What do you think?
Evolution? The Fossils Say No!
Libro usado en buenas condiciones, por su antiguedad podria contener señales normales de uso
186 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1973
About the author
Duane T. Gish
32 books15 followersDuane Tolbert Gish is an American biochemist and a prominent member of the creationist movement. Gish is a former vice-president of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and the author of numerous publications on the subject of scientific creationism. Gish has been called "creationism's T.H. Huxley" for the way he "relished the confrontations" of formal debates with prominent evolutionists, usually held on university campuses."
He holds a Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of California, Berkeley.
He spent 18 years in biochemical and biomedical research at Cornell University Medical College, the Virus Laboratory of the University of California, Berkeley, and The Upjohn Company, Kalamazoo, Michigan. He is the author or co-author of numerous technical articles in his field and a well-known author and lecturer on creation/evolution.
He holds a Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of California, Berkeley.
He spent 18 years in biochemical and biomedical research at Cornell University Medical College, the Virus Laboratory of the University of California, Berkeley, and The Upjohn Company, Kalamazoo, Michigan. He is the author or co-author of numerous technical articles in his field and a well-known author and lecturer on creation/evolution.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
February 10, 2025
I don't even know where to start with this book. It was painful to read. I could only handle four pages at a time, so it took me a while to finish. The only reason I completed it was that my friend wanted me to read it. I spent a lot of time fact-checking the numerous claims made in this book, which led to plenty of headaches. But hey, at least it gave me the opportunity to learn more about science and evolution! Not sure if that was Gish's intention, though.
1.Selective Use of Evidence: Gish selectively uses and ignores evidence that contradicts his position. He presents only the evidence that supports his views while disregarding the overwhelming evidence that contradicts them, by pretending that they don’t exist.
2.Misunderstanding and Misrepresentation of Transitional Fossils: Gish frequently argues that transitional fossils are missing. Transitional fossils do exist and represent organisms that show characteristics of both ancestral and descendant groups. Examples like Archaeopteryx (showing how birds evolved from dinosaur ancestors) and various hominid fossils (demonstrating the evolution of modern humans from apes) illustrate gradual transitions between species. Even during his time, Gish relied on outdated arguments and ignored available evidence. Since the publication of this book, many more transitional fossils have been discovered. If Gish were alive today, it's unlikely he would reconsider his views, as he has shown in interviews that he refuses to update his position, no matter how much evidence contradicts it.
3.Cherry-Picking and Misusing Scientific Studies: This is painfully evident throughout the entire book. Gish often quotes studies that are either outdated or taken completely out of context, manipulating them to fit his narrative. He frequently cites isolated cases where scientists have revised certain interpretations over time, but fails to acknowledge that revisions are a normal part of the scientific process and don't undermine the theory of evolution as a whole. Gish either didn't understand—or pretended not to understand—that scientists can be wrong at one point in time, but they openly accept that, update their knowledge, and move forward toward the truth. Gish, however, refuses to update his understanding because if he did, it would be against his creationist beliefs and faith.
4.Straw Man Arguments: Gish consistently oversimplifies evolution, reducing it to just "random mutations" without explaining how natural selection shapes those mutations into adaptive traits over time. He suggests that evolutionary theory requires the impossibility of large-scale complexity evolving through gradual changes, but this distorts what evolutionary biology actually asserts.
5.False Dichotomy Between Evolution and Creationism: The book creates a false dichotomy, implying that one must choose between evolution and creationism. In reality, many religious individuals accept evolution as the mechanism by which life develops. Gish’s attempt to encourage his readers to ignore science as they have to take a “side” or something, is very dangerous.
6.Confusing Microevolution and Macroevolution: Gish often confuses microevolution (small-scale changes within species) with macroevolution (large-scale changes that result in the formation of new species). He argues that because microevolution can be observed, macroevolution is therefore unproven.
7.Rejection of Dating Methods: Gish strongly rejects radiometric dating and other scientific methods used to determine the age of fossils and the Earth—methods that are fundamental to our understanding of geology and evolutionary history. These methods are based on well-established principles of physics and chemistry, and their reliability is supported by numerous independent lines of evidence.
