Fake Evidence for Evolution in 1970

It would be a natural thing to wonder why anyone cares about the condition of evolutionary evidence from decades ago, but there are some interesting things to consider. We know that science is supposed to be about things that are observed, can be tested, verified, repeated, and so on. These are not happening with universal common ancestor evolution.

Mostly made at PhotoFunia

We hear Darwin's handmaidens asserting that there are "mountains of evidence" for evolution. By 1970, you would think that a major encyclopedia would have been able to present the accumulated data to convince even the most recalcitrant thinker. Instead, they used fake evidence that had been discredited, spurious arguments, conflating evolution with variation and change, fraud, and more. Also, evolutionists tend to presuppose that what they call evidence can only be explained through naturalism, when in fact much of this better supports the truth of the Master Engineer's handiwork. We have the same things happening today, only worse. You'd think that if there were mountains of evidence for evolution, there would be no need for the slightest hint of dishonesty to believe in it, wouldn't you?

I happen to have in my possession a copy of the World Book Encyclopedia from that year, and it includes an entry on the theory of evolution (it lacks, however, any entry for creationism). It is the section under the heading, ‘Evidence for Evolution’ that particularly interests us for the purposes of this investigation. Are the evidences used for evolution in 1970 the same as those being put forward today? Do any of them stand up to scrutiny? We’ll look at each heading provided, and some relevant quotes.

To read the full article, visit "Exploring the ‘Evidence for Evolution’ … in 1970".