This Day In History

Rate This
Article
[click here]

Publish
YOUR
Article
[click here]

The Evolution Cruncher

Review of the Book/Website by Vance Ferrell

Review copyright 2006 epicidiot.com

The Evolution Cruncher is an impressive collection of creationist claims.  I will address a few of the most egregious and absurd claims here to demonstrate just how unscientific and misleading The Evolution Cruncher book/site is.  Most of the rest of its claims are addressed on web sites such as Talk Origins.  If you find a claim that is not addressed elsewhere, please send it to epicidiot.com.

If evolution can scientifically be proved to false,
why do creationists resort to lies and misinformation to make their case?

Faked information from The Evolution Cruncher http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c06a.htm

"Even the lava dome of Mount St. Helens [produced in 1980] has been radiometrically dated at 2.8 million years [H.M. Morris, ‘Radiometric Dating,’ Back to Genesis, 1997]."—James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (1999), p. 146.

See Lava Dating for an explanation of why this occurred and what it says about the credibility of those making this claim.

False information from The Evolution Cruncher http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c02b.htm

16 - Stars never get closer than a certain distance from one another (3.5 light-years apart). This highly organized arrangement could never be caused by evolutionary forces.

This is simply FALSE.  Our nearest star neighbor, Alpha Centauri is actually a three-star system composed of Alpha Centauri A, B, and C.  A and B are only 0.0002 light years apart.  One is left to wonder where Vance Ferrell gets his "Scientific Facts" from.

Some words of wisdom from The Evolution Cruncher
http://evolution-facts.org/a_treasure_house_of_new_information.htm

False premises inevitably lead to erroneous assumptions and conclusions. Minds become cramped when men dare not consider facts which disagree with their theories.

Apparently, The Evolution Cruncher's goal is to "cramp" the minds of its readers.

False information From The Evolution Cruncher http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c04.htm

Evolutionists had long held to the fact (as we do) that the earth and moon are about the same age. It is believed, by many, that the earth and its moon are billions of years old. If that were true, the moon would by now have built up a 20-60 mile [32 to 97 km] layer of dust on it! ¼ In 5 to 10 billion years, 3 or 4/10,000ths of an inch per year would produce 20-60 miles [32-97 km] of dust. In view of this, our men at NASA were afraid to send men to the moon. Landing there, they would be buried in dust and quickly suffocate!

Even other Young Earth Creationist groups, such as Answers in Genesis, say that this is a bogus claim

From Answers in Genesis
For a long time, creationists claimed that the dust layer on the moon was too thin if dust had truly been falling on it for billions of years. They based this claim on early estimates—by evolutionists—of the influx of moon dust, and worries that the moon landers would sink into this dust layer. But these early estimates were wrong, and by the time of the Apollo landings, NASA was not worried about sinking. So the dust layer thickness can’t be used as proof of a young moon (or of an old one either).

False information from The Evolution Cruncher http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c04.htm

23 - LUNAR RECESSION—Scientists have discovered two interesting facts: (1) the moon is already far too close to the earth, and (2) it is gradually moving farther away from us. This is called recession of the moon. Due to tidal friction, the moon is slowly spiraling outward away from planet earth! Based on the rate at which the moon is receding from us, the earth and the moon cannot be very old. This is an important point and can in no way be controverted. The present rate of recession clearly indicates a young age for the earth-moon system. If the moon were older—even 20 to 30,000 years old,—it would at that earlier time have been so close that it would have fallen into the earth!

Note the phrase "Based on the rate at which the moon is receding from us."  Granted, if this were true, then this claim would have validity.  But this simply isn't true.  To believe The Evolution Cruncher claim, one would have to ignore the basic physics behind what causes the moon recession and the physical evidence that shows that the moon recession rate was much slower in the past.  See Moon Recession for a detailed explanation of this.  Anyone making this moon recession claim either doesn't understand basic physics or is trying to mislead you.

See also: Young Earth Challenge

False information from The Evolution Cruncher http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c04.htm

24 - ATMOSPHERIC HELIUM—The radioactive decay of either uranium or thorium produces helium. According to evolutionary theory, these decay chains have been going on for billions of years, and should therefore have produced a much larger quantity of helium than is found in our world. The amount of helium on our planet is far too small, if our world has existed for long ages.

