When I went to high school, I took an open stand against Darwinian evolution. I realized that accepting evolution's explanation for the origin of life deeply conflicted with my belief in God as Creator. My questioning the Darwinian theory didn't go down very well with my biology teacher, even though science is a discipline where it is good to question, instead of blindly accepting everything.

Our high school textbook had quite convincing sections on Darwinian evolution. It discussed peppered moths in England (read the true story about that in "Mothballing Evolution's Peppered Moths," January-March 2007 issue of Vertical Thought) and various other cases such as " Darwin's finches" and "Darwin's tree of life," etc. It presented a clear picture: item after item was laid out, all pointing in the same direction. Darwinian evolution, my teacher argued, was not only a scientific theory but also a scientific fact. Of course when you throw in magical words like "DNA-analysis," it had a scientific ring to it.

Time and time again we hear phrases such as "overwhelming evidence" and "consensus has been reached" by Darwinists preaching that evolution is the true explanation. They argue that "no Creator was necessary" and even that "science proves there is no purpose or God." Never mind that those stating such claims have stepped way out of their scientific field.

I noticed that no one has actually observed Darwinian evolution take place. Sure, we have fossils that looked like they might be related somehow—just like a modern car could be related by appearance to older cars. But cars are designed. Why is it so impossible to suggest that the myriads of different species of creation are designed—especially after considering their complexity and how neatly they all fit in the ecosystem?

I've always believed that there is no real conflict between science and what the Bible tells us. We can find clear indication of the Creator by observing and examining His creation. However, this is not something people within mainstream biology are likely to admit (although the growing discipline of intelligent design is paving the way to enable the mere thought of a Designer again).

It's a hard problem because in biology facts are often viewed through the spectacles of evolution. Instead of building their theory from evidence, Darwinian biologists interpret what they see, often remodeling instead of rejecting ideas that contradict their premise. In that sense Darwinism is not scientific.

What I didn't know during my high school years is how badly supported the theory of evolution actually is. After reading Jonathan Wells' book Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong, the case against Darwinian evolution became quite clear to me. Darwin's theory isn't science—it's myth, employing numerous myth-making techniques:

• Exaggerating claims.
• Using circular reasoning.
• Ignoring and not mentioning evidence against it.
• Misleading (knowingly or unknowingly) the public with nonfactual stories based on wishful thinking.
• Using scientifically questionable methods to find "proof" for evolution.

The book focuses on 10 important examples (the so-called icons) upon which Darwinists themselves have mainly constructed their theory. Read it and you will find that it provides a clear counterbalance to many school textbooks' uncritical acceptance of Darwinian evolution.

Meanwhile, you can quickly access the biblical reasons why evolution is wrong by downloading or requesting a free copy of Creation or Evolution: Does It Really Matter What You Believe? VT