Don McLeroy leaves creationist comment: evolution can’t explain “biochemical complexity”

UPDATE: See the first comment below: reader SES notes that one can watch the film “The Revisionists” online here (it’s free until February 27), and some PBS stations in America are broadcasting it tonight. The schedule is also at the link.


If you’ve followed the attempts of American creationists to get evolution of ouf the school classroom, you’ll remember Don McLeroy from Texas. A dentist with a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering. McLeroy was a member of the Texas State Board of Education  [TSBOE] from 1998-2011, and served as chairman of the Board from 2007-2009. His reappointment as chair was blocked by the Texas State Senate, so you can imagine how dire he was.

McLeroy is infamous because of his strenuous efforts to get evolution out of Texas public schools. Because that state has to approve textbooks, and it’s a huge consumer of them, publishers sometimes tailor nationally-distributed books to Texas standards to avoid publishing multiple editions. That’s why McLeroy’s efforts, which ultimately failed, were so pernicious. They could have given evolution a serious hit throughout America.

But it wasn’t just evolution he fought. As Wikipedia notes:

In 2005, McLeroy conducted a sermon in his church, talking about the Board of Education, saying naturalism is “the enemy” and he said: “Why is Intelligent Design the big tent? Because we’re all lined up against the fact that naturalism, that nature is all there is. Whether you’re a progressive creationist, recent creationist, young earth, old earth, it’s all in the tent of Intelligent Design.” An mp3 of the sermon remains online, as well as McLeroy’s powerpoint and notes. [JAC: they're all gone]

According to a 2008 article in The New York Times, “Dr. McLeroy believes that Earth’s appearance is a recent geologic event — thousands of years old, not 4.5 billion. ‘I believe a lot of incredible things,’ he said, ‘The most incredible thing I believe is the Christmas story. That little baby born in the manger was the god that created the universe.’” McLeroy’s statements regarding science have been criticized. McLeroy and other Board members who want to challenge evolution have received criticism from more than fifty scientific organizations over an attempt to weaken the currently-accepted science standards on evolution. In particular, biologist Kenneth R. Millercalled McLeroy’s statements on science “breathtakingly” incorrect.

In March 2008, McLeroy was criticized for racially and culturally insensitive remarks saying: “What good does it do to put a Chinese story in an English book?” he said. “So you really don’t want Chinese books with a bunch of crazy Chinese words in them.” He later apologized.

In 2009, McLeroy spoke at a board meeting using several quotes from scientists in an attempt to discredit evolution. A biology teacher later found the quotes to be incomplete, out of context, and/or incorrectly taken from a creationist website. McLeroy said that while “some of the material was taken from the creationist site […] a lot of the quotes I did get on my own.” McLeroy appeared on the Comedy Central program the Colbert Report in April 2012 wherein he said “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and when I looked at the evidence for evolution, I found it unconvincing so I don’t think he used evolution to do it, that’s my big deal.”

. . . In an interview in October 2009 he explained his approach to public school history textbook evaluation: “. . . .we are a Christian nation founded on Christian principles. The way I evaluate history textbooks is first I see how they cover Christianity and Israel. Then I see how they treat Ronald Reagan—he needs to get credit for saving the world from communism and for the good economy over the last twenty years because he lowered taxes.”

This is the man who, in his breathtaking ignorance, and driven by a religious and hyper-conservative agenda, almost drove Texas education back into the Dark Ages. Can you imagine a man like this heading up a state school board, one with the responsibility of choosing the books to educate children? Welcome to America. (He was appointed, by the way, by Texas governor Rick Perry.)

Although McLeroy is no longer on the TSBOE, he will not go gentle into that good night. According to the Houston Press, McLeroy, the ant-ihero of a prize-winning new film about the Texas school fracas, “The Revisionaries“, is stepping up his antievolution campaign. It intensified after he read the pro-evolution books that Dawkins and I wrote. As Press reporter Casey Michel wrote yesterday:

“This past Christmas holiday I read both Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne and The Greatest Show on earth by Richard Dawkins,” McLeroy told me. “I read them, studied them, on my Kindle, on my Nook. And the evidence is not compelling. And how many people have read those books in the last month?”

(“Not me,” I informed him, hesitating to share that my time had instead been taken with going through Christopher Hitchens’s anti-religion screeds.)

