Click here to view CMI's position on climate change.

Steve Jones and Hans Christian Andersen


Published: 10 January 2012 (GMT+10)
Illustration by Caleb Salisbury
Richard Dawkins, fellow evolutionist of Steve Jones, meets his fish ancestors.

What do Steve Jones and Hans Christian Andersen have in common? They both tell great fairy tales.

Evolutionary geneticist Steve told a beauty in his latest article “Islam, Charles Darwin and the denial of science” published in The Telegraph on 3 December 2011.1 Here is how he starts:

“The story began long ago, when our ancestors were fish. … ”

Our ancestors were fish?! You must agree that is an imaginative story! But Steve is serious and he gets upset because some of his students at University College London don’t believe him.

“Some [Muslim students], unfortunately, refuse to accept Darwin’s theory on faith grounds, as do some of their Christian fellows.”

But why should anyone accept Darwin’s theory on faith grounds? (Sorry, I couldn't resist that pun.) Steve should provide evidence. What evidence does he give that molecules once turned into a living, self-replicating cell—presto? (It had to be “presto” because all the interdependent, nano-machinery had to appear suddenly at the same instant or it would not work.) Further, what evidence does he give that this single cell evolved over billions of years into people?

Evidence is what makes science different from fairy tales. To be fair, Steve says he did appeal to his students with evidence:

“I have tried asking students at quite what point they find my lectures unacceptable: is it the laws of inheritance, mutation, the genes that protect against malaria or cancer, the global shifts in human skin colour, Neanderthal DNA, or the inherited differences between apes and men?”

Steve Jones

There is no argument over this evidence. What we don’t accept is Steve’s belief that this evidence supports molecules-to-man evolution. It doesn’t.

A search on creation.com on relevant key words (e.g.: ‘inheritance’, ‘mutation’, ‘natural selection’, ‘malaria resistance’, ‘human skin colour’, ‘human genome’, ‘Neanderthal DNA’, ‘ape human similarities’) reveals lots of articles that address the evidence and present the arguments why it does not support evolution.

This is why the students think Steve’s interpretation of the evidence is not compelling. So, instead of calling them names and saying that they deny science, scientists like Steve Jones should respect their skepticism and engage the scientific arguments.


  1. Jones, S., Islam, Charles Darwin and the denial of science, The Telegraph, 3 December 2011; www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8931518/Islam-Charles-Darwin-and-the-denial-of-science.html. Return to text.

Helpful Resources

Readers’ comments

Mike W.
A few years ago I attended a Steve Jones presentation about creation/evolution in Chester city, UK.
He spent most of the talk telling us how much the AIDS virus has changed from its first human victim in 1959 till now. He then said “How much more evidence do you need for evolution?” I nearly choked on my coffee.
It’s called Bait and Switch.
Michael S.
I am just reading Werner Gitt’s “Without excuse”. Very strong. The most important ideas for Christians to learn. I have also just read Programming of Life By Don E. Johnson (who states that he is only looking at the science of life to avoid any talk of higher powers). Equally powerful and crammed with information. He points out where Science and Darwinism separate and states that Darwinism is FALSE. Some Scientists are waking up.
God Bless you in your great work
Richard M.
Dear Tas-
I think that you have seriously misread the sentence “Some [Muslim students], unfortunately, refuse to accept Darwin’s theory on faith grounds, as do some of their Christian fellows.” Jones is saying that the students refuse to accept the theory, their refusal being based on the grounds of their own religious faith. He is NOT saying that they refuse to accept the theory by faith and without evidence-he would not ask that of them. In other words, he is not asking them to accept the theory on faith; rather, he is saying that their religious faith is an impediment to their acceptance of the theory. These are very important distinctions.
Tas Walker
Dear Richard,

I understand what Steve was trying to say which is why I put that bit in parenthesis about the pun. But the so-called evidence that Steve presents does not support molecules-to-man evolution, as I explained in the article. In other words, he accepts evolution on faith. The point is that he won’t even consider the possibility of creation, is because of his atheistic commitment—his faith.
John B.
It is a pity that CMI did not express their dismay at what Jones continues to spew out in his commentary in the Telegraph. He says, “Anyone, of course, is free to believe whatever they wish. But why train to become a biologist, or a doctor, when you deny the very foundations of your subject? For a biology student to refuse to accept the fact of evolution is equivalent to choosing to do a degree in English without believing in grammar, or in physics with a rooted objection to gravity: it makes no sense at all. The same is true for doctors. How can you put a body right with no idea as to why it is liable to go wrong?”
This is the worst case of strawman special pleading I have ever seen, and Jones clearly hasn’t got a clue what he is saying here. Evolutionary Biology is most certainly NOT a prerequisite for becoming a doctor or a biologist. I am a biomedical scientist and evolutionary theory plays no part in my work or any associated part of known medicine that I know of! You certainly do not require a knowledge of evolutionary biology to put a “body right” Mr. Jones!! It is evolution that has put medicine back, as far as medical advances are concerned. A good example are all the back problems that are wrongly associated with evolution, and the misnomer that the appendix and other known organs are so called vestigial. Do your research Mr. Jones and you will understand just why your students disagree with your evolutionary fairy tales.
Frank G.
Darwin’s “theory”? That’s giving it too much credit. Evolution is only a hypothesis, and we need to remember to call it that.
Egil W.
Well, if this is the same Steve Jones that wrote “In the blood: God, genes and destiny”, it is not surprising that he doesn`t like creationism. In this book he somehow must make an admittance that the O.T. is the first book that seriously traces human lineages through blood-line-inheritance, but still he uses opportunities to ridicule Christian and biblical belief, instead of giving the Bible credit for being historically sober and genetically coherent. Long before systematic genetics were established, the O.T. describes history as following successive generations, and the Law of Moses warns against sexual alliances that would later be scientifically verified to be degenerative, unfruitful and unnatural (Leviticus 18). He thus finds an ancient text that he must admit to have made a lot of genetically sound points, but he does not seem eager to acknowledge the Supreme benevolent Intelligence inspiring this text. Why? I guess he would have to have bowed his heart to Jesus Christ if he followed consistently the implications of what he had found. Let us pray that all evolutionists bow their hearts, their minds and their soul to their Creator, the Creator of the Great Shema (Deut. 6,4, Mark 12,29) and His Son Jesus Christ (Proverbs 30,4-5, Isaiah 9,6)!
Geoff H.
The theory of evolution seems to be evolving but it still can’t prove that people are evolving. I find that highly ironic and extremely sad at the same time.
Glen H.
The fact of what we find with our own genome is enough to wipe this failed hypothesis off the map. The human genome (and that of other creatures) is degenerating, not evolving, and this has evolutionists worried. Where is the upwardly mobile gain in genetic information required by their hypothesis?
Jack C.
Yes, it would help to put those who believe in the theory of evolution in their proper place. It’s just a theory and a badly formulated one at best, a false and corrupted one at worst. The so called evidence doesn’t prove a thing, and in some cases actually disproves the theory outright. So, those people who believe in the theory are doing so with blind faith and guess work, certainly not with real science.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.