belief in evolution is a faith, not a scientific conclusion. The same may be said of belief in creation.

3. No scientific evidence exists which makes it "unscientific" for any scientist, student or teacher of science to believe that God designed and created the complex designs of life.

4. The California State Board of Education is frightening and forcing teachers to make science education into propaganda against God the Creator. The State Board mandates science books which teach evolution as a fact when they cannot prove that it is a fact. The science books make science into the irreligious faith of evolution. Without proof they teach it dogmatically, protect it from criticism, make it the only way students can think and be "scientific." This is science education?! Give me a break. Hey, do they fear you students might start thinking for yourselves?

5. Science education in public schools violates the constitutional rights of all students. All are taught to accept the evolution dogma by faith, just as religion is taught in a church. Do not students deserve to have all pertinent facts and be free to criticize theories? Instead, believers in creation by God are denied their right to the free exercise of their religious faith, which is guaranteed to them by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. The State does not want either students or teachers to criticize evolution in the science classroom.^8,9,10 Is this science education or is it evolutionary religion being substituted for science?

Footnotes (emphases added)

1. John Horgan, "In the Beginning," Scientific American, Vol. 264, No. 2, Feb. 1991, pp. 116-125. Subtitle: "Scientists are having a hard time agreeing on when, where and--most important--how life first emerged on the earth." On p. 125 Prof. Stanley Miller of U.C. San Diego expresses a hope that he or some other scientist will some day repeat life's origin in the laboratory:

"I think we just haven't learned the right tricks yet. When we find the answer, it will probably be so d----d simple that we'll all say, 'Why didn't I think of that before?'"

2. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (J. M. Dent, London, 1972), p. 441.

"...geological research...does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required on the theory; and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be urged against it."

3. Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, Vol. 86, June-July, 1977, pp. 22, 24.

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."

4. Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution (Freeman, San Francisco, 1977), p. 39.

"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution [i.e., a species becoming a new species] accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."

5. Jean Marx, "Homeobox Genes Go Evolutionary," Science, 24 Jan. 1992, p. 399.

"It [i.e., homeobox gene research] is starting to bring together developmental and evolutionary biologists, a merger that is badly needed, considering the intractability of certain evolutionary puzzles, such as the long-standing quandary of how the body plan of multi-celled organisms arose."

6. Ibid, p. 401. "While the final marriage of developmental biology and evolutionary theory is clearly some way off, perhaps one day it will produce an offspring that can explain, in satisfying molecular detail, how new species evolved."

7. No example exists in nature or in the laboratory of a new complex biological structure or organ appearing in any species by a spontaneous evolutionary process. Neither is there in any species an example of a biological structure which can be understood as a partly evolved structure which is on the way to becoming a new complex biological structure. Some plants are highly variable, and intelligent humans have selectively bred and cross-bred plants to produce strikingly different varieties and forms. It is probable that ancient wild teosinte and modern corn varieties are an example of this.

8. Science Framework for Calif. Public Schools (Calif.Dept. of Ed., 1990), pp. xi, xii.

"If a student should raise a question in a natural science class that the teacher determines is outside the domain of science, the teacher should treat the question with respect. The teacher should explain why the question is outside the domain of natural science and encourage the student to discuss the question further with his or her family and clergy." "Nothing in the California Education Code allows students (or their parents) to excuse class attendance based on disagreement with the curriculum, except as specified for certain topics dealing with reproductive biology and for laboratory dissection of animals."

9. Ibid, p. 134.

"Evolution is both a pattern and a process. It is also both a fact and a theory."

10. Ibid, p.123.

"...humans evolved from other apes--tailless primates--and are, in turn, apes, primates, mammals, amniotes, vertebrates, and so forth."