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?

If Charles Darwin could see today's best examples of evolution, would he be elated or depressed?

Biology textbooks teach that mutations added the high-quality genetic information needed to transmutate a fish into a monkey—even though experiments have shown that mutations merely corrupt the information that is already present. In a new experiment, microbiologists from Uppsala University in Sweden induced mutations in two bacterial genes to observe the effects.

Many Americans believe that the big-picture story of evolution, as biology professors routinely expound it, is false.¹ Basically, they haven't bought into the concept that all life descended from one common ancestor that miraculously sprang into being millions of years ago. And that makes sense, considering there are no real examples of that kind of evolution.

Since its inception, Charles Darwin's story that life evolved in response to environmental pressures has not been supported by what is actually observed in nature. Despite this, it has been universally taught as accurate science since shortly after the publication of his On the Origin of Species in 1859.