His research, his church, his work – all of it has only reaffirmed his convictions, has only led him to the same conclusion. God made the Earth in six days, he said. We were made in his image. Velociraptors may have been the original beasts hunting Little Red Riding Hood. We don’t yet have all the answers, but these are things we know.

Was there any doubt that the arguments of Richard and myself would fail to move a man like this? Faith is a padlock of the mind, and few keys can open it.

As part of his rehabilitation campaign, I suspect, McLeroy tried to leave the comment below on my website under a post showing a Non Sequitur cartoon (I guess it had to go someplace).   won’t try to dissect McLeroy’s critique of evolution, as I’m busy preparing for my southern peregrinations, and I think my readers are qualified to do so anyway.  I’ll just say that there is indeed evidence that evolution has created not just morphological complexity, but biochemical complexity (which of course must underlie morphological complexity); that evidence includes the data on gene duplication and divergence, and Rich Lenski’s observations of the appearance of new biochemical pathways in bacteria. But there’s much more; try your hand, if you will. Voilà—the lucubrations of Don McLeroy, D.D.S. He’ll be reading this site, I’m sure, so you can address comments to him as well (be polite, people!):

Evolution’s Achilles Heel (comment by Don McLeroy)

The great mystery of our time is why so many people, especially enlightened intellectuals, believe in evolution. Ultimately, the evidence for evolution—the idea that all life has descended from a common ancestor—is simply not compelling; evolutionists have failed to account for the development of today’s complex cell. Since first life could not have possessed all the amazing biochemistry we find today, evolutionists must demonstrate evidence for how natural selection—evolution’s primary mechanism—created it. All other evidence for evolution, from rocks, microscopes and the imaginations of man depends upon evolution proceeding at this microscopic level. What evidence do they provide?

Jerry Coyne, one of the world’s leading evolutionists, in his highly acclaimed book Why Evolution Is True, 2009, argues that it is impossible to provide every detail of evidence concerning biochemical complexity. He also admits evolutionary development of “complex biochemical… pathways is not easy, since they leave no trace in the fossil record.” Okay. How many details does he provide to demonstrate the evolution of life’s complex chemistry?

Amazingly, considering the foundational nature of cell biology to drive all evolutionary adaptations, the only “detail” Coyne provides in his book is speculation about an imaginary gene. He states that “the common ancestor of sea cucumbers and vertebrates had a gene that was later co-opted in vertebrates…” as fibrinogen. Anyone who has studied high school biology realizes that if this is all the evidence he can provide for the development of the myriad of biochemical pathways like the Krebs’s cycle or protein synthesis or other cell complexities, his evidence is embarrassingly nonexistent. Evidently, it is not only impossible to provide every detail; it is impossible to provide a single detail. And, since all other explanations in his book depend on this fundamental foundation, his arguments collapse.

Similarly, prominent evolutionist Kenneth Miller, textbook author and plaintiffs lead expert witness in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover intelligent design trial, fails to provide compelling evidence for the development of cellular complexity. Texas’s 2009 high school biology standards require explanations; his new textbook presents only two details. First, a single cell organism engulfs an alga and then acquires the photosynthetic ability of the alga. Second, two distinct classes of bacteria share similar enzymes. Like Coyne, he provides no evidence for how these enzymes and foundational processes developed from first life. In conclusion, Miller waves the magic wand of his imagination and confidently declares “that complex cellular structures and pathways were produced by the process of evolution.”

Ironically, even famous evolutionist Richard Dawkins, in his book The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, 2009, fails to present evidence—at least for the development of biochemical complexity. The only detail he cites is a double mutation in E. coli that allows it to digest citrate. Like Coyne and Miller, he offers no evidence for how the process developed initially. He describes the cell as “breathtakingly complicated,” and states “the key to understand how such complexity is put together is that it is all done locally, by small entities obeying local rules.” He also states that some of the features of the cell descended from different bacteria, that built up their “chemical wizardries billions of years before.” These statements are not evidence; they are vain imaginations.

The only indisputable fact is: leading evolutionists have no evidence that natural selection created today’s biochemical complexity. Therefore, skepticism is the best response. Evolutionary dogmatism—the insistence that evolution is true—is a serious issue. Science is not threatened by evolutionary skepticism; science is threatened by the quasi-science of the evolutionist.

Have at it!


  1. Posted January 30, 2013 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    It’s unbelievable to me how many public figures do not seem to grasp logic.

  2. Rain
    Posted January 30, 2013 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

    Why is this guy pretending like the only reason he doesn’t like evolution is not because he’s a creationist? It’s the only damn reason. Do these people think we’re idiots or something? Stop insulting our intelligence.

    • Rain
      Posted January 30, 2013 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

      It’s the only damn reason.

      Upon further reflection, in the interest of not insulting intelligence, I am behooved to not rule out dog and pony shows too. I’m not saying Don McLeroy himself is a con artist. I’m just saying never rule them out.

  3. Hempenstein
    Posted January 30, 2013 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

    Dr. McLeroy:
    Bonzodog up @5 has given you something to start with re. biochemical evolution.

    Interesting that you will jump on our host for failing to provide compelling biochemical evidence for evolution when, IIRC, he explicitly excluded molecular evidence in WEIT since it was covered so well elsewhere. Should I surmise that that was the part you actually did read?

    And I won’t immediately succumb to the temptation to label you an intellectual fraud, trading on your degree in dentistry as an imprimatur of expertise in biochemistry, since I have known a few people who had both degrees in dentistry and expertise in biochemistry.

    So here are a few questions whose answers you ought to be conversant with. Send answers to Jerry, who will convey them to me within 24h:
    1) a) What mineral is dentin composed of? b) In cationic form, the alkaline earth metal that forms this mineral is widely bound by a small protein. Name it. c) There are multiple binding sites in this protein. The structure is widely referred to by a two-letter shorthand. What are those two letters? d) what amino acid residues (or types of aa residues) coordinate the cation?

    2) Many proteins contain crosslinks, and many of these can be easily broken in a laboratory setting. What amino acid residue forms such crosslinks?

    3) The most common structural protein in mammals contains a largely repeating sequence in which every third residue is a glycine. a) Another residue is typically found adjacent to the glycine. What is that residue, and what post-translational modification of that residue is frequently found? b) This protein has a special three-dimensional structure. What is it? c) I don’t expect you to know that assembly of this structure requires formation of the sort of crosslinks as queried in 2). However, further non-reducible crosslinks are also found in these proteins . What amino acid residue are these crosslinks formed from?

    4) a) The typical version of the secondary structure alluded to in 3)b) (found in globular proteins including the one in 1)b) was proposed by an eminent biochemist, and this contributed to his Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Who was that? b) what kind of bonding is formation of this structure dependent on?

    5) What sorts of amino acid residues predominate on a) the surface and b) the interior of folded proteins. Why?

    6) What are the special properties of histidine residues relative to other amino acid residues?

    Now, per the recent post asking us to use our real names, I like my alias for historical reasons, but I don’t mind signing this one.

    John Hempel

    • steeve
      Posted January 31, 2013 at 5:41 am | Permalink

      Oh yah? Well starting with Noah, state all the gats and begats until you end up with Adam – then we’ll talk biochemistry!! So there! (sarcasm)

    • HaggisForBrains
      Posted January 31, 2013 at 6:13 am | Permalink

      You have three hours to complete the paper. Write on one side of your paper only. Show your workings.

      • Hempenstein
        Posted January 31, 2013 at 9:42 pm | Permalink

        Time is up. No paper was turned in.

        I won’t immediately succumb to the temptation to label you an intellectual fraud, trading on your degree in dentistry as an imprimatur of expertise in biochemistry…

        But now I will. And in a way I find this personally insulting. My grandfather was the first dentist in LacQuiParle County Minnesota. He never pretended to be more than he was, but must have imparted something to his children. His son (my uncle) received his PhD in Chemistry from U Wisconsin in 1929, post-doc’d at the University of Hannover* (anyone there reading this?), and went on to be part of the Manhattan Project. It was only in the last 5 years or so that I found that he too had a publication in J Biol Chem.

        * I have a pic of him there with presumably his mentor and two colleagues, all in white lab coats, from December, 1932. Heady times!

        • gr8hands
          Posted February 1, 2013 at 9:29 am | Permalink

          Hempenstein, of what specific relevance are the answers to your questions about the initial development of “biochemical complexity”?

