The very weighty criticisms of Darwinian molecules-to-man evolution are readily available, but for whatever reason you choose to ignore them. Note we’re not talking about natural selection, which is something no one (including Biblical creationists, most of whom aren’t as dense as you’d perhaps like to pretend) disputes. But apparently the scores of scientists who doubt Darwinian theory are all just a bunch of yokels, correct? Doubters who include prominent atheists like Antony Flew (who ceased being an atheist and moved to agnosticism before he died) and Thomas Nagel, as well as theists of all stripes.

I would suggest starting at intelligentdesign.org for an overview, then sites like uncommondescent.com, evolutionnews.org, and arn.org for more in-depth discussions of the limits of neo-Darwinism. To sum up—Darwin’s Grand Theory of Evolution is outdated 19th century science (again, NOT talking about natural selection, which is observable and factual, but that theory pre-dates Darwin himself). If Darwin were alive today, he would NOT be a Darwinist. Darwin himself thought the cell was a mere lump of protoplasm, which of course is not proven to be bogus. Believing in neo-Darwinism is like believing a 747 can assemble itself from all its assorted parts scattered on a field, given enough time (1 billion years? 13 billion? 15 quintillion? Doesn’t matter, ain’t gonna happen).