You Cannot Trust Evolutionists

Evolution deception

You Cannot Trust Evolutionists

By Steven Rowitt, Ph.D.

If you think this is an outrageous statement, you might want to take a deep breath and continue reading. When I was a Ph.D. student, one of the myriad articles I had to read and digest was aptly titled, “Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics.” Although this phrase is attributed alternately to both Mark Twain and Victorian England’s most famous Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, the complete quote is, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” The point of the article was to note something that is well established, that statistics can be manipulated to support anything. When deceptive tactics are applied to evolutionary dogma, and this fallacious evidence becomes part of the history of modern science, you can begin to understand the enormity of the problem. The vast majority of scholars in the scientific community are agenda driven and, therefore, incapable of avoiding researcher bias connected to their hyper-materialistic evolutionary worldview.  

When your worldview is based upon the false teaching of evolution, your conclusions become suspect. While most evolutionary scientists believe they are honest men and women that think they are being truthful; they tend to discard evidence that does not conform to their evolutionary worldview. In addition to this, there is fierce competition within scientific disciplines with no lack of animosity between competing factions. There is a history of researchers not reporting what they have found to be true, but rather what they wanted to be true. This is usually not done overtly, but their conclusions are skewed, spun to conform to Darwinian theory. When all criticism of evolutionary theory is excluded from the discussion, and only evidence supportive of evolutionary theory is allowed, the results are suspect.

One such example was the initial report and the companion report that followed five years later from renowned sex researcher Alfred Kinsey (1948) and company. Not only did they misrepresent their research, their flawed studies sowed the seeds for the sexual revolution of the 1960’s and misconceptions concerning sexuality in general that remain to this very day. You might be thinking that Kinsey’s research has little to do with evolutionary theory. That might be a legitimate concern, if Kinsey himself was not an avowed evolutionist. It is clear from Kinsey’s own writings that he was an evolutionist. Kinsey (1926) wrote a popular biology textbook entitled Introduction to Biology wherein his allegiance to Darwinian theory was clearly established.

Dr. Kinsey initially made his reputation as an entomologist. In 1938, his research interests in human sexuality led him to begin his research into that field of study. When speaking about the possibility of researcher bias, Alfred Kinsey could well be the poster boy for bias firmly connected to the researcher’s own sexual proclivities. Kinsey himself was a professed bi-sexual and Alfred and his wife practiced an open marriage. Dr. Kinsey allowed his personal sexual preferences to skew his research.     

It was the work of author, researcher, educator and expert witness in the field of sexual research and education, Judith Gelernter Reisman, Ph.D., that exposed the deceptive aspects of Kinsey’s famous research. With regard to Reisman’s work, Charles E. Rice, Professor at Notre Dam Law School, said, “Dr. Reisman's study supports the conclusion that Alfred Kinsey's research was contrived, ideologically driven and misleading. Any judge, legislator or other public official who gives credence to that research is guilty of malpractice and dereliction of duty.”

In response to the work of Dr. Reisman the German Medical Tribune and the distinguished British medical journal The Lancet (1991) called for a complete investigation of Kinsey’s research noting:

The Kinsey reports (one in 1948 on males and the companion five years later) claimed that sexual activity began much earlier in life... and displayed less horror of age differences and same-sex relationships than anyone at the time imagined. It was as if, to follow Mr. Porter again, “Anything goes.” In Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, Dr. Judith A. Reisman and her colleagues demolish the foundations of the two reports ... Kinsey et al. ... questioned an unrepresentative proportion of prison inmates and sex offenders in a survey of “normal” sexual behavior. Presumably, some at least of those offenders were also the sources of information on stimulation to orgasm in young children that can only have come from pedophiles--or so it must be hoped. Kinsey... has left his former co-workers some explaining to do.

