The Theory of Evolution has One Tiny Flaw – No Real Evidence

Jul 13, 2020

David Berlinski holds degrees from or has taught at Columbia, Princeton, Stanford, Rutgers, and University of Paris. He has authored books on higher math, systems analysis, biology, Newtonian physics, and the theory of evolution, which is the topic of this program. Yes, there is lots of circumstantial evidence for evolution, but no scientific evidence. The so-called evidence really is conjecture and, in most cases, the same ‘evidence’ can be used to support either the theory of evolution or the theory of intelligent design depending on the conjecture. The startling fact emerges that the theory of species evolution has never been confirmed by scientific method. 2008 Apr 23 – Source: Coldwater Media

Click on image to play video.

You can view this video from multiple sources. Cached versions are adjusted for optimum quality, if needed, and they provide access if primary sources fail.

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating / 5. Vote count:

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.


  1. Peter Webb

    This man is brilliant, however, he is blind refusing to accept the reality of creation; the facts lead us to only one direction, that there is an all powerful living God, all mighty, all knowing, omnipresent, that created this earth and universe and everything in it. He is unchangeable in His being, wisdom, all power, holy, goodness & truth. There is nothing that God can’t do except sin. He is pure & sinless & He (Jesus Christ) provided the only sacrifice for sin that the triune God will accept. God’s Word says “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. He also provided the only sacrifice for sin that He would accept, God demanded a totally sinless sacrifice, that only He could provide which He did in the Person of Jesus Christ; He died on the cross for the sin of every human being, because God’s Word says” the wages of sin is death”; He died on the cross and shed His blood for our sin and than rose from the dead 3 days later conquering death for everyone who places their faith & trust in Him. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved. Ac 16:31

  2. Michael J barber

    Lost me at times but over all informative. Seems that design wins the day.

  3. Ron Corbyn

    I’m a retired geologist and archeologist. If you know your subject,you can quickly cut through this man’s sophistry. It is clear he knows nothing about the principles of sedimentation and stratigraphy, fossil seriation, and relative and absolute dating. What is his agenda? I suspect it is young earth intelligent design, but he won’t say. If you believe the Grand Canyon is somehow evidence for “Noah’s Flood,” like Ken Ham does, let me disabuse you of that notion with this video produced by Christians:

  4. Hans Geiger

    God created everything about 6000 years ago. That’s it, end of silly evolution.

  5. anonymous

    Good from evil and man becoming like God…Man is about to try and become God making eternal life and eternal hell. God never created hell, mankind did. Good Versus Evil. Godlessness versus Godliness.

  6. James Gardner

    The Mount Saint Helen’s eruption cut a not so grand canyon in a few hours that mirrors The Grand Canyon in construction; water flow, deposits, etc. Without catastrophic burial there are no fossils. Caron animals, weather, and bacteria destroy the remains. Evolution is a philosophy. Go read the definition of “philosophy,” and see: ‘The main premise to which all data is made to conform.’ Evolution is not science BY DEFINITION. Evolution is statistically-mathematically impossible. The rock formations in England that Charles Lyell used to ‘prove’ Uniformitarian Geology are much larger that he hoped and extend under the English Channel and Normandy. Thus they prove a catastrophic formation; no Uniformitarian Geology, No Evolution. Darwinian Evolution is a faith based philosophy.

    • Kim Sabat

      Not to mention electric universe describes a more provable (and scalable) method of grand canyon formation that withstands scrutiny. A hypothesis which demonstrates predictability and survives acid tests is more plausible. But I understand why we all cling tightly to one side or the other. Our psychological conditioning reigns. I for one like the third option. Thunderbolts Project has incredible evidence based videos including in lab experiments. Check it out.

