Theory of evolution disproven by video posted on Facebook

Social media evangelist Joshua Feuerstein, dubbed "a modern-day Michael Faraday" for his work debunking the theory of evolution.

The dominant, foundational and unifying theory among all biological sciences for the past century — evolution by natural selection — has been thoroughly debunked by a Facebook video, every scientist in the world reports.

The video in question was uploaded May 23 by social media evangelist Joshua Feuerstein, of Fountain Hills, Ariz. According to his Facebook page, Feuerstein is “a 33-year-old bachelor soon to become husband and father to four.” From the original posting, the roughly five-minute clip was shared over 188,000 times.

“Evolution is not a science. Never has and never will be. Why? Because it cannot fit within the parameters and parentheses of science for one simple reason: It was never observed,” Feuerstein explains in his video. “That’s why it’s not science. That’s why it’s called the theory of evolution. One man’s theory.”

The fallout in the scientific community has been widespread and devastating.

“I honestly don’t know what to say,” a visibly shaken Richard Dawkins told BBC World News this week.

For decades, the scientist and author has been widely considered one of the world’s most eloquent defenders of evolutionary biology, but Feuerstein’s arguments left him stammering and virtually speechless. “It’s just … I don’t know. Really, I don’t. It’s like, you spend your life studying this stuff, and then, one day you see a video on a friend’s Facebook page that just … undoes everything you thought you knew.”

Pressed by BBC lead anchor Katty Kay about his thoughts of Feuerstein, Dawkins shook his head slightly, staring off into space with a strangely vacant expression.

“He’s a brilliant man,” he replied softly. “A saint.”

Feuerstein opened the influential video by recounting a recent conversation with an unnamed atheist, who had criticized the social media user for his faith in God. Initially framed as a response to this atheist, the scope of the short clip broadened quickly, as it soon became clear that Feuerstein wished to strike directly at the underpinnings of an overwhelmingly well-evidenced scientific theory that has — for more than 100 years — been used to succinctly and elegantly explain such far-ranging phenomena as comparative DNA sequence analysis, phylogenetic reconstruction, endogenous retroviruses, pseudogenes, nested hierarchies, atavisms, homologous and vestigial structures, fixed-action patterns, continental distribution, island biogeography, ring species and the fossil record.

Without wasting time on such trivial matters, Feuerstein’s video skillfully sidestepped the evidence for common ancestry and struck right at the theory of evolution’s greatest weakness: It’s stupid.

“In some accidental cosmic bang, out of that was created one cell, and from that one cell, all life springs,” Feuerstein said, summarizing the definition of evolution affirmed by all biologists. “Every plant, every animal, every single human being. And somewhere along the way over years and years, we mysteriously and magically all developed different wills and all developed different characteristics and traits, all because we willed it?”

“I just had never thought about it that way before,” admitted Michael Shermer, founding publisher of Skeptic magazine and another once-well-known proponent of evolutionary science.

Shermer has been in seclusion at his south California home since Feuerstein’s video began gaining traction, but he agreed to answer a few questions through email.

“Josh just nailed it. That’s all there is to it,” Shermer wrote in an email that was, originally, utterly devoid of any capitalization or punctuation, as though the writer had simply lost the will to follow such mundane grammatical conventions. “After watching his video, I remember sitting back in my chair and just thinking, ‘Holy (expletive), he’s right. This (expletive) (expletive) doesn’t make sense.’”

One of Feuerstein’s main points of evidence was what he called “The Law of Thermodynamics,” which appears to be a postulate of his own devising, since the scientific canon contains nothing that precisely correlates with the idea. Feuerstein defined the law concisely as: “Chaos can never produce order.”

“What if I were to tell you that somewhere in Oklahoma a tornado rolls through a junkyard of old cars, and somewhere on the other side of that tornado, out of that junk pile, it magically produces a perfectly red, shiny, working Lamborghini?” Feuerstein asked in his clip. “You would tell me I was nuts. You would tell me I had lost it. You would probably try and admit me to the psychiatric ward. Why? Because that is absolutely stupid. I mean, how much faith would it really take to believe something as idiotic as that? And yet, that’s exactly what science believes.”

