Oceans of Piffle in Evolutionary Indoctrination


The inevitable consequence of evolutionary training is indoctrination in an inverted form of logic. Inverted logic begins at the wrong end and runs counter to the fundamental laws of science. Inverted logic is the type that would erroneously lead one to think he can lift himself up by his own bootstraps, with his feet still inside the boots. To be logical, one must apply the known governing principles. In this case the governing principles are Newton's laws of motion and the law of gravity.

The application of evolutionary doctrine to the origin of the universe always involves inverted logic. It is typified by the so-called big bang theory of the origin of the universe. According to that dominant theory, the universe began as a ball of energy and evolved, through the process of explosion and expansion, into our highly ordered and beautiful universe. If there ever was an inversion of logic, that is it. An explosion does not produce order, it produces disorder! The big bang theory violates all the applicable governing principles of physics. The multitude of papers espousing the big bang explanation of origins are indeed nothing more than piffle. In case the reader is unfamiliar with the word piffle, Webster's Dictionary describes it as: "trifling talk;" "stuff and nonsense;" "twaddle," all of which applies to the inverted logic in evolutionary indoctrination.

The big bang theory is not an isolated case of inverted logic in evolutionary "science." Inverted logic is inherent in the doctrine itself. The doctrine espouses the principle that lower order can, by self-acting but unknown processes, evolve to higher and higher order. It takes oceans of piffle to sell that to students. That is what students get from teachers, textbooks, journals, and the news media. It is de facto censorship of straightforward logic and of some important facts of science in that area of their education.

The result of this massive indoctrination is that students in our educational institutions are so shackled by that training in inverted logic that it is an uphill battle for them ever to be creative and productive. Straight thinking is hard to come by when one has been required to memorize so much piffle and has been tested on how well he "understands" it. Many students have found it unprofitable to question evolutionary doctrine openly in class. As a university physics professor, I have frequently pointed out the logical fallacies involved in the doctrine of evolution. The students have no difficulty in seeing these fallacies. They often ask: "Why haven't our other teachers told us this?" One student said, "I have always known that it is bunk, but now I know why."


Whenever one uses inverted logic it means that he started at the wrong end. That is the best-kept "secret" in all of evolutionary doctrine. It is axiomatic that an evolutionist is never to acknowledge that his ultimate postulate of origins is a metaphysical one, not something that one can claim to have arrived at by science. The author recently wrote a letter to the editor of a local newspaper exposing the lack of logic in the evolutionary position. The editor was kind enough to print everything in the letter except this one sentence: "I have yet to see an evolutionist admit the fact that his initial postulate is a metaphysical one." So the newspaper did its part in preserving that secret of evolutionary doctrine, that evolutionary doctrine does indeed begin with a metaphysical postulate that lies outside the domain of science.

The catechism of evolutionary doctrine includes the dogma that the evolutionary view is science and the creationist view is religion. That is why it is intolerable for the evolutionary news media to allow one to bring up the subject of the initial postulate of evolution—that metaphysical postulate of the beginning state. One may talk about the big bang theory, but one dare not ask the question: "Where did that initial ball of energy come from?" When big bang advocates are really pressed for an answer, they usually contrive a story about a prior oscillating universe in which the universe contracted and formed that ball of energy. But when pressed for the ultimate origin, the discussion is abruptly shut off. It is still a fact that the doctrinaire evolutionist will never admit he begins with a metaphysical postulate—a faith postulate. Furthermore, evolution requires additional faith because the evolutionary position is not a self-consistent scientific position. It requires some hypothetical mechanism that must run counter to the fundamental laws of science.

Creationists have all too often backed away from the initial postulate, namely special creation by the Creator. That is the postulate that makes the creationist position consistent and from which the universe can then run in accordance with the fundamental laws of science. Why should we back away from this ultimate postulate, based upon a faith that is very real to us, and let the evolutionist get by without acknowledging his mystical postulate of ultimate origin based upon a hopeless faith?