The sad truth about the research of Dr. Kinsey and his colleagues is the adverse impact their purposely-skewed research would have on our society. This is far from an isolated incident. Many such tales of researcher fraud have been documented, but none more appalling than the bogus pharmaceutical studies submitted to the FDA that were used to approve medications that were later found to be unsafe. Charles Seife and Rob Garver (2013) reported that the now defunct Cetero Research firm committed such “egregious” and pervasive research violations that years of its tests were potentially worthless. I have personal knowledge that the makers of the toxic medicine, Baycol (Cerivastatin), removed from the market in July 2001 had eliminated from their clinical trials a person who expired as a result of taking this medication. It was not until 31 more people died as a result of taking this poisonous drug that the greedy, bean counting executives finally took the drug off the market.
Where Darwin’s theory is concerned, deception began very early on. It has continued for the past 150-plus years. The short list of some of the icons of evolution that turned out to be evolutionary frauds includes, vestigial organs (Wells, 2000; Rowitt, 2011), the Miller/Urey experiments, Piltdown man, Nebraska man, the Peppered Moths (Wieland, 2007), Darwin’s Finches (Luskin, 2012; Wells, 2000), etc., and a host of other so-called evidence in support of Darwinian evolution.

Perhaps the most infamous example of researcher bias resulting in outright fraud is found in the research of evolutionary zealot Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919). He was a German biologist, naturalist, philosopher and physician who popularized Charles Darwin's work in Germany and developed the controversial recapitulation theory. The famous expression “ontology recapitulates phylogeny” was coined in order to promote Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. According to evolutionists, this phrase means, “Development is a replay of Ancestry,” (Miller, 1997). Haeckel believed that certain markers in the history of evolutionary change were retained during fetal development. He believed similarities in the embryonic development of a fish, salamander, tortoise, chick, hog, calf, rabbit and a human was evidence of Darwin’s theory. Haeckel perpetrated his fraud by making these hand drawn embryos appear more similar than they actually were, thereby inferring an evolutionary relationship for these different organisms.

It was later revealed that Haeckel had fudged his drawings in order to make them more supportive of his theory. Modern neonatal research has completely debunked Haeckel’s theory of recapitulation noting that the morphology Haeckel misapplied in support of ontology recapitulating phylogeny was really part of the unique anatomy of embryonic development. Furthermore, fetal changes had no relationship to evolutionary theory whatsoever. This has not prevented modern evolutionists from doubling down on Haeckel’s forgeries. Today, instead of using Haeckel’s original forged drawings, popular biology textbook editors, Miller and Levine, use “absolutely accurate” photographs. The following passage illustrates why evolution is not science, but rather an elaborate tautological fraud.

As you read this, you may wonder why evolution should be limited to changes tacked on at the end of the process of development. So did evolutionary biologists, and Haeckel's idea was quickly discarded. In fact, evolution can affect all phases of development, removing developmental steps as well as adding them, and therefore embryology is not a strict replay of ancestry. Nonetheless, many of the stages that embryos pass through can indeed be understood as remnants of their evolutionary past. (Emphasis added)

One example is the fact that the embryos of all placental mammals (including humans) form a yolk sac during their development. Why is this important? Because the eggs of these organisms do not have large amounts of stored yolk, and therefore their yolk sacs are empty! Nonetheless, the persistence of a yolk sac stage makes perfect sense when one considers that these animals are descended from egg-laying reptiles in which the sac encloses a massive amount of yolk to support embryonic development, (Miller, 1997).

Professor Miller wants us to believe that empty yolk sacs are evidence of common ancestry. This line of reasoning lacks scientific merit. From the evolutionist’s point of view, all mammals have yolk sacs; therefore, all mammals are related to a distant common mammalian ancestor. That    creature had a yolk sac, ergo; they are related to one another via common descent. Evolutionary reasoning postulates, because yolk sacs in humans remain empty (until they become filled with yolk early in neonatal development), and all mammals have yolk sacs, that this is evidence of Darwinian evolution. The problem with such musings become evident when we realize that mammalian yolk sacs are not vestiges of some distant egg-laying past; they serve a very real and essential purpose during fetal development. The yolk sac is designed to provide nutrition to the developing embryo in the earliest stages of growth. This structure first becomes visible in ultrasounds at about five weeks. As the embryo grows, much of the yolk sac is eventually absorbed into its body, and the fetus then gets nutrients through its mother’s umbilical cord.

At this juncture, I must point out that tautologies are not necessarily fallacious; however, when science uses circular reasoning as evidence, it becomes pseudoscience. It would be far more accurate to compare a tautological statement (that may or may not be correct) to an axiomatic truth, e.g. a self-evident truth that is always true. As is the case with evolutionary theory, everything in nature, all of the evidence is seen as supportive of Darwinian evolution. This is an example of the tautological nature of how the evidence is sometimes framed in evolutionary theory. Everything, no matter how contradictory it might be is seen as being supportive of Darwin’s theory.