“It’s true: We do believe that,” agreed a shell-shocked Ann Reid, former executive director of the National Center for Science Education, which permanently disbanded in disgrace last week. “Well, at least we did, you know, before Mr. Feuerstein’s work was brought to our attention.”

Appearing deeply humbled but saying she had to “give credit where it’s due,” Reid said Feuerstein’s scientific contributions to future generations would include not only the Law of Thermodynamics and the Parable of the Lamborghini in the Junkyard, but also what the scientific community has termed the “Stupidity Test,” meaning that any theory must be ruled invalid if a member of the general public finds it stupid — regardless of what the evidence says.

According to his Facebook page, Feuerstein appears to have no formal training in the sciences, but Reid said that is not unprecedented.

Gregor Mendel went into the monastery precisely because he couldn’t afford college, and he founded modern genetic science while working in his garden,” Reid said. “And look at Michael Faraday: He was a book-binding apprentice with almost no formal education, and he went on to become one of the most influential scientists and inventors of all time.”

Reid trailed off, shaking her head and muttering something that sounded like “Out of the mouths of babes…” After a while, she smiled and shrugged.

“I guess we’re just seeing history repeat itself.”

Feuerstein’s video has not been entirely without its critics. Some, Reid included, have called the evangelist’s final thought — that the word “universe” is comprised of “uni” meaning “one” and “verse,” meaning “a spoken statement” — a bit questionable.

Though “uni” does mean “one,” “verse” is actually taken from the Latin “vertere,” meaning “something rotated, rolled, changed,” Reid said. Then she chuckled embarrassedly and looked at the ground.

“Oh, what’s the point?” she mumbled, her face reddening. “I’m just being a nitpicky little sore loser, aren’t I?”

Tyler Francke is the founder of God of Evolution and author of Reoriented. He can be reached here.

  • When I got to the part about Ann Reid, “former executive director of the National Center for Science Education,” I said to myself, “Waitasecond, I just spoke with her a few months back and she had just come on board as executive direc — oh, I see what you did there.”

    • Yep 🙂 No offense intended for Ms. Reid. We hope she has a long and successful tenure!

  • Jordan Peiffer

    What…? No. No, no. This can’t be. And here I thought the theory was so solid… Solid! And now… just like “that”, it’s all gone… gone… gone!

    Well, I see the snarky comedian strikes again. 😉 You’re pretty good at it, though. Plus this one does kind of call for it.

    I did actually see this a couple of days ago. Yeah, I don’t know where the law of thermodynamics came from, the closest thing I’ve found is this: I don’t totally understand them, but I don’t think any of them can boil down to “chaos can never produce order”. And then there’s chaos theory.

    I must admit I love the Lamborghini argument, though. Beautiful imagery there.

    One location-specific comment:

    ‘“Gregor Mendel joined a monastery precisely because he couldn’t afford college, and he founded modern genetics while working in his garden,” Reid said. “And look at Michael Faraday: He was a book-binding apprentice with almost no formal education, and he went on to become one of the most influential scientists and inventors of all time.”’

    Oh? So there’s still hope for me. Sweet. 🙂

    Compliments on the well-written (and funny!) article, Tyler! It’s just too bad we evolutionary creationist compromisers have finally been beaten. :/ Not seeing much hope for the ol’ theory now.

    • Hey Jordan! Yeah, I’m sure he meant the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but that isn’t what he said. Anti-evolutionists who have no clue what they’re talking about try and use the 2LoTD against evolution all the time, but it’s inapplicable for two very important reasons. No. 1, it applies to closed systems, of which the earth is not. It receives massive amounts of energy from the sun and releases energy to space. No. 2, the 2LoTD does not describe biological entities, for the simple reason that their “entropy” cannot be determined. There is no meaningful way to calculate the entropy of a horse or a frog and compare it to a rock or a star.

      • Jordan Peiffer

        Hey Tyler! Does that even equate to “chaos can never produce order”, though? Unfortunately, this thermodynamics and entropy stuff is still greek to me. 🙂

        • Not really. All the Second Law says is that the entropy of an isolated, or closed, system will never decrease. The Second Law discusses entropy, which is a technical term referring to thermodynamic systems. It is often translated “disorder,” which works in the context of thermodynamics, but you can’t simply usurp that synonym and apply it to any other context.