  7. Jacob Wittmann

    Not very convincing. There is additional evidence for evolution through natural selection through genetics and others and common sense4. I have really never heard a convincing argument against it and i have listened to numerous “debunkings”. Also, evolution through natural selection is not incompatible with a creator, in fact it is more convincing, since the creator would, as he does in everything else, start out with the basic laws of physics , chemistry etc. and let things proceed from there… the idea that he would constantly intervene to create new species, not only does not make sense, but is an extraordinary claim that itself needs proof. A good discernment of what is a valid statement and what is not is needed here…. a correct perception of reality.

    • Imat Hinker

      Evolution REQUIRES an increase in genetic information. Where does this come from? Evolution massively assumes that randomness magically produces a new and improved product. This would still require NEW genetic information not just re-arraging existing. How did sexual reproduction arise from asexual reproduction? In the latter, both male and female would have to be perfectly formed and funcational at essentially the same time… Good luck with that.

    • David James

      If anyone were to engage you in a conversation about how you arrive at the conclusion that evolution is a valid hypothesis or theory, you’d crumble quickly. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE, much less proof for evolution of species, nor of Abiogenesis, which is at least twice as preposterous as Darwinism.

      The greatest problem with evolution is the necessity for NUMEROUS components to be built & assembled SIMULTANEOUSLY into a master biological organism that can function independently. Even the tiniest known cell has a minimum of about 390 organelles/components that are absolutely required, simultaneously, for the cell to live, thrive & reproduce. Evolution, which ignores the ‘simultaneous’ requirement of fully functional components, includes “gradualism” over time, as its central premise, which causes evolution to never rise above the level of a grand farce, based on conjectures stacked on top of conjectures.

  8. Paul

    “The theory of evolution has only one tiny flaw: No real evidence.” A simple high school graduate can pick apart the crap that is passed off as evidence – despite all of the flowery “sciencey” sounding BS.

  9. Michael Parker

    I loved his comment: “The only thing you should take from your experience is the standing refutation of the doctrine of the survival of the fittest that every high school instructor in biology provides.”

    • Will McKoby

      I’d need to acquaint myself better on Darwin’s theory, though otherwise, every thought I make takes my energy, and I’m neither interested in cows changing etc.

  10. Aaron

    I’m sorry but your mistaken. God created hell for the fallen angels but since the sin of our first parents we now can potentially go to hell if we don’t repent. God bless

  11. Jarvis Benjamin

    He Talks a lot, but has not a clue about the nature of reality. The evidence in one living cell indicates complexity that just shouts “Intelligent Design” and that if this were not so the cell would die. This guy has a profound lack of science and of the cosmos. His information is dated to say the least. As one who should be of “good” will, he has biased himself against the existence of an infinite, all knowing, all powerful, immense, all good, Creator as the answer to all his questions and all other’s questions, I am saddened for him and doubt he will be among the “elect” in eternity. This is my honest assessment and will include him in my morning rosary. Yes, I am a traditional Catholic having nothing to do with the current sect in the Vatican.

    • David James

      ‘Talks a lot?’ He was attempting to make as simple a case for the “evolution farce” as possible. Maybe you expected a sermon mixed in with his facts of science that make evolution impossible? I must have missed something in your comment, since I can’t relate anything in it to the facts that Berlinski put forth. Maybe Jarvis’ comment relates to another article & somehow ended up here? I just don’t get this comment.

  12. Colman Webster

    The strongest opposition to the evolution by natural selection comes from……….social justice marxists.

    Those most vocally in denial of darwinism are the most susceptible to pseudoscience in ideology.

    • G. Edward Griffin

      Hello Coleman. Your comment is surprising. I was not aware that the strongest opposition to Darwinism comes from social-justice warriors. Can you tell me where evidence of that assertion can be found? Evidence of the second statement also would be of great interest. My impression is that it is the other way around, that Darwinists are highly susceptible to pseudoscience all the while calling it science. I am sincerely interested in knowing more about contrary evidence. When I say evidence, I mean scientifically confirmed evidence, not opinions. Thanks in advance.

Submit a Comment

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap