by Frank Sherwin, M.A. 

Atheist Richard Leakey is an authority regarding the tenuous idea of human evolution, working tirelessly to establish human evolutionary roots in Africa.

This past May at an evolution-promoting event, Leakey stated that sometime in the next three decades evolution will become so established that “even the skeptics can accept it.”1 But skeptics of evolution see only an anemic defense2 coupled with the aetheists’ philosophical need to assert that solid rock became people, animals, and plants.3 However, science provides no reason for Darwin’s theory of “descent with modification”—particularly in the field of human evolution.4 In fact, only 15 percent of Americans agree with Leakey’s secular proclamation of man’s origin.5

Leakey lectures the public by saying that those who deny evolution also deny science, giving the common example of new diseases that are “evolving.” This is a “bait-and-switch” ploy—no one would deny gravity and slight biological variation (science); so how could anyone deny that all living things came from inanimate “ancestors” (evolution)?

Troubling, also, is Leakey’s non-definition of the word “evolution,” upon which hangs the origins debate—“If you don’t like the word evolution, I don’t care what you call it, but life has changed.”1

Liking or not liking a certain word is not the issue, but in science adequately defining a key word is mandatory.6 Living things undoubtedly change, but they exhibit only variation within discrete kinds of plants and animals in the fossil record7 and in experiments.8 Observable, vertical evolution always eludes evolutionists.

Is Leakey correct in maintaining that people evolved from ape-like ancestors? Let’s ask his fellow Darwinists….

Continue Reading on