Archived - Ask the Expert: Jerry Bergman

Dr. Jerry Bergman has taught biology, genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, geology, and microbiology at Northwest State College in Archbold, OH for almost 20 years. He is a graduate of the Medical College of OH, Wayne State University in Detroit, the University of Toledo, and Bowling Green State University. He has over 600 publications in 12 languages and 20 books and monographs. Most recently he authored The Darwin Effect: Its Influence on Nazism, Eugenics, Racism, Communism, Capitalism, & Sexism.

Below are the questions and answers submitted while Jerry Bergman was the featured expert on

Comment by Floyd on August 29, 2014 at 3:55pm

Hello Dr Bergman,

I am having a debate with, I suspect, a Christian or someone seemingly knowledgeable about the Bible concerning macro-evolution on another forum. His worldview goes along the lines of

“It's (macroevolution) an assumption based on the most reasonable predictions based on the observed data, including the fact that life must have come from non-life at least once. That's what makes it science.”

I have