Menu back

On 31 December 2008, just in time for the beginning of Darwin Year 2009, a two-page article appeared in the newspaper Die Zeit under the headline “Thank you, Darwin!” A further four complete pages were dedicated to the theme of evolution. The thanks were directed towards a man who was born 200 years ago and whose groundbreaking book On the Origin of Species appeared 150 years ago. The philosopher, Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) had already proudly asserted, “Give me matter and I will construct a world.” Fifty years later the French mathematician and astronomer Laplace (1749–1827) also boasted to Napoleon, “My theories have no need of the hypothesis ‘God.’”

These and other fathers of scientific atheism were searching for an explanation for the source of life, in which God no longer figures. The apparently redemptive answer was provided by Darwin, who made it conceivable to explain the development of life “in a natural way.”

Is evolution a viable concept?

Just a quick glance into the realm of living things shows us consistently high-quality, targeted concepts: the sperm whale, a mammal, is equipped to be able to surface from a depth of three thousand metres without succumbing to the dreaded decompression sickness. A huge number of microscopically small bacteria in our intestinal tract have built-in electric motors, which can operate forwards or in reverse. In most cases, life depends on the full operation of the organs (e.g. the heart, liver, kidneys). Incomplete, still-developing organs are useless.  Anyone thinking here in the Darwinian sense must know that evolution has no perspective in terms of targeting a futuristic functioning organ. The evolutionary biologist, G. Osche, observed quite correctly, “Living organisms obviously cannot, during certain evolutionary phases, behave like a factory owner and temporarily shut down for renovations.“

Where does life come from?

In the face of all today’s evolutionary hullabaloo, one asks oneself: where does life really come from? Evolutionary theory does not have the vaguest explanation of how the animate can develop from the inanimate. Stanley Miller (1930–2007), whose "primeval soup experiment" has been quoted in every biology book since the ‘60s, admitted forty years later that none of the present day hypotheses on the origin of life are convincing. He describes them all as "nonsense" or "chemical inventions.” The microbiologist Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) recognised something very fundamental, “Life can only come from life.“

Why were the ninety-five theses of this book written?

Advocates of evolution consider their doctrine concerning the origin of life and the world to be a scientific theory. According to Karl Popper, an empirical theory must be falsifiable. That is to say, even the theory of evolution must, in principle, be disprovable. That is why the theses contained in this book were written.

The strongest line of reasoning in science is always given when the laws of nature can be applied in the sense that they exclude a process or procedure. The laws of nature know no exceptions. For this reason, a “perpetuum mobile – perpetual motion machine" (i.e., a machine that operates continuously without an energy supply) is a product of fantasy. We know today, what Darwin could not know, that an almost unimaginable amount of information exists within the cells of all living things and, moreover, in the most concentrated form known to us. The development of all organs is information driven; all processes in the living being function in an information-driven way and the production of all bodily substances (for instance, 50,000 proteins in the human body) is likewise information driven. The evolutionary thought system could only function at all if there was, in matter, the possibility of information being created by random processes. Information is not a property of matter:

Information is a non-material quantity; it is, therefore, not a property of matter. The natural laws of non-material quantities, especially those of information, signify that matter can never create a non-material quantity. Furthermore, it implies that information can only come into being via an originator equipped with intelligence and will. Thus, it is already clear that whoever considers evolution to be a viable concept believes in the “perpetual motion of information” (i.e., in something prescribed by the universally valid laws of nature). I will deal further with this in the chapter “Information Theory (theses 76–83)”, which I have personally contributed to this book.


The authors of the Ninety-Five Theses against Evolution have perceived that the teaching of evolution is one of the greatest fallacies in the history of the world. Were it merely a purely scientific question in some discipline or other, they would not have gone to such lengths to refute it. The reason is a different one. The question of our origin cannot be of no consequence to us, as it is intrinsically linked with the question of the existence of God. In terms of the authenticity of the Bible, only the two alternatives A1 and A2 are at issue:

A1:  It is true that the origin and immeasurable diversity of life can be explained exclusively by the fundamental laws of chemistry and physics and the often-quoted evolutionary factors of mutation, recombination, selection, isolation, long periods of time, chance and necessity as well as death. Consequently, God is no longer necessary and the Bible would then be based on a completely godless source. It is a book conceived by human beings, and terms such as heaven and hell or resurrection and final judgement, derived from human imagination and have no relevance for human beings.

Or A2:  What God told us in the Bible is true. Thus, the God of the Bible is the only living God and evolution a momentous scientific fallacy. Death is not a life-creating evolutionary factor, but rather a consequence of the separation from God (1). We can believe the Bible in its entirety, as Jesus prayed to God, the Father: “Your word is truth” (2), and as the Apostle Paul avowed, “I believe everything that stands written” (3). We will rise again after our physical death and have to answer before God; and there really is a heaven and also a hell.

Purpose and aim of this book

The concept of the Ninety-Five Theses presented here is based unmistakably on the Ninety-five Theses of Martin Luther. At that time, he unleashed a revolution that had a worldwide impact. Luther stressed that the Bible came from a single divine source and, on the basis of this yardstick, was able to debunk the numerous injustices and false teachings of the Roman Catholic Church of the time. I hope these Ninety-Five Theses are equally effective.

Director and Professor (retired)

Dr. Werner Gitt

For almost 25 years until his retirement in 2002, Werner Gitt was Director and Professor at the Federal Physical-Technical Institute in Brunswick (Braunschweig, Germany).


(1)  Paul of Tarsus, The Bible, Romans 6:23.

(2)  John, The Bible, John 17:17.

(3)  Luke, The Bible, Acts of the Apostles 24:14.

Comment this Site!