          You see, McLeroy will require a very specific recipe — precise things in precise order — or he will wave it away as not answering his question.

          • Hempenstein
            Posted February 5, 2013 at 7:14 am | Permalink

            Agreed that abiogenic origins are separate from evolution, but understanding that requires some competence in biochemistry to begin with. What I wanted to probe was whether he had ANY competence in biochemistry, starting with some softball questions for someone who deals (dealt?) with teeth.

  4. articulett
    Posted January 30, 2013 at 10:01 pm | Permalink

    How can you reason with people who believe that they will be tortured for all eternity unless they have faith in the right fairytale?

    I think the best we can hope for is future generations who move beyond the superstitions of their ancestors.

  5. kelskye
    Posted January 31, 2013 at 2:42 am | Permalink

    Nice conflation of evolution with natural selection there. That one cannot provide a step-by-step account of how natural selection would operate doesn’t mean that there’s no evidence that something evolved. Indeed, both Dawkins and Coyne’s book are full of evidences that point to the fact that things have evolved. By focusing on one aspect of what evolutionary theory is about to dismiss all of it is to make a straw man.

    Of course, even without a blow-by-blow account of natural selection, there are still signatures of natural selection to be found in the patterns of life. There are neutral and non-neutral mutations, and the ratio between neutral and non-neutral mutations can be used to see likely candidates for natural selection. Likewise, seeing deviation from the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium is another way of inferring selection.

    And if they are not enough to tout the benefits of natural selection, then there’s always philosophical analysis, and practical applications thereof. Charles Darwin’s 1859 formulation of natural selection took the form of a deductive argument: if there is heritable variation, and if there is differential survival value in heritable variation, and if there is a struggle for existence, then variation that assists will be passed on while injurious variation will not be. Natural Selection is a logical necessity of certain conditions being met – and those conditions are what is seen in life. And in terms of a practical demonstration, engineering and computer science puts evolutionary algorithms into actions; coming up with solutions that were beyond the no-doubt brilliant minds in those disciplines.

    What more does the creationist want?

  6. Torbjörn Larsson, OM
    Posted January 31, 2013 at 3:15 am | Permalink

    Ultimately, the evidence for evolution—the idea that all life has descended from a common ancestor—is simply not compelling;

    Evolution is predicting common ancestors, not “a” common ancestor.

    But as it happens, the observation of a universal common ancestor is known as the best observation in all of science. Douglas Theobald has tested it as more likely than many ancestors, or creationists random assembly of separate species, by a factor ~ 10^2000. [ ]

    If anything can be said to be compelling, the most resolved observation of all has to be that!

    And of course scientists find biology a compelling, well tested science anyway. Its complexity, its many mechanisms and details, comes together to make its basis the best tested science we have as far as I know.

  7. shazam
    Posted January 31, 2013 at 3:50 am | Permalink

    I am like Don McLeroy in that I also don’t believe in evolution.

    But I understand it.

    • JBlilie
      Posted January 31, 2013 at 11:45 am | Permalink

      “I also don’t believe in evolution”

      One word: Fossils

      Two words more: DNA sequencing*

      (* which shows common descent clearly)

      Explain these without resort to magic or evolution.

      • gbjames
        Posted January 31, 2013 at 11:49 am | Permalink

        I took shazam to emphasize the word “believe”… that it is not a matter of belief but a matter of reasoned conclusion.

        But I could be wrong.

        • Launcher
          Posted January 31, 2013 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

          Right – I’m sure JB misread shazam’s post. In fact, I have Dr. Coyne’s recently profered graphic right by my desk. Perhaps its wording will clear things up:

          “I don’t BELIEVE in evolution… I UNDERSTAND why evolution is true.”

          • shazam
            Posted February 1, 2013 at 3:08 am | Permalink

            Thanks for clearing that up for me.

            Belief is for dummies.

  8. Posted January 31, 2013 at 6:32 am | Permalink

    I wonder if Ca5(PO4)3(OH) would be discovered in a forensic dental examination of Jebus?

  9. PeteJohn
    Posted January 31, 2013 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    In the documentary, which I hadn’t seen previous to today, possibly the most appalling part is McLeroy bragging about how he has a captive audience he gets to preach to every day. Wow.