8.The "God of the Gaps" Problem: Gish invokes God as an explanation for phenomena that are not yet understood by science. This approach, known as the "God of the gaps” is problematic because it relies on gaps in scientific knowledge to justify divine intervention, rather than seeking scientific explanations and accepting the fact that truth is complicated to understand while fiction is simple and straightforward.
9.The good ol Gish Gallop: Finally, Duane Gish has become infamous for his use of the "Gish Gallop" (literally named after him, Google this for more info), a technique in which he overwhelms his opponent with rapid-fire, misleading arguments, hoping they won’t be able to refute them all. Gish has been known for his dishonesty and misrepresentation of scientific facts.
If you somehow disagree with everything else that I have said, at least keep this last one in mind as misinformation is a dangerous thing especially at a time like now that it can be spread easily. I have so much more to say about this book and Duane Gish in general but I will leave it at that:)
1.Selective Use of Evidence: Gish selectively uses and ignores evidence that contradicts his position. He presents only the evidence that supports his views while disregarding the overwhelming evidence that contradicts them, by pretending that they don’t exist.
2.Misunderstanding and Misrepresentation of Transitional Fossils: Gish frequently argues that transitional fossils are missing. Transitional fossils do exist and represent organisms that show characteristics of both ancestral and descendant groups. Examples like Archaeopteryx (showing how birds evolved from dinosaur ancestors) and various hominid fossils (demonstrating the evolution of modern humans from apes) illustrate gradual transitions between species. Even during his time, Gish relied on outdated arguments and ignored available evidence. Since the publication of this book, many more transitional fossils have been discovered. If Gish were alive today, it's unlikely he would reconsider his views, as he has shown in interviews that he refuses to update his position, no matter how much evidence contradicts it.
3.Cherry-Picking and Misusing Scientific Studies: This is painfully evident throughout the entire book. Gish often quotes studies that are either outdated or taken completely out of context, manipulating them to fit his narrative. He frequently cites isolated cases where scientists have revised certain interpretations over time, but fails to acknowledge that revisions are a normal part of the scientific process and don't undermine the theory of evolution as a whole. Gish either didn't understand—or pretended not to understand—that scientists can be wrong at one point in time, but they openly accept that, update their knowledge, and move forward toward the truth. Gish, however, refuses to update his understanding because if he did, it would be against his creationist beliefs and faith.
4.Straw Man Arguments: Gish consistently oversimplifies evolution, reducing it to just "random mutations" without explaining how natural selection shapes those mutations into adaptive traits over time. He suggests that evolutionary theory requires the impossibility of large-scale complexity evolving through gradual changes, but this distorts what evolutionary biology actually asserts.
5.False Dichotomy Between Evolution and Creationism: The book creates a false dichotomy, implying that one must choose between evolution and creationism. In reality, many religious individuals accept evolution as the mechanism by which life develops. Gish’s attempt to encourage his readers to ignore science as they have to take a “side” or something, is very dangerous.
6.Confusing Microevolution and Macroevolution: Gish often confuses microevolution (small-scale changes within species) with macroevolution (large-scale changes that result in the formation of new species). He argues that because microevolution can be observed, macroevolution is therefore unproven.
7.Rejection of Dating Methods: Gish strongly rejects radiometric dating and other scientific methods used to determine the age of fossils and the Earth—methods that are fundamental to our understanding of geology and evolutionary history. These methods are based on well-established principles of physics and chemistry, and their reliability is supported by numerous independent lines of evidence.
8.The "God of the Gaps" Problem: Gish invokes God as an explanation for phenomena that are not yet understood by science. This approach, known as the "God of the gaps” is problematic because it relies on gaps in scientific knowledge to justify divine intervention, rather than seeking scientific explanations and accepting the fact that truth is complicated to understand while fiction is simple and straightforward.
9.The good ol Gish Gallop: Finally, Duane Gish has become infamous for his use of the "Gish Gallop" (literally named after him, Google this for more info), a technique in which he overwhelms his opponent with rapid-fire, misleading arguments, hoping they won’t be able to refute them all. Gish has been known for his dishonesty and misrepresentation of scientific facts.
If you somehow disagree with everything else that I have said, at least keep this last one in mind as misinformation is a dangerous thing especially at a time like now that it can be spread easily. I have so much more to say about this book and Duane Gish in general but I will leave it at that:)
November 22, 2014
This book disproves evolution based on fossils. Duane T.Gish debates his argument in well supported factual evidence. He does this by prefacing evolution as a philosophy not a science. Secondly he compares the evolution and creation model side by side. Last, he concludes the theory of evolution must be disproved because of the fossil records.
The fossil record supports creationism for many reasons. According to the evolutionary principles, as a result of simple life forms becoming more complex, there should be a transitional life form. However, these transitional life forms are seemingly absent from the fossil record. The in accordance of the principles of evolution and the fossil record is one of the main points of Dr. Gish.
As he begins the book Gish openly puts evolution as philosophy not a science. He points out that while many scientist openly accept evolution as a fact, there is no concrete proof to establish evolution as scientific fact. With this opening idea Gish puts creationism and evolution on the same level scientifically, and as he goes through the book he also proves that while these two ideas may be on the same level scientifically, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does creation.
In the comparing the creation model with the evolution model there is a “sudden appearance in great variety of complex forms.” (Gish 54) Whereas in the evolutionary model, it is a slow change from simple life forms to more complex life forms. This leads to the arrival of the transitional life forms.
First Impression: Gish's explanation disproving evolution through the fossil record kept me interested. Here is an examples from the book that impressed me:
“If life arose from an inanimate world through a mechanistic, naturalistic, evolutionary process and then diversified, by a similar process via increasingly complex forms, into millions of species that have existed and now exist, then the fossils actually found in the rocks should correspond to those predicted on the basis of such a process.” (Gish 33)
Reading this book, I discovered how the theory of evolution was disproved using the fossil records. This book helped to firm my beliefs on creation. I will use what I learned to guide students who are struggling with evolution versus creationism. This subject affects the world so bad it damages and manipulates society into believing that evolution is the only answer to the origin of life.
This book is strongly recommended for people who are trying to find an answer on evolution versus creationism. The book would aid people in High School and College.
“The historical, or fossil, record, thus provides excellent support for special creation, but contradicts the major predictions of evolutionary theory. In answer to the question, did evolution really occur, the fossils shout a resounding NO!” (Gish 178)
The fossil record supports creationism for many reasons. According to the evolutionary principles, as a result of simple life forms becoming more complex, there should be a transitional life form. However, these transitional life forms are seemingly absent from the fossil record. The in accordance of the principles of evolution and the fossil record is one of the main points of Dr. Gish.
As he begins the book Gish openly puts evolution as philosophy not a science. He points out that while many scientist openly accept evolution as a fact, there is no concrete proof to establish evolution as scientific fact. With this opening idea Gish puts creationism and evolution on the same level scientifically, and as he goes through the book he also proves that while these two ideas may be on the same level scientifically, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does creation.
In the comparing the creation model with the evolution model there is a “sudden appearance in great variety of complex forms.” (Gish 54) Whereas in the evolutionary model, it is a slow change from simple life forms to more complex life forms. This leads to the arrival of the transitional life forms.
First Impression: Gish's explanation disproving evolution through the fossil record kept me interested. Here is an examples from the book that impressed me:
“If life arose from an inanimate world through a mechanistic, naturalistic, evolutionary process and then diversified, by a similar process via increasingly complex forms, into millions of species that have existed and now exist, then the fossils actually found in the rocks should correspond to those predicted on the basis of such a process.” (Gish 33)
Reading this book, I discovered how the theory of evolution was disproved using the fossil records. This book helped to firm my beliefs on creation. I will use what I learned to guide students who are struggling with evolution versus creationism. This subject affects the world so bad it damages and manipulates society into believing that evolution is the only answer to the origin of life.
This book is strongly recommended for people who are trying to find an answer on evolution versus creationism. The book would aid people in High School and College.
“The historical, or fossil, record, thus provides excellent support for special creation, but contradicts the major predictions of evolutionary theory. In answer to the question, did evolution really occur, the fossils shout a resounding NO!” (Gish 178)
January 2, 2019
He's done a lot of good research on the comparative data on the status of the fossils (1985 and earlier). He does believe in an earth that is younger than 10,000 years but does write from a modern paleontologist's perspective that the earth is billions of years old based.
He does mention the day-age theory or old-earth creationism which could use his research to state similar cases. However, he notes that those positions are erroneous with very little reason as to why.
The book is good for those who already do not believe in evolution but it would not score points for skeptics of evolution because of what I see to be harsh criticism for scientist who are sincere evolutionists.
He does mention the day-age theory or old-earth creationism which could use his research to state similar cases. However, he notes that those positions are erroneous with very little reason as to why.
The book is good for those who already do not believe in evolution but it would not score points for skeptics of evolution because of what I see to be harsh criticism for scientist who are sincere evolutionists.
February 7, 2016
Most books are rated related to their usefulness and contributions to my research.
Overall, a good book for the researcher and enthusiast.
Read for personal research
- found this book's contents helpful and inspiring - number rating relates to the book's contribution to my needs.
Overall, a good book for the researcher and enthusiast.
Read for personal research
- found this book's contents helpful and inspiring - number rating relates to the book's contribution to my needs.
August 18, 2024
GISH'S REVISION OF HIS FIRST (AND MOST FAMOUS) BOOK
Duane Tolbert Gish (born 1921) is an American biochemist and a prominent member of the "young earth" creationist movement (as well as a former vice-president of the Institute for Creation Research/ICR, with whom he has long been associated). He was probably the most well-known creationist debater, as well as the author of key creationist books such as 'Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics,' etc. He updated his origInal 1972 book 'Evolution: the Fossils Say NO!' in 1985 as 'Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record.'
He ends the first chapter of this 1995 book with the statement, "The question is, then, who has more evidence for his faith, the creationist or the evolutionist? The scientific case for special creation, as we will show in the following pages, is much stronger than the case for evolution. The more I study and the more I learn, the more I become convinced that evolution is a false theory and that special creation offers a much more satisfactory interpretive framework for correlating and explaining the scientific evidence related to origins." (Pg. 23)
He argues, "If fish evolved into amphibia ... we would predict that we would find transitional forms showing the gradual transition of fins into feet and legs... If reptiles gave rise to birds, then we would expect to find transitional forms in the fossil record showing the gradual transition of the forelimbs of the ancestral reptile into the wings of a bird, and the gradual transition of some structure on the reptile into the feathers of a bird... In the pterosaurs, or flying reptiles, the wing membrane was supported by an enormously lengthened fourth finger. If the pterosaurs actually evolved from a nonflying reptile, we would predict that the fossil record would produce transitional forms showing a gradual increase in length of the fourth finger..." (Pg. 40-41)
He states, "What makes such [evolutionary] stories or scenarios so incredible is the belief of evolutionists that what ever is needed will be produced by genetic change or mutations, which are totally random ... Thus, as ordinary land reptiles ventured into the water... they now needed fish-like tails. Obligingly... accidental mutations altered the incredibly complex genetic apparatus ... [so that] marvelously functional fish-like tails were produced on a reptile previously floundering awkwardly around in the water." (Pg. 104-105)
He critiques the notion that feathers arose either from scales, or from hair: "Scales are flat horny plates; feathers are... a central shaft from which radiate barbs and barbules... with tiny hooks which lock only the barbs and bind the feather surface into a flat, strong, flexible vane. Feathers and scales arise from different layers of the skin... Feathers, as do hairs but unlike scales develop from follicles. A hair, however, is a much simpler structure than a feather..." (Pg. 135-136)
He rejects the Gould/Eldredge model of punctuated equilibria: "this notion is without empirically observable scientific evidence. The only evidence for it is the absence of transitional forms. According to the punctuationist, since obviously one form did not slowly and gradually evolve into another, then just as obviously it must have rapidly evolved into the new form." (Pg. 355)
This is probably the best "summary" of Gish's positions, and is worth serious study by anyone interested in the Creation/Evolution debate.