Some evolutionists have suggested that the helium is escaping out into space, but no evidence has ever been found to substantiate this. Research has shown that, although hydrogen can escape from the earth, helium is not able to reach "escape velocity." [emphasis added]

To make matters worse, not only are we not losing helium to outer space—we are getting more of it from there! [emphasis added]

These statements are simply FALSE.  NASA has documented the escape of significant amounts of helium from the Earth's atmosphere into space.  See Does the Helium in the Atmosphere Prove a Young Earth?

See also: Young Earth Challenge

False information from The Evolution Cruncher http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c04.htm

On the basis of facts obtained from 1835 to 1965, this magnetic field appears to have a half-life of 1400 years. On this basis, even 7000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field 32 times stronger than it now has.

"The over-all intensity of the field is declining at a rate of 26 nanoteslas per year . . If the rate of decline were to continue steadily, the field strength would reach zero in 1,200 years."—*"Magnetic Field Declining," Science News, June 28, 1980.

For this claim to have merit, the magnetic field would have to have been decreasing at a steady rate.  Again, note the phrase "If the rate of decline were to continue steadily."  Unfortunately for this claim, this simply isn't true.  The magnetic field strength is based on the molten, ever-changing core of the Earth, and there is no reason to expect the decline to have been a steady rate.  In fact, there is much physical evidence to the contrary.  Not only has the magnetic field not declined at a steady rate, as required for this claim, it has had periods of increasing strength and has even reversed itself several times.  The Evolution Cruncher simply ignores the scientific data.  See Does the Earth's Magnetic Field Prove a Young Earth?

See also: Young Earth Challenge

Bad science from The Evolution Cruncher http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c04.htm

39 - ZIRCON/HELIUM RATIOS—When uranium and thorium radioactively decay, they emit alpha particles—which are actually helium atoms stripped of their electrons. Analysis of the helium content of those same zircon crystals, from that same deep New Mexico hole, revealed amazingly high helium retention in those crystals. Yet helium is a gas and can diffuse out of crystals much more rapidly than many other elements, including lead. Since heat increases chemical activity, all that helium should be gone if the earth were more than a few thousand years old.

Their conclusions are based on applying the helium diffusion rate of rocks in a vacuum to pressurized rocks without any attempt to compensate for the difference in pressures.  This by itself renders this helium diffusion rate argument invalid..  See Helium Diffusion Rates for a detailed explanation.

See also: Young Earth Challenge

Bad math from The Evolution Cruncher http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c04.htm

57 - POPULATION STATISTICS—Our present population explosion is especially the result of improved sanitary conditions at childbirth and thereafter. In earlier centuries, many more children died before the age of three.

It is thought that the period between 1650 and 1850 would be a typical time span to analyze population growth prior to our present century, with its many technological advantages. One estimate, based on population changes between 1650 and 1850, provides us with the fact that at about the year 3300 B.C. there was only one family!

"The human population grows so rapidly that its present size could have been reached in less than 1% (3200 years) of the minimum time assumed (½ million years) for man on the basis of radiometric dating."—Ariel A. Roth, summary from "Some Questions about Geochronology," in Origins, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1886, pp. 59-60.

For this claim to be valid, the world population would have to have increased at a steady rate.  History tells us that this simply isn't true.  The YEC equation does not take into account population limiting factors, such as the ability to provide food, and population reducing events such as disease and catastrophe.  Plagues have wiped out huge populations, sometimes as much as 40% in some areas, in a matter of years.  More>>

Distortion of the facts from The Evolution Cruncher http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c12a.htm

THE GENESIS FLOOD—The answer is that a great Flood,—the one described in the Bible in Genesis 6 to 9—rapidly covered the earth with water a great Flood,—the one described in the Bible in Genesis 6 to 9—rapidly covered the earth with water. When it did, sediments of pebbles, gravel, clay, and sand were laid down in successive strata, covering animal and plant life. Under great pressure, these sediments turned into what we today call "sedimentary rock." (Clay became shale; sand turned into sandstone; mixtures of gravel, clay and sand formed conglomerate rock.) All that mass of water-laid material successively covered millions of living creatures. The result is fossils, which today are only found in the sedimentary rock strata.

