"Evidence" for Evolution?

“It’s clear that Haeckel may have fudged his drawings somewhat to look more like his ideal than they actually are. Now, does that actually take away from what we know about the relationship of embryology to evolution? Not a bit. The whole Haeckel’s embryo story has been greatly blown out of significance. It is a minor footnote in the history of science, and actually it’s been known for ten or fifteen years that Haeckel’s embryos are not to be relied upon. The reason why the diagrams are reproduced is because they’re easily available. There’s no copyright on them. It’s an easy way to illustrate a point. And I would argue that the basic point that’s being illustrated by those drawings is still accurate.”  (Eugenie Scott, Ph.D., Director, National Center for Science Education.  From the DVD, “Icons of Evolution,” Jonathon Wells, The Discovery Institute, 2002.)

So that is what the evolutionists pass off as "science." What's next?  Maybe some "scientist" will say, "We are all aware that Piltdown Man was a hoax, but that does not diminish its importance as evidence of the evolution of man from an ape-like creature." Or maybe another one will say, "Everyone knows that Nebraska Man was nothing but a pig's tooth, but that does not diminish the importance of the find as evidence for evolution." Right... faked evidence is just fine as long as it supports the pre-conceived notions of evolutionists. Vary sad and very absurd.

Such illustrations could go on and on, but what would be the point? It is obvious to those who look at the facts that evolution is nothing but a house of cards that has been successful in fooling many people for quite some time. Nevertheless, it is not worthy of our consideration, and it should become nothing but a joke as it is seen more and more for the hoax it really is.