          • Aceofspades25

            The point being of course that the earth is not a closed system. We receive energy from the sun and radiate energy back out into space. Some of that energy ends up causing local areas of lower entropy.

          • Exactly.

      • Nadine Sikkema
  • Andrew Tyson

    Will science ever recover from this overwhelming defeat…

    • Seems doubtful. We could ask Joshua Feuerstein, I suppose. He’s the scientific expert now.

  • Larry Bunce

    A bigger principle applies to Mr. Feuerstein’s argument– it is impossible to argue against ignorance. Therefore his statement wins hands-down, as do most arguments against evolution.

  • Craig T.

    Wow. I just found this site today, and even though I’m an atheist I really enjoy reading this type of thing.
    It’s quite refreshing to see someone who isn’t simply rejecting facts because they disagree with their worldview.

    Even though we would disagree on many things, at least you’re not being intellectually dishonest like Ham(eron) or the Hovinds of the world.

    • Hey, thanks, Craig! Glad to know you and thanks for recognizing what we’re trying to do. We believe intellectual honesty and a desire for reasonable dialogue are both biblical mandates: “Brothers and sisters, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature.” — 1 Corinthians 14:20

  • When I heard him say the Universe thing, my immediate thought was Alan Grant’s line in Jurassic Park when talking about Dinosaurs evolving into birds: “Even the word raptor means ‘Bird of Prey.” Which I always thought was an idiotic thing for a paleontologist to use as evidence for evolution.

    • Yeah, except raptor really does mean “bird of prey,” at least. Feuerstein didn’t even take the three seconds of Googling it would have taken to get the etymology right.

      • And actually, the word verse doesn’t mean “a spoken statement”

        verse [vurs]
        1.(not in technical usage) a stanza or other short subdivision of a poem
        2.poetry as distinct from prose
        3.a. a series of metrical feet forming a rhythmic unit of one line b. ( as modifier ): verse line
        4.a specified type of metre or metrical structure: iambic verse of the series of short subsections into which most of the writings in the Bible are divided
        6.a metrical composition; poem

        • That’s a great analogy! I think such an error is forgivable for a fictional character; not so much for Mr. Feuerstein. Don’t think about it too deeply though. You’ll only get a headache if you spend too much time trying to understand why createvangelists say and do the things they say and do.

          • Ironically, in the last 3 months, I have grown kinda fond of Mr. Fuerstein despite his misunderstanding of what Uni and Verse mean.

          • Yeah, how come?

          • A few friends of mine have been posting some of his stuff on their pages, and aside from his limited knowledge of science, he seems to understand the message of Christ pretty solidly. As far as I can see, he’s not judgmental and is very genuine in his faith. Don’t know if I would hire him to speak at Winter Extreme or something like that, but he puts an overall good face on the faith.

          • Cool, thanks for explaining. Yeah, I can see that, and it’s great if he is making a positive impact beyond his blustery and laughably misinformed would-be critiques of scientific theory. I just found that one video too arrogant and unpleasant to be interested in anything else he had to say.

            Of course, people say I’m arrogant, so perhaps I should be more forgiving.

  • Facts are our friends
  • Chris Mason

    “Evolution… cannot fit within the parameters and parentheses of science…”

    The “parentheses of science”? Am I the the only one who doesn’t understand what the hell that’s supposed to mean?

    • You are not the only one. He clearly just doesn’t know what he’s talking about. That’s one of the reasons I included that particular quote.

      • Chris Mason

        Good call.

  • Dogmatic Scrutiny

    Our take on this video:

    • Hey, thanks for the link! I would have watched the whole thing but I don’t think I can stomach seeing any more of this bro’s arrogant face.

  • Jules

    I was going to comment but I was so disorientated by the garbage that Joshua Feuerstein spouts that I gave up and went to get myself a coffee.

    Joshua is living proof of the infinite monkey theorem. Given enough monkeys and enough time, they will stop defecating and urinating on the keyboard long enough to type a recogniseable word. Joshua Feuerstein just proves that with enough time and a complete absence of any feelings of embarrassment – he obviously never passes up an opportunity to make an idiot of himself – he will put together a theory cobbled together from misconceptions of directly observable facts.

    I believe in God and therefore anything ‘scientific’ must therefore be untrue. Well, that’s why he wears a red ski hat rather than a lab coat.