This completely ignores the fact that some strata layers are very fine, not something that could be caused by a turbulent flood.  Not to mention the general problems with the story of a global flood.  Also, it ignores the fact that the fossils are sorted in the layers from primitive life forms to complex life forms.  How could a flood do this?  A giant turbulent flood would simply mix everything together.  It might be reasonable to claim that there was some sorting according to size.  However, this is not even close to what is found.  Plants are also sorted from primitive forms to modern forms - not according to size and not all mixed together.  Why are there no modern mammals in layers older than the Quaternary and Tertiary periods (65 million years ago)?  Why are no trilobites ever found above the Permian period (248 million years ago)?  Other creatures of similar size are found in these layers.  How does a turbulent flood explain this?  The flood explanation sounds good at first; it just doesn't fit the known physical facts.

Conclusions

The Evolution Cruncher presents numerous ridiculous and false claims, simply ignoring/misrepresenting basic science and well-known evidence.

Other Reviews of The Evolution Cruncher

• The Crunch Squared Archives

Viewer Feedback

Add your Comments
Submit a Rebuttal
Submit an Article on another topic

2006-03-29 Anonymous wrote
Boring, Factual, Fair and Balanced
Not sure why an apparently intelligent person such as yourself would spend so much time debunking the moronic theories of these idiots. Do something useful; spend more time writing bicycle tech articles!

2006-05-04 Anonymous, Young Earth Creationist, wrote
Boring, Bogus, Biased to Evolution
Your claim that this book has lies is false.He is citing what other say.Just because they're wrong that doesn't make him a liar.This book has plenty of evidence that disproves evolution!!!

EpicIdiot Reply:
You make a good point.  One could claim that Vance Ferrell is technically not lying.  But since he claims that his is a book of "scientific fact," he is under some obligation to verify that the "facts" he uses are correct.  While possible, it's hard to believe that he is unaware of the numerous FALSE claims made in his book.  So whether or not he can be called a liar, HE IS MISLEADING HIS READERS.  The result is the same and just as wrong.

Anyone who supports this book is just as guilty of misleading people - some would call this lying.

You can decide for yourself whether misleading people qualifies as lying or not.

Again I repeat, "If evolution can scientifically be proved to false, why do creationists resort to lies and misinformation to make their case?"

In discussing evolution and young Earth claims, I regularly encounter the use of incredibly misleading claims about what the facts are. It amazes me how willing people are to believe things that are clearly not true and how tenaciously they will cling to ideas and information from sources that are known to be wrong and misleading. It doesn't seem to matter how tortured the logic or even if the information is just flat out wrong. They will still cling to it and use it as proof of their beliefs.  Don't take offense, but your support of this book, which is clearly full of false and misleading information, is a prime example of this condition.

We have a presidency that presented "evidence" to justify a war, even though they had plenty of evidence that their "facts" were wrong or least very dubious.  They simply choose to ignore or not present any information that didn't support their view or disputed their evidence.  Much like "The Evolution Cruncher," while technically this may not be lying, it resulted in the same thing: Misleading the public.

You know, I often feel like Alice in Wonderland when she encounters the Red and White Queens:

"I can't believe that!" said Alice.

"Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."

Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things."

"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

[...]

Take a bone from a dog: what remains?"

Alice considered. "The bone wouldn't remain, of course, if I took it—and the dog wouldn't remain: it would come to bite me—and I'm sure I shouldn't remain!"

"Then you think nothing would remain?" said the Red Queen.

"I think that's the answer."

"Wrong, as usual," said the Red Queen: "the dog's temper would remain."

"But I don't see how—"

"Why, look here!" the Red Queen cried. "The dog would lose its temper, wouldn't it?"

"Perhaps it would," Alice replied cautiously.

"Then if the dog went away, its temper would remain!" the Queen exclaimed triumphantly.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

"The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”