Most people say that evolution is true, so why do a growing number of scientists doubt it? These skeptics don’t question evolution’s premise that nature alone is somehow responsible for crafting creatures out of stardust. The debate centers on how nature might have achieved this incredible feat.

In 1988 a fossil jaw was discovered by paleontologists in San Diego County, California. Decades later the scientists determined it belonged to a relatively unknown carnivore species of the machaeroidines (saber-toothed, placental mammals). The creature was named Diegoaelurus vanvalkenburghae and was about the size of a bobcat with teeth like slicing blades.

About 1,600 years ago, salt miners in Iran apparently left their lamb lunch down the shaft. Their loss became scientists' gain. The now-mummified sheep carcass suggests that salt helps preserve sheepskin DNA.

Fossils from two giant rhinos dated by evolutionists to be “22 million years old” in the evolutionary timetable have been discovered in China.¹ They were much larger than today’s rhinos and stood at over 20 feet, but they were still rhinos. This is true with many large animals found in the fossil record—vertebrate and invertebrate.

In order to have evolution, you must first have life. Both sides of the evolution-creation debate agree that the chance of all the correct biomolecules coming together by chance to form even the simplest cell is virtually impossible. Fred Hoyle¹ (an atheist) estimated the probability as one chance in 10^40,000.