  10. Posted January 31, 2013 at 11:09 am | Permalink

    biochemical complexity (which of course must underlie morphological complexity)

    I’d quibble about the “must”; though common, this doesn’t appear to be philosophically necessary. But that’s very much a side point.

    As for McLeroy? He never gives a formal definition for “complex” or “complexity”. The omission leaves his entire argument resting on hand-waving bullshit. (There are formal ways of describing those ideas precisely, usually associated with the mathematics of information theory. However, such mathematics makes clear that nigh-arbitrary complexity can arise from quite simple rules — as suggested by the Dawkins quote that McLeroy cavalierly dismisses.)

  11. Elle
    Posted January 31, 2013 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

    The element of this post I find most interesting is the wikipedia quote. Why? Well…

    Massimo Pigliucci a few years ago wrote a post on his blog, pointing out how creatiabout to die because scientists disagree about fundamental(?) details of evolutionary theory.
    His asnswer doesn’t pull any punches.

    “I’ll tell you what does constitute a crisis, though: the fact that creationists have been on the retreat ever since the Scopes trial, having to invent increasingly vacuous versions of their attacks on science education in order to keep pestering the Courts of this country with their demands that religious nonsense be taught side by side with solid science. You want serious disagreement? How about several orders of magnitude difference in the estimate of the age of the earth among creationists: some of them still cling to the primitive idea that our planet is only a few thousand years old, their only “evidence” a circular argument from authority — that’s two logical fallacies at once! (The Bible says so; how do you know the Bible is right? Because it’s the word of God; how do you know it’s the word of God? The Bible says so…) Other creationists, particularly many in the ID movement, concede that the science of geology and physics is a bit too well established to throw it out of the window, so they accept the figure of about four billion years for the age of the earth. Now, if any scientific theory were to make statements that varied by six (I repeat: six!) orders of magnitude about a basic aspect of reality, that would really mean that the theory in question is in deep trouble. C’mon, guys, fix your own house first, then start knocking at our door if you must.”

    But McLeroy is pretty clear.

    “In 2005, McLeroy conducted a sermon in his church, talking about the Board of Education, saying naturalism is “the enemy” and he said: “Why is Intelligent Design the big tent? Because we’re all lined up against the fact that naturalism, that nature is all there is. Whether you’re a progressive creationist, recent creationist, young earth, old earth, it’s all in the tent of Intelligent Design.””

    So, assuming the majority of YE/OE/progressive/recent creationists shares his views, there is no hope for them to “fix their own house”, because the only thing that matters is the mission to destroy any scientific explanation which is found guilty of obstructing the acceptance of the Scripture and Jesus Christ Our Lord and Saviour!

    Anything else has little importance.

    • Elle
      Posted January 31, 2013 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

      Sorry, the second paragraph should read

      “Massimo Pigliucci a few years ago wrote a post on his blog, pointing out how creationists always say evolution is about to die because scientists disagree about fundamental(?) details of evolutionary theory.”

  12. BornRight
    Posted January 31, 2013 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

    Don McLeroy,

    Your foolish post couldn’t have been timed better. A new research article in Nature Chemical Biology shows how evolution in a test tube produced a novel protein that’s functional despite having a dramatically different structure from naturally-evolved proteins:

    This novel protein has a primordial structure without the usually observed folding patterns, yet it is functional. It could be a snapshot from the distant past when the very first enzymes evolved. This tells us that biomolecules or cells needn’t be as complex as they are today when life first arose. Life can achieve complexity from simple beginnings.

    Indeed, we see cells with varying degrees of complexity today. At the very bottom are viruses, which are at the border of life and non-life. They simply have a nucleic acid enclosed by a membrane. Then we have archaea and bacteria, followed by the most complex eukaryotes. Many organelles in eukaryotic cells, like mitochondria & chloroplasts share a number of features with bacteria, strongly indicating that eukaryotes evolved from endosymbiotic bacteria. There are a number of genes and biochemical pathways that are common between these different cell types. This is why we’re able to produce human insulin in bacteria and use it for treatment!