Duane Tolbert Gish (born 1921) is an American biochemist and a prominent member of the "young earth" creationist movement (as well as a former vice-president of the Institute for Creation Research/ICR, with whom he has long been associated). He was probably the most well-known creationist debater, as well as the author of key creationist books such as 'Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics,' etc. He updated his origInal 1972 book 'Evolution: the Fossils Say NO!' in 1985 as 'Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record.'
He ends the first chapter of this 1995 book with the statement, "The question is, then, who has more evidence for his faith, the creationist or the evolutionist? The scientific case for special creation, as we will show in the following pages, is much stronger than the case for evolution. The more I study and the more I learn, the more I become convinced that evolution is a false theory and that special creation offers a much more satisfactory interpretive framework for correlating and explaining the scientific evidence related to origins." (Pg. 23)
He argues, "If fish evolved into amphibia ... we would predict that we would find transitional forms showing the gradual transition of fins into feet and legs... If reptiles gave rise to birds, then we would expect to find transitional forms in the fossil record showing the gradual transition of the forelimbs of the ancestral reptile into the wings of a bird, and the gradual transition of some structure on the reptile into the feathers of a bird... In the pterosaurs, or flying reptiles, the wing membrane was supported by an enormously lengthened fourth finger. If the pterosaurs actually evolved from a nonflying reptile, we would predict that the fossil record would produce transitional forms showing a gradual increase in length of the fourth finger..." (Pg. 40-41)
He states, "What makes such [evolutionary] stories or scenarios so incredible is the belief of evolutionists that what ever is needed will be produced by genetic change or mutations, which are totally random ... Thus, as ordinary land reptiles ventured into the water... they now needed fish-like tails. Obligingly... accidental mutations altered the incredibly complex genetic apparatus ... [so that] marvelously functional fish-like tails were produced on a reptile previously floundering awkwardly around in the water." (Pg. 104-105)
He critiques the notion that feathers arose either from scales, or from hair: "Scales are flat horny plates; feathers are... a central shaft from which radiate barbs and barbules... with tiny hooks which lock only the barbs and bind the feather surface into a flat, strong, flexible vane. Feathers and scales arise from different layers of the skin... Feathers, as do hairs but unlike scales develop from follicles. A hair, however, is a much simpler structure than a feather..." (Pg. 135-136)
He rejects the Gould/Eldredge model of punctuated equilibria: "this notion is without empirically observable scientific evidence. The only evidence for it is the absence of transitional forms. According to the punctuationist, since obviously one form did not slowly and gradually evolve into another, then just as obviously it must have rapidly evolved into the new form." (Pg. 355)
This is probably the best "summary" of Gish's positions, and is worth serious study by anyone interested in the Creation/Evolution debate.
August 18, 2024
THE FIRST EDITION OF GISH'S FIRST (AND MOST FAMOUS) BOOK
Duane Tolbert Gish (born 1921) is an American biochemist and a prominent member of the "young earth" creationist movement (as well as a former vice-president of the Institute for Creation Research/ICR, with whom he has long been associated). He was probably the most well-known creationist debater, as well as the author of key creationist books such as 'Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics,' etc. He updated this 1972 book in 1985 as 'Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record,' then again in 1995 as 'Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'
He notes, "...no significant evolutionary change has occurred in these moths. These moths today not only are still moths, they are still peppered moths, Bitson belularia. This evidence, therefore, is irrelevant to the questions we seek to answer." (Pg. 22)
He argues, "Even more devastating evidence against the assumption of a hominid status for Ramapithecus has been recent revelations concerning a living high-altitude baboon found in Ethiopia... (which) has many of the facial, dental, and mandibular characteristics used to classify Ramapithecus as a hominid!" (Pg. 77-78) He adds later, "These results certainly support the contention... that Australopithecus, while possessing canines and incisors more similar to man than to those of extant apes, was nonetheless nothing but an ape. After all, teeth alone don't make the man!" (Pg. 107)
He suggests, "Evolutionists cite the fact that many different kinds of animals have structures, organs, and metabolism that are similar... Is it surprising that the biochemistry... of the human is very similar to that of a rat? After all, don't we eat the same kind of food, drink the same water, and breathe the same air?" (Pg. 121)
While one should read the more modern revisions, this early book is still pungent in its attack, and makes its point in a much briefer space.