  • Bruce Norbeck

    Someday, people will stop giving this cretin air time, & there will be much rejoicing.

  • Dan

    “evolution by natural selection — has been thoroughly debunked by a Facebook video, every scientist in the world reports” bold statment to claim.

    • It’s pretty obviously satire, man. Don’t read anything into it.

  • SS

    Maybe he can use this next Sunday

  • Guest

  • Never argue with idiots! They will bring you down to their level of intelligence and beat you with experience! This guy is just a loud-mouthed moron! Provides no evidence and no real data. Just a a bunch of loud BS!

    • Well, that’s why I chose satire as the form in which I responded to his ridiculous video. I felt it allowed me to dispense with his childish claims without legitimizing them in the form of a detailed critique.

  • Guest

    His level of smug confidence combined with his despicable ignorance of basic science is completely pathetic. His arguments are old, tired and have been rebutted countless times. If he wanted to understand science, he could have opened a few books and read the material. Instead, he read some christian apologetics websites and regurgitated a load of horseshit.

  • Jimmy

    I can see from the other comments this, was supposed to be funny. HA HA HA.

  • Guest

    Tyler Francke – How does it feel like to Lie for your god? Does it feel good to create fictitious reports so you can sleep at night? I know ,you know, no scientist takes this seriously, so why in earth are you lying about it?

    “has been thoroughly debunked every scientist in the world reports?” – Really? care, to cite data on this, or is this another lie for your god? You do know that Jesus wouldn’t be happy with you fabricating stories to make you case look better…

    Here’s another question for you to ponder….Why do you have to lie? Why not openly admit that no serious academic or scientist agrees with you, well the vast vast vast vast majority…just say you have faith and that evidence isn’t on your side….Why Lie Tyler? You seem dishonest, and that isn’t a good quality to have.

    We are all interested…

    Sleep well.

    • This article is pretty obvious satire, bro. Both I and this site unapologetically affirm and promote the theory of evolution as the correct interpretation of all the available biological evidence. You probably would have known that if you had taken a fraction of the time it took to write this comment and read anything else on my site.

  • Tiago

    Freakin’ brilliant.

  • Conor

    “or his work debunking the theory of evolution.”

    So, when did he do that? So far he’s been wrong at every single argument. EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT. The idiot doesn’t even understand the Theory of Evolution. Like, seriously, at least Atheists bother to learn about Christianity or any religion before making arguments against it.

  • halflife2401


  • Seth

    In the truth is stranger than fiction category, this is the same guy who manufactured the current outrage over Starbuck’s 2015 holiday cups.
    He also got his supporters to give him $20k+ to buy a new camera for his blogging. He is still using a phone to take the videos but he has posted photos of his spiffy new designer watches and jewelry.

    • This guy, and more specifically, the incredible support and devotion he has manufactured, really, really makes me sad for the state of the church.

  • TheRedExclaimer


  • Karl Goldsmith

    I always love the view, my delusion isn’t as delusional as your delusion.

  • Ms.Imbecile

    Mr. Imbecile, have you see creation of poodle ? Did god created poodle ? Or its a product of micro evolution ? But how can micro evolution can be true if no have observed that ? Can you point one person who witnessed that ? NO ? Then its god who created the poodle !!! Oh wait, you are imbecile

    • Andy

      They say that the best online satire is indistinguishable from a sincerely held view. I genuinely have no idea which one your post is.

    • Shawn Naquin

      if you thought that was an argument, you’re wrong- you just made yourself sound dumb.

  • Trent Lammins

    Josh’s Lamborghini argument is hilarious. It is pretty entertaining fantasy, tweak it a bit and we find the perfect fantasy imagery (that disproves evolution of course).
    Here is a much better argument.
    “What if I were to tell you that somewhere in Kansas a tornado rolls through a junkyard of old cars and dogs named Toto, and somewhere on the other side of that tornado, out of that junk pile, it magically produces a perfectly silver, shiny, working Time Machine Delorean; with Bender from Futurama driving it?” Feuerstein asked in his clip. “You would tell me I was nuts. You would tell me I had lost it. You would probably try and admit me to Arkham Asylum. Why? Because that is absolutely nuts. I mean, how much nuts would it really take to believe something as nuts as that? And yet, that’s exactly what science believes. Science believes in magic and nuts. You tell me I’ve lost it? But that’s nuts.”