    Yet, we also see differences. We see an increase in complexity as we go up the evolutionary ladder. For example, the core of proteins such as DNA & RNA polymerases are conserved, but higher organisms have added more complexity. Only evolutionary theory can explain these similarities AND differences. Only it can explain why a more primitive cell has a simpler & more primitive version of a protein or a pathway compared to a more modern cell.

    Genome sequencing efforts have enabled us to construct phylogenetic trees to illustrate these relationships. The trees obtained by genome comparisons agree with the trees obtained by comparative anatomy/morphology and those obtained by proteomics. It’s this overwhelming support that makes evolution our only proper explanation for life on earth. The observed data simply doesn’t fit a creation model at all.

  13. Posted January 31, 2013 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

    Great interview with Scott Thurman, director of THE REVISIONARIES, on the John Smart Show:

  14. V
    Posted February 1, 2013 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    I note that you call Don McLeroy an “ant-ihero” Is that a tiny hero that I can expect to see in Apple stores shortly? I shudder to think of mini Don McLeroys for sale. Maybe that’s why he’s so against science!

  15. Posted February 5, 2013 at 11:04 am | Permalink

    Dr. Coyne: Thank you for posting my comment. You stated very perceptively that “He wants to CONVINCE us.” That is true.

    My difficulty with evolution’s evidence for explaining biochemical complexity is outlined at

    How much of that chart does evolution need to provide an explanation for? And, as of today, how much does evolution expalin?

    • gr8hands
      Posted February 5, 2013 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

      This article explains how chemicals turned into organic molecules all by themselves in a very short time:

      Imagine what would happen with millions or billions of years.

    • gr8hands
      Posted February 5, 2013 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

      How can you — as an electrical engineer — design circuits, when you cannot tell us exactly what electrons are made up of at the most basic level?

      How can you pretend to understand how a battery works, when you cannot tell us exactly how electricity works?

      Wait! Perhaps you can tell us all exactly what electrons are made up of at the most basic level, and exactly how electricity works. You would probably get a Nobel prize.

    • Posted February 6, 2013 at 7:35 am | Permalink

      This is just Michael Behe’s argument (“breathtaking inanity” according to Judge Jones in the Dover trial) that certain biological systems are “irreducibly complex”, framed in a marginally different way. It’s based on a fundamental misunderstanding:

      In order to accept Evolution, science doesn’t *have* to come up with specific explanations for every single biochemical pathway, any more than it needs to explain every feature of every organism both living and dead. If you want to refute established scientific theories (evolution, laws of thermodynamics etc.) you need to demonstrate circumstances in which they can not work or where a simpler idea would explain the data better.

      It’s absurd to argue that because you don’t know exactly how the bacterial flagellum could have evolved that there couldn’t possibly be any evolutionary explanation. It compounds that absurdity to substitute an explanation of staggering complexity that hasn’t an iota of support from any empirical observation.

  16. Posted February 5, 2013 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

    Mr. McLeroy,

    How does God work?

    When God wants to cause some effect on the natural world – changing the mutations of a person’s cancer cells so that the cancer stops spreading, for instance – where does he get the energy do to it? And how does he direct that energy where it needs to go? When God created humans, how did he come up with the body plan? If everything we know of that thinks has either a brain or a computer chip to think with, how does God think without having either? And are God’s thoughts restricted in some way, as our thoughts are restricted by the physiology of our brains? Also, where is God?

    I don’t mean to imply that God or evolution are the only two options here, but you’ve got a long way to go if you’re going to convince us that you’re actually concerned with *explaining* anything.

  17. BillyJoe
    Posted May 18, 2013 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

    It seems Don McLeroy responded 4 days after the last comment when it seems everyone else was finished with this post. As a result no significant response to his post has been posted.

    If anyone is still interested, this is how Stephen Novella responded on his blog (afternhe had intviewed him recently on his podcast) to McLeroy’s claim of irreducible complexity of the cell’s metabolic pathways:

  18. Mario
    Posted September 19, 2013 at 6:50 am | Permalink

    All this gigantic effort to make the gaps in evolution seem larger and more dire than they really are and not one single attempt has been made by any creationist to prove their magic finger in the sky.

  19. Posted June 23, 2014 at 10:07 am | Permalink

    Nice post. I have more knowledge about it at:

One Trackback/Pingback

  1. […]… […]

Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 27,029 other followers

%d bloggers like this: