E   V   O   L   U   T   I   O   N


C   R   E   A   T   I   O   N
Dr. Colin Patterson
One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let's call 
it a non-evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden realization for over twenty years I had 
thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something 
had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years 
and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that 
one can be so misled so long. 

Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with 
evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks
I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: 
Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, 
any one thing that is true? 

I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural 
History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary 
Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of 
evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person 
said, "I do know one thing--it ought not to be taught in high school."   

Former Senior Principal Scientific Officer of the Paleontology Department of the British Museum 
of Natural History, London Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, November 5, 1981. 
Colin Patterson's 1981 lecture was not published, but I have reviewed a transcript and Patterson restated his position, 
which I would label "evolutionary nihilism" in an interview with the journalist Tom Bethell. 
(See Bethell, "Deducing from Materialism," National Review, Aug. 29, 1986, p. 43.) I discussed evolution with 
Patterson for several hours in London 1988. He did not retract any of the specific skeptical statements he has made, 
but he did say that he continues to accept "evolution" as the only conceivable explanation 
for certain features of the natural world. Darwin on Trial, Phillip E. Johnson, 
Inter Varsity Press, 1993, p. 173 
Dr. Niles Eldridge 
If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, then one would 
expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit 
like what came after. But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. 
This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record 
which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. 
In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 
500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. 

Former Paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History
The Guardian Weekly, 26 November 1978, vol. 119, no. 22, p. 1 
See Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, Michael Denton Adler & Adler 1986 Chapter 8
Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. 
They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappeared; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 

Sudden appearance
In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation 
of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."  

Former Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University
"Evolution's Erratic Pace", Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, May 1977, p.13
"Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?", Paleobiology, January 1980, P.127
See Darwin On Trial, Philip E. Johnson, Inter Varsity Press, 1993, Chapter 4rr
Dr. Lyall Watson 
The fossils that decorate our 
family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all our physical evidence we have for human evolution can 
still be placed, with room 
to spare, inside a single coffin! Modern apes...seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. 
And the origin of modern 
humans is...if we are honest 
with ourselves, an equally 
mysterious matter. 

"The Water People," Science 
Digest, May 1982, p.44 
The fossil record supports Creation
In the 1970's it was becoming very apparent that the theory of gradualistic evolution was
not supported by the fossil record. Paleontologists Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldrige constructed a new 
theory of evolution called Punctuated equilibrium in an attempt to explain why intermediate stages or missing links 
could not be found. But without physical evidence belief in evolution becomes a matter of faith--not a fact of 
science. The confessions of professor Gould were not an endorsement of Biblical creation, but
the sudden appearance of species fully formed is what one would expect from the fossil record if the world 
was created then flooded as stated in the book of Genesis.
Marvin L. Lubenow
Fossils that are indistinguishable from modern humans can be traced all the way back to 4.5 m.y.a., according to the evolutionary time scale. Before australopithecines, Homo erectus demonstrates morphological consistency throughout its two million year history. The fossil record does 
not show erectus evolving from or into something else. Homo sapiens, Neanderthal, archaic Homo sapiens, and Homo erectus all lived as contemporaries at 
one time or another.

Christian Professor
Bones of Contention, Baker Books, 
1992, Chap. 16, p.178-179
The appearance of Man 
Our ancestors, in morphological human form, appear abruptly in the fossil record 
fully human. Australopithecines are not gradually linked to Homo erectus nor Neanderthal. The 
creature below, illustrated as a transitional form, appears often in the popular media, 
but is absent from the fossil record. 

Evolution: A Theory In Crisis  By Michael Denton  Book  Interview
Bones Of Contention  By Marvin L. Lubenow  Works  Interview  Lucy  Book
Darwin On Trial  By Philip E. Johnson  Biography
Books and web sites
Answers In Genesis
Stephen Jay Gould 
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, 
indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. The extreme rarity of transitional 
forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism, I wish only to point 
out that it was never "seen" in the rocks. The history of most fossils species includes 
two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 

Institute For Creation Research
Patterson Transcript