Duane Tolbert Gish (born 1921) is an American biochemist and a prominent member of the "young earth" creationist movement (as well as a former vice-president of the Institute for Creation Research/ICR, with whom he has long been associated). He was probably the most well-known creationist debater, as well as the author of key creationist books such as 'Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics,' etc. He updated this 1972 book in 1985 as 'Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record,' then again in 1995 as 'Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'
He notes, "...no significant evolutionary change has occurred in these moths. These moths today not only are still moths, they are still peppered moths, Bitson belularia. This evidence, therefore, is irrelevant to the questions we seek to answer." (Pg. 22)
He argues, "Even more devastating evidence against the assumption of a hominid status for Ramapithecus has been recent revelations concerning a living high-altitude baboon found in Ethiopia... (which) has many of the facial, dental, and mandibular characteristics used to classify Ramapithecus as a hominid!" (Pg. 77-78) He adds later, "These results certainly support the contention... that Australopithecus, while possessing canines and incisors more similar to man than to those of extant apes, was nonetheless nothing but an ape. After all, teeth alone don't make the man!" (Pg. 107)
He suggests, "Evolutionists cite the fact that many different kinds of animals have structures, organs, and metabolism that are similar... Is it surprising that the biochemistry... of the human is very similar to that of a rat? After all, don't we eat the same kind of food, drink the same water, and breathe the same air?" (Pg. 121)
While one should read the more modern revisions, this early book is still pungent in its attack, and makes its point in a much briefer space.
January 6, 2024
I'm sure this book maybe useful for someone but for what purpose?
The book is anti-evolution and pro-creation and that is fine but it is not a gospel book, it it is not a Biblical theology book it is a book from the creation movement which can then believe anything after that, Jewish people, Muslims and others are creationists, what they do after that diverges drastically from them gospel.
The other main aspect is that the Bible is not a scientific textbook, it was never designed to be a science book, it is also not a history book or a geography book, or even an English book, it is a book about the revelation of God, God revealing himself to man, and this book got none of that, it just got to summarise evolution is wrong and creation is right.
OK fine, but to me a lot of arguing over something that can be summed up in Genesis 1:1.
The book is anti-evolution and pro-creation and that is fine but it is not a gospel book, it it is not a Biblical theology book it is a book from the creation movement which can then believe anything after that, Jewish people, Muslims and others are creationists, what they do after that diverges drastically from them gospel.
The other main aspect is that the Bible is not a scientific textbook, it was never designed to be a science book, it is also not a history book or a geography book, or even an English book, it is a book about the revelation of God, God revealing himself to man, and this book got none of that, it just got to summarise evolution is wrong and creation is right.
OK fine, but to me a lot of arguing over something that can be summed up in Genesis 1:1.
May 14, 2023
Though written 50 years ago, it turns out not a lot has changed in the fossil records in those five decades. I was able to validate those claims that seemed to be outdated, and all of them have continued to be supportive of Gish’s argument. The main push is that the fossil record has not produced the evidence Darwin was looking for in 1859. We still do not see slow, gradual changes between species, but rather we see complex forms in similar stages as they are today. The book also allows for Gish’s point of view to be presented in a logical, complete format, not always achieved when these types of arguments are presented in a live debate setting. Highly recommended for those taking a critical look at evolution.
October 25, 2018
I read this book in high school and had the privilege of hearing the author and Dr. Morris give an evening lecture at a near by university. Excellent book. Excellent resource. I still have the book, but it's falling apart.
Read
August 21, 20120537
September 13, 2013
One of the first books I ever read about the creation/evolution debate. I remember loving it.
January 10, 2017
terrible trash book
June 13, 2020
did not finish. I’m not a creationist, but that’s not the reason for my one star review. the book was just boring 🤷🏻♀️
September 10, 2022
This book’s greatest contribution is in bringing to the forefront the absolute lack of transitional fossils between the kinds.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews