Skip to content

Today's Creation Moment

Not a Fish Lizard
Genesis 1:20
“And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.”
Like so many children over the last century, I was given a book about dinosaurs when I was a small boy. This book contained references to a number of extinct creatures other than dinosaurs, and one...

Darwin Was Wrong, Evolutionary Scientists Admit

"Darwin simply didn't have access to the information we have," explains William Parker, Ph.D., assistant professor of surgical sciences at Duke University Medical Center and the senior author of a new study on the appendix. "If Darwin had been aware of the species that have an appendix attached to a large cecum, and if he had known about the widespread nature of the appendix, he probably would not have thought of the appendix as a vestige of evolution."

A few days ago the evolutionary website ScienceDaily ran a story titled "Evolution of the Human Appendix: A Biological 'Remnant' No More." According to the article, "Duke scientists and collaborators from the University of Arizona and Arizona State University conclude that Charles Darwin was wrong: The appendix is a whole lot more than an evolutionary remnant. Not only does it appear in nature much more frequently than previously acknowledged, but it has been around much longer than anyone had suspected."

Parker added, "Maybe it's time to correct the textbooks. Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a 'vestigial organ.'"

Maybe, Dr. Parker? Maybe? We know how difficult it must be to finally come around to what creationists have been saying all along, but why should there be even the slightest hesitation about correcting a known mistake in biology textbooks? Creation Moments will even make it easy for textbook publishers by providing the new wording: "According to the latest scientific research, Darwin was wrong about the appendix being a vestigial organ. The appendix serves a critical function as part of the body's immune system, as creation scientists have long asserted."

But we won't hold our breath. After all, Dr. Parker is still a loyal Darwinist. "We're not saying that Darwin's idea of evolution is wrong - that would be absurd, as we're using his ideas on evolution to do this work," Parker told yesterday. "It's just that Darwin simply didn't have the information we have now."

Our closing comment: Had Darwin known what we now know about fossils, DNA, geology, the fine-tuned universe and the complexity of what he thought were simple cells, we wonder if he would have proposed such a lame idea as the theory of evolution.

Those are our thoughts. What are yours?


They will reluctantly admit that just maybe they are wrong somewhere, but they never cease in their drive to indoctrinate young minds into the error of their thinking. It is mandatory that students learn and reproduce the doctrines of evolution. Every where you turn textbooks indicate that they are based on the religion (falsely called science) of evolution.

Let's just leave Dr. 'Maybe' Parker up to God -- He'll take care of him, hopefully, soon enough!

Agreed. Evolution is the lamest idea, but loudest and most devastating lie that could ever be contrived out of Hell. If if were only the knowledge that Hitler believed evolution and thought the Jews to be closest to pure ape, this fact alone should cause any self-respecting individual to realize just how dumb and destructive this lie is. But rather than admit their errors and open the door to a "God-idea," the loyal Darwinist clings to his only hope: a God-less lie.

Those who would rather not acknowledge God will invent, in the absence of Darwin, another scheme, another idea which to them seems wise. The diminishment of Darwinism must give rise to something else; perhaps the wisdom of the astronomers will assert itself with their end of the cosmos scenarios. Anything but acknowledge Jesus Christ as author and finisher and the Word as the ultimate arbiter.

I wholeheartedly reject the notion of evolution as a Christian. Heck, didn't Darwin himself even refute his own theory later in life? But we as Christians must relaize that non-believers hearts have been darkened to the truth (Eph 4:18) and we all know the dangers of pride in why would we expect any different of a response? Rather, our response is to clothe ourselves in humility and patience with those whose eyes have not been opened by the Spirit of wisdom and discernment, not ask for God to deal with them. Who cares if we can disprove evolution unless we ALSO use this newly discovered truth (undoubtedly revealed by God) to show His great love (1Co 13:2) and forgiveness to those whose souls still need to be rescued?

Ruthlyn, such is the nature of faith. Evolution is a faith, though very different than Christianity.

Chris, we agree with you. However, the story about Darwin turning away from his theory of evolution on his deathbed is not true. He remained committed to the philosophy that bears his name to the very end.

The evidence is so overwhelming for the existence of God that one has to ask: "What is wrong with these highly intelligent scientists who should know better?" The answer is that they, along with the whole human race, suffer with a sickness called "sin." Because of their enmity toward God, they do not want to believe that he exists. So why doesn't man want to retain God in his knowledge? Because it allows them to escape an authority figure telling them how they should live their lives on this earth. After all, if there is no God, then there is no heaven or hell, if no heaven or hell then there is no judgment, and if no judgment then you can live as you please without having to answer to a higher moral authority (i.e., God). Obviously, there are deeper issues involved than just the fact that evolution is supposedly superior to creation.

This blog was well documented and straight-forward. I liked it very much! Thank you for sharing! It is important for people to know when a our leading evolutionary scientists have had to go back on one of their assertions because of scientific noncompliance.

The fact that Darwin "simply didn't have the information that we have now" is something that I have heard other evolutionists admit as well in rare instances. (The theory of evolution seems to be constantly evolving for them . . ha ha) If they would only go further in that thought pattern and realize that their current scientific findings in evolution might also be discounted some day as being made with not all "the information that we have" in the future, perhaps then they will see that an origins theory that explains the universe and all that is in it may have to be more than a passing scientific fad.

Evolutionists admit they don't know how creation came about, but they insist that they know all about the process. (Read this: They don't know diddly-squat.) Then, when cornered, they admit that there is a lot of healthy scientific debate. (Read that: They don't know what they're talking about and they can't agree.) But they still want us to think they're completely accurate and factual. What they are is absurdly wrong and inaccurate. If they're so certain evolution works, I'd like to see them wait for lunch to evolve on their dinner plate. After all, if the universe can evolve all by itself in millions of years, a mere lunch shouldn't take very long.

April - you're no fool! (Pardon the pun) You made some very good points. In fact, we were so impressed, we visited your Mouthy Wisdom blog. Very nice! We encourage everyone reading this to check it out at: <a href="" title=""></a>

Anyone care to explain why admitting that the appendix is not a vestigial organ is equivalent to admitting that the theory of evolution is plain wrong? Because I think you are all making a reading comprehension error.