Insofar as science is concerned, one can be sure that the universe is running down and headed for its death. That will be the condition in which all of the energy in the universe is so downgraded that it is no longer usable. The sun and stars will have burned out. There will be no streams of water. There will be no life. If there were no God, that condition would surely come. This is the philosophy of doom inherent in evolution, but evolutionists refuse to acknowledge it.

The evolutionist has no scientific means of explaining the origin of the universe nor of how to keep it from dying, if he had been able to figure out how to get it going in the first place. He is in a very unsatisfactory position, both scientifically and philosophically. The preachments and piffle of the Carl Sagan type are deceptions of the highest order. There is nothing glorifying in the doctrine of evolution, with its philosophy that might makes right, the survival of the fittest. The fittest would not be very fit in a universe that is dead. That is the inexorable end of all present scientific processes, short of God's intervention.

This illustrates the hopelessness of the evolutionist. He cannot be totally scientific, because science, by itself, is not self-consistent. It depends upon an origin that lies outside the domain of science. The universe had to be wound up some way. Science is not in the business of self-winding from lower to higher order. The only thing outside of science that makes sense for accomplishing that feat is the creative action of almighty God.


The creationists do not have all the answers, but they have the only consistent position. It has been a grave mistake for the creationists to let the evolutionists intimidate them into compromising. We have a position that is scientifically and Scripturally sound, and have no need to depart from it. There are places where we must acknowledge the miraculous acts of God, notably the original creation and the Noahic flood. That contributes consistency to the explanations of present observations.

It is dangerous to try to inject scientific explanations into the creation week. Surely God's action during that week transcended anything we recognize as science today. We should be awed by it, content to consider only the processes of science in the universe which were placed in effect by God after it was created, fully wound up.

Fiat creation answers many questions that are not answerable by science per se. Creationist scientists appreciate research such as that of Dr. Robert Gentry, on radiohalos which seems to prove that there was primordial Polonium 218 in the basement rock. This evidence is true scientific evidence of fiat creation of the earth's basement rock. This provides a consistency between the original creation and present scientific evidence.

In the writer's judgment, creationists are missing the boat when they major on attempts to refute each and every piffle of the evolutionary line. The strongest refutation of the evolutionary position is the young age of the universe and the earth. This young age refutes the whole gamut of evolution in one stroke. There is ample scientific evidence now to stand firm on this position of a young age. It is wrong to let evolutionists get by without having to stand up to the strong scientific evidences of a young earth age. He would, of course, rather throw out a barrage of piffle than take on an issue so profound as the scientific evidences of a young earth. Any creationist scientist who knows the subject and refuses to compromise on a young age, should be able to demolish the evolutionary doctrine by bearing down on the many strong evidences of a young age for the earth, moon, sun, and short-period comets. The evolutionists have no valid answers for these evidences.


1. The evolutionary doctrine is not supported by straightforward scientific logic. It is inherently tied to an inverted logic—false logic.
2. There is no valid mechanism for producing evolution. This is not surprising, because all of the applicable laws of science involve processes that run in the opposite direction from the presumed evolutionary processes.
3. The evolutionary doctrine has been kept afloat by indoctrination. When carefully analyzed, its preachments are nothing more than piffle.
4. There has been de facto censorship of the scientific evidences that support the creation position.
5. Doctrinaire evolutionists never acknowledge that their ultimate postulate of origins is a metaphysical one—a faith postulate outside of the scientific domain.
6. The evolutionary philosophy is a philosophy of doom.
7. The creationists' position is consistent when it acknowledges special creation by the Creator and subsequently employs scientific analysis to the processes that take place after creation.
8. Consistency requires that a worldwide flood, in relatively recent times, be affirmed. That is an aid to a true understanding of geology—not a hindrance.
9. Evidences of a young age for the universe and the earth provide a strong refutation of the whole gamut of evolution, and should not be neglected.

*Dr. Barnes is Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, as well as former Dean of the ICR Graduate School.

Cite this article: Thomas G. Barnes, D.Sc. 1985. Oceans of Piffle in Evolutionary Indoctrination. Acts & Facts. 14 (4).