In the Sunday, June 22, 2008, edition of the Dallas Morning News, columnist Steve Blow reported the results of a survey he conducted on the hot-button issues of evolution, stem cell research, and global warming.¹ Seeking answers from “a trusted science source,” he sent five questions from recent Gallup surveys to the 18 University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center faculty

A 15-year investigation by Vanderbilt University scientists of a pair of stars near the Orion nebula has led to unexpected results.¹ Evolutionists assume that “because the two stars condensed from the same cloud of gas and dust they should have the same composition.

The standard story of the origin of Australia goes something like this: Many millions of years ago, the earth had one continent called Pangaea. Around 120 million years ago, a landmass that included the future Africa and South America inexplicably¹ broke off and began pulling away. Then, 80 million years ago Australia separated from Antarctica—thus Australia became isolated.

A recent report serves to demonstrate a commonly observed pattern among evolutionary authors: circular reasoning. It turns out that the arguments used to support evolution rest upon the assumption of their own truthfulness.

Imagine a soup containing all the biochemicals of a cantaloupe except for its RNA. If we could then add the missing RNA, how close would the mixture be to an actual cantaloupe? Not very—it would have the “ingredients” of a cantaloupe, but they would be in complete disarray.