ntific,' and still going on, so it seems like it should be observable and measurable. Yet after 150 years of intense study of biological variations, evolutionists are still completely in the dark about the supposed mechanism of evolution. This fact surely is cause for beginning to doubt the validity of the very concept of evolution" (303). Words such as 'claimed', 'should be', and 'supposed' are very powerful, but they don't give examples as to where and who claimed or supposed these things, nor do they seem to understand evolution. In 150 years, the evolutionary change that would occur is insignificant, so it is very difficult to see such changes in such a short period of time, because they are completely ignoring the evolutionary time scale. Also, they don't acknowledge that biologists have seen evolution occur, as in the case of moth's wings changing color for protection against their prey. Morris and Parker are also blatantly attacking evolution as a science and as a fact (303). When Edward Larson did his research for his book Summer for the Gods: The Scopes trial and America's Continuing Debate over Science and Religion, he found that the overall 95% of scientists admitted that they believed in evolution (Issues 394). Evolutionists mainly spend their time in the debate defending themselves. Evolutionists were not content to treat natural selection as simply an observable ecological process. They intended on making natural selection the touch-tone of a new philosophy, a "religion without revelation"(Morris and Parker 82). Philip Yancey said that in the last few years astronomers have openly admitted to under estimating the number of galaxies by fifty billion or so and missing the age of the universe. They teach the correct evolution (no, we did not evolve from monkeys). It is at times difficult to teach correct evolution to the public because the details of evolution can be very technical. For example, saying that evolution...
