“Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka missing links. Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false,” according to a recent LiveScience article that then describes what it claims are 12 specific transitional form fossils.¹ But do these examples really confirm Darwinism?

Geochemists and paleontologists are on the lookout for “molecular fossils,” biochemicals that were resistant to breakdown even during rock-forming processes.¹ These have been discovered now in the very lowest layers of sedimentary rock, far below the Cambrian.² Certain chemicals, like some steroids made by sea sponges, indicate that sponges were present in the earliest tim

According to the record in Genesis, there was a time when the entire surface of the earth was inundated with water.

Even two centuries after his birth, less than 40 percent of Americans believe in Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by means of natural selection, a recent poll found.

Discover magazine recently asked, “Are We Still Evolving?” The same-titled article noted that “for decades theories about human evolution had proliferated despite the absence of much, if any, hard evidence.”¹ It then presented research showing that human DNA is definitely changing—but not as Darwinism predicted.