By: Dr. Jerry Bergman
Montpelier, Ohio
Maybe not love, but at least like. At its core, artificial intelligence (AI) instead of following hard-coding rules, AI learns to perform tasks by analyzing vast amounts of data, and selecting articles from the internet related to my research.
For example, I wrote an article on the viability of genetic mutations as the source of new information which is then selected by natural selection. AI found similar articles which were compared with my article.
If they come to a different conclusion this is noted. I can then examine my claims and, if I conclude that they are in error, I can edit my article accordingly.
The AI system also tests itself. When it makes a mistake, it adjusts its internal system so that it performs better next time.
Scientific papers that question dogmatic Darwinism are, in most cases, rejected by most mainline media. If, in the unlikely scenario that one is accepted, typically phone calls, letters, and emails flood the editor demanding him to pull the offending article from the journal.
Creationists soon realize this, and for this reason all three large creation organizations have begun publishing their own journals.
I often use AI for last minute checking of my articles. In the vast majority of cases, all of my arguments against Darwinism, now published in over 2,200 articles, have been accepted by AI.
A few mistakes were noted, allowing me to improve the paper. This is why most papers I now author have been evaluated by AI.
Aside from the few mistakes it catches, AI often tones down my conclusions. For example, my claim that the arguments I presented are critical in falsifying Darwinian evolution may be changed to “the arguments presented are critical in reexamining the support for evolution.”
In doing searches on topics of interest, AI often pulls up my own papers, giving me exposure not common before AI. Nonetheless, a few AI searches illustrate the dominance of human evolution. For example, in answer to the question “Human evolution is still controversial in 2026.”
AI answered “While Darwinian evolution is overwhelmingly accepted by the 97 to 99% of the scientific community as fact, human evolution remains a highly polarized public topic.
Disputing human origins is more common than questioning vaccines or climate change, largely driven by cultural and religious conflicts against secular academia, such as intelligent design advocacy groups pushing skepticism” about evolution.
In answer to “Do some credentialed scientists reject human evolution” AI answered “A tiny fraction of credentialed scientists reject human evolution, largely driven by philosophical, biblical, or intelligent design.
However, this rejection is overwhelmingly concentrated outside of evolutionary biology, and 97% of scientists agree that humans and all living things evolved over time.”
Contrary to this claim, The Discovery Institute maintains a master petition titled A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, featuring over 1,000 signatories who express skepticism that random mutation and natural selection is able to account for life’s complexity as taught by evolution.
The list includes professors, researchers, and doctoral level scientists. Notable academic figures on the roster include:
— Dr. Henry Schaefer: Director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia.
— Dr. Michael Behe: Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University (frequently highlighted for his work on intelligent design and irreducible complexity).
— Dr. Marcos Eberlin: Founder of the Thomson Mass Spectrometry Laboratory and member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences.
— Dr. Dean Kenyon: Emeritus Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University.
— Dr. Alan Linton: Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology at the University of Bristol (UK).
MY POSITION
My conclusion is random mutation and natural selection cannot account for life’s complexity. Evolutionists define evolution as a blind, unguided, and random process driven by natural selection and genetic mutations, operating without a specific endpoint or overarching goal.
Humans evolved from some primate common ancestor due to the accumulation of billions of mutations. Evolution claims that the genetic variability provided by mutations is then culled and preserved by ‘natural selection,’ a process called survival of the fittest.
The major problem with this idea is that the vast majority (≈ 40% to >50%) of new point mutations in protein-coding regions are mildly to strongly deleterious.
The remaining fraction includes a very few extremely rare beneficial mutations. A great deal about mutations is known because they are the main cause of cancer and many other diseases. In answer to the question “are less than one percent of all mutations in coding regions beneficial?”
AI agrees with me, answering “yes, less than 1% of all random mutations in protein-coding regions are beneficial. The overwhelming majority of coding mutations are either neutral or deleterious, as disrupting an existing functional protein sequence.”
A strong correlation exists between the rise of Darwinism and the fall of Christianity. Before Darwinism, 99 percent of all educated Westerners accepted the creation worldview.
After Darwin, acceptance of Darwinism has slowly been rising, especially among academicians and the mainline churches. It has been well-documented that Darwinism is the doorway to atheism.
In fact, Darwin stated that he developed his theory to ‘murder God.’ He knew that people believed in God because of the evidence of their senses, i.e., by observing the designed natural world around us, which could only exist due to a Creator God.
So, Darwin created an explanation for the creation of life that did not require a creator. In short, AI reported “97% to 99% of scientists accept human evolution.
This overwhelming scientific consensus considers human evolution over millions of years to be an undisputed fact, serving as the fundamental backdrop for all modern biological sciences.”
Yet AI admitted that “less than 1% of all random mutations in protein-coding regions are beneficial.”
In other words, over 99% of all mutations are damaging or near-neutral, meaning they only cause slight damage, but the damage adds up, eventually causing genetic catastrophe, i.e., death, and species extinction. neutral or deleterious. Thus, virtually all modern scientists accept a conclusion that is factually wrong.
———————-
Dr. Bergman is a multi-award-winning professor and author. He has 9 degrees and has taught at both the graduate and undergraduate level for over 40 years. His over 2,100 publications are in both scholarly and popular journals. Dr. Bergman’s work has been translated into 15 languages. He has spoken over 2,000 times to college, university and church groups in America, Canada, Europe, the South Sea Islands, and Africa. He lives in Montpelier and is available to present in churches and schools. Jerry can be reached at JerryBergman30@yahoo.com Bergman’s website is: https://crev.info/author/jbergman/