In a recent piece in Scientific American, neuroscientist Trevor Lamb wrote that vertebrate eyes contain numerous defects that he called "the scars of evolution." He cited these "flaws" as powerful evidence that blind evolutionary forces are responsible for the "invention" of eyes.¹ But research has proven that these supposed defects are entirely fictional.

According to a recent report, one biotech company has plans to test and market a rather unusual treatment for certain autoimmune intestinal ailments like Crohn's disease…a concoction containing the eggs of a parasitic whipworm that infects pigs.

That's right: Pig parasites used to treat human disease. How can parasites possibly help?

Does it matter whether the larvae of one fruit fly species have hairy backs while those of another are smooth? Well, for scientists who believe both species descended from the same ancestor population, it could perhaps be taken as an example of evolution in action. The genetic causes for these particular differences, however, clearly show that no Darwinian processes were involved.

Biologists recently discovered how tomcod…a smaller variation of cod…have thrived in the polluted waters of the Hudson River. The reports on their research are soaked in evolutionary jargon, but the data they dredged from the DNA of these and neighboring tomcod demonstrate that evolution had nothing to do with the fish's unexpected proliferation in poisoned waters.

On a Dallas highway near the Institute for Creation Research offices, a billboard advertising a new computer reads, "The laptop has just evolved." Likely, the statement is not meant to be taken in a literal Darwinian sense, since laptops are the product of human engineering. Why, then, is the word "evolved"—typically used to describe a natural process—used in the advertisement?