There is no better example of the deceptive practices employed to support evolutionary theory than the way evolutionists explain the gaps in the fossil record. Initially, evolution was supposed to have taken place slowly, over tens of millions of years. When the fossil record illustrated that most, if not all, of the organisms within appeared abruptly, fully formed without undisputed precursors or intermediate lifeforms, a new and improved explanation had to be offered. It was then postulated that evolution really did not really take place slowly over time, but in rapid spurts, not instantaneous, but rapidly, perhaps tens of thousands of years rather than tens to hundreds of millions of years. This new hypothesis that replaced the old assumption of gradual uniformitarian change was called the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium (or Equilibria). It was proposed by the gurus of neo-Darwinism, Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge. Now the gaps become evidence for evolution, and their existence explains the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. But the few, allegedly transitional organisms such as archaeopteryx are also showcased and presented as evidence for Darwinian evolution. Gaps, no gaps, transitions, no transitions, all become evidence in support of the Theory of Evolution. It seems that evolutionists really can have their cake and eat it too.

Accomplished liars will look you squarely in the eye and lie to you with a straight face. You may be so thoroughly brainwashed by the molecules-to-men story of life on planet Earth that cannot even conceive that you might be completely wrong about evolution.  Evolutionists are always very serious when they speak about their common faith. They use bait and switch deception with regard to microevolutionary changes being promoted as evidence of molecules-to-men. Because they have a monopoly on what is taught in our public educational institutions, allowing only one explanation for the origin of life and censoring any information they deem critical to their evolutionary faith, they indoctrinate rather than educate their students.

When they have to admit in some matter or other that they were wrong, they never ever question the original premise of Darwin’s theory. This is in spite of the fact that Darwin’s finches always remained finches and natural selection has proven, in the minds of many prominent Neo-Darwinists, to be an inadequate mechanism for evolutionary changes (Mazur, 2000). When this is coupled with the fact that mutations never produce the new genetic information required for macroevolutionary changes to occur, you are left with an elaborate fairytale couched in scientific sounding terminology. Yes, science can often explain how things work, but they always fail to produce answers for the questions that plague their materialistic worldview. They can postulate survival of the fittest, but they cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.

We should be bold in our assertion that Darwinian evolution is pseudoscience. It is an atheistic and utterly materialistic worldview masquerading as truth. It is an elaborate deception that, left unchallenged, destroys people. It lies to them about who they are, where they came from and what happens to them whey they die. It leaves all who embrace this lie in darkness. We should proclaim the truth, always in the power of the Holy Spirit, allowing the light of God’s love to shine through us in the midst of a sick and dying world.



Kinsey, Alfred (1926). Introduction to Biology.

Kinsey, Alfred (1948). Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders
Company. His follow-up book entitled Sexual Behavior in the Human Female was published five years later in 1953.

Lancet (1991). Demands that the Kinsey Institute be investigated. The Lancet  (Vol. 337: March 2, 1991, p. 547.

Luskin, Gary (2012). Back to School to Learn about the "Darwin's Finches" Icon of Evolution.
Evolution News and Views. Accessed 5.9.13.

Mazur, Susan (2009). The Altenberg 16: An Expose of the Evolution Industry. Wellington, New Zealand: First Edition, Ltd.

Mazur, Susan (2009). Ibid.

Miller, Kenneth (1997). Haeckel and his Embryos: A Note on Textbooks by Ken Miller and Joe Levine.

Miller, Kenneth (1997). Ibid.

Rowitt, Steven (2011). Vestigial Organs: To Function or not to Function, that is the Question. Accessed 5.8.13.

Seife, C. & Garver, R. (2013). Six Drugs the FDA Doesn't Want You to Know Relied on Tainted Data. Pro Publica. Accessed 5.10.13.

Wells, Jonathan (2000). Survival of the Fakest. The American Spectator December 2000/January 2001. Accessed 5.8.13.

Wells, Jonathan (2000). The Icons of Evolution. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing Company.

Wieland, Carl. (2008). Goodbye, peppered moths: A classic evolutionary story comes unstuck. (added January 2008) For a response to an attempt in New Scientist, in late 2007, to ‘rehabilitate’ the peppered moth’s reputation. Creation Ministries International. Accessed 5.8.13.