    • It’s satire, bro. Very, very obvious satire.

      • Trent Lammins

        Well I know your post is satire, and I was just kind of agreeing with the satire. Or are you saying Josh’s post was satire, cause I’m pretty sure he’s being serious.

  • Shawn Naquin

    You can’t just call it “stupid” and call it a way to disprove a theory (which is actually in the highest regard in science, by the way, being above a scientific law.) Can you include a list of sources to prove all these things were actually said in response to the video? Not to mention, evolution isn’t about changing to be ideal, it’s about adapting so that future generations survive long enough to be the fitter species- not the “fittest” (common misconception) but the fitter. (fitness in biology terms means how many grandchildren you have.)

  • Shawn Naquin

    also, what’s your educational background? are you simply writing an opinionated piece, or do you have the academic standards to back this up? Also: scientists don’t “believe” things- we know them to be truthful or close to the truth- we don’t believe in evolution because we don’t have faith in it- meaning we don’t pray to some kind of deity of natural selection- you seriously have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, and I feel sorry for anyone who reads this article and actually believes in it’s vagueness- because they are swimming in a pool of ignorance.

    • are you simply writing an opinionated piece, or do you have the academic standards to back this up?

      Neither. It’s satire.

  • Shawn Naquin

    Here’s everything that’s wrong with this video, as it’s presented:

    1. I don’t think you understand what parentheses are.

    2. You don’t understand what observe means. Fossil records, genetic comparisons, animal morphology, population distribution, and behavioral science all are things we can observe. Observe does not simply mean “to see,” and, in culmination of different observations, EXTRAPOLATION is a pretty important tool for scientific discovery. If you mean current, “happening” evidence, look at the white industrial moths in Britain, bacterial populations developing through evolution, pathogen de-immunization, and animal breeding.

    3. There’s nothing accidental about evolution, that implies there’s a “right way,” or a hand that could and would guide everything. There’s no correct path or goal for evolution; what happens, happens.

    4. Theory, here, is not used in the colloquial sense. Like the theory of gravity, it is a term used to describe a concept that is supported by multiple, varied, and rigorous empirical testing.

    5. Cells come from basic carbon-based chemistry, which could arrive from abiogenesis. Not magic.

    6. Different “wills” or “characteristics” as you put them are a result of evolution as well. Evolutionary psychology is an entire field. Look at behavioral sciences. Altruism, for example, is not the result of a pleasant soul, but rather the manifestations of mechanics explained in kin theory and reciprocity theory. Twins personalities, ease to aggressiveness, even susceptibility to over-eating are all similar, not because of a God-given soul, but because of genetic, neural biology.

    7. It’s not the “law of thermodynamics,” as you state, but rather the second law of thermodynamics. What it states about the decay into entropy pertains to a CLOSED SYSTEM, which we, or the Earth, are/is not. That’s what the sun is for, the same one you mention repeatedly.

    8. Evolution, again, isn’t an accident. It follows trends, in mating habits, favorable environments, and thus favorable variance in traits. Mutations, which can lead to these varying traits, are not “accidental,” and neither is gene transference. There is an order. In addition, you’re preaching the fine-tuned universe argument, which ignores that (mostly) life adapted to these conditions, the conditions didn’t adapt to life, and however unlikely the universe coming about by natural means would be, adding god to that equation makes it statistically more improbable: as Victor Stenger said, “in hypothesizing the apparent fine-tuning, it is mistaken to vary one physical parameter while keeping the others constant.”

    9. That analogy is ridiculous, and demonstrates your ignorance on evolutionary theory. You don’t know what “science believes.”

    10. The world is not perfect. Species die out. Mutations cause death. Environments change (the asteroid that killed out the dinosaurs left organisms in the ocean, which evolved out of them again; birds are the result of the last of their land dinosaur ancestors). the fact that many species over-breed to the degree that all of their offspring cannot be supported by the limiting factor of their environment actually is responsible for much of the SHAPE of what variation is found to be favorable.


    12. Genesis also says that there was light before stars, days before stars, and that there were two “first humans.” None of that is true.


    I’m a sophomore in high school. This is basic science. You’re an imbecile.