Revolution Against Evolution Fourth Edition 2020


Revolution Against Evolution is a general interest book about creation science designed to answer the tough questions about science and the Bible. This book is easy to read and is up to date with the latest creation science research.

If you want an easy-to-read general purpose creationist book you can give to high school students that is up to date and explains the highlights of God’s creation, get this book Revolution Against Evolution. In 1986, the first edition of Revolution Against Evolution was published and 2,500 copies were distributed, though it was initially designed for a Bible Training Institute class. It was reprinted in 1993 and in 2013 it was updated and made into an e-book. Now, we have re-edited this book and brought it up to date with the current creationist research. Most of the arguments presented in the original book remain effective, and speculations originally made have been confirmed with more thorough research and visits to the sites mentioned in the original. $9.95 plus $3.00 postage and handling.

The chapter titles are:

  • Introduction
  • Order from Disorder
  • Historical Geology and Fault-Finding
  • Early Man
  • Animals that Could not have Evolved
  • Proteins, DNA and the Cell
  • Which Model is Best?
  • The Stars and Planets
  • Evidence Versus Myths
  • Issues and Answers


Weight 9 oz
Dimensions 8.5 × 5.75 × .375 in



  1. Douglas Sharp

    This fourth edition of a classic book covers the modern revolution against Darwinian evolution. It was written by a long-time veteran of the movement pushing back against evolution. In 1995, Sharp had the foresight to pioneer a website, Revolution against Evolution when the Internet was just in its infancy. Sharp’s book covers, not only the problems with evolution, but also some of the problems with some of the creation alternatives. Creationism is a movement involving many diverse people, not all who agree with the details. Consequently, different schools of thought called models exist in the movement. For example, he covers the various Flood models that attempt to explain the global Flood of Noah’s day.
    Although some disagreement exists on the creation models, large agreement exists on the major scientific problems with evolution. Sharp does a good job summarizing this area. He shows that evolution [Neo-Darwinism] is based on only two pillars, genetic variety produced by mutations that are selected by the process called survival of the fittest. The problem with this foundation is the vast majority of mutations are near neutral, harmful, or deleterious. It is a very rare mutation that is clearly beneficial. Furthermore, no selector exists selecting the best organisms as the natural selection theory implies. Survival depends on time, chance, and fortuitous events, in short, luck. Before any selection can occur, functional genetic variety must first exist, a problem that existed in Darwin’s day and still exists today.
    Sharp also deals with theistic evolution, showing that this worldview is a compromise based on the factious belief that evolution has been scientifically confirmed and is a viable alternative to creationism. Only when Darwinism has been empirically verified do we need to be concerned with explaining how it could be explained in harmony with the Scriptures. Sharp shows theistic evolution cannot be supported by the scriptures, nor by science. The two worldviews are in irreconcilable conflict. In short, if the facts and science are carefully considered, Darwinism cannot be defended. The only reason it is still around is because it is the worldview of the atheists and secularists, and aggressively defended by the courts.
    Without the legal defense by the courts it would not continue to thrive. If Darwinism could survive on its own, it would not need the legal defense of organizations, such as the National Center for Science Education, which claims it is the “only national organization that specializes in defending the teaching of evolution against creationist attacks.” Let it defend itself in the court of public opinion instead of relying on lawyers and specious claims that one side of the debate is religions and the other side is science. Both sides of the debate have science elements, and both sides have worldview implications. Something is grievously wrong when both sides of a scientific question is prevented by law from being debated in taxpayer-supported public schools.
    Professor Jerry Bergman PhD.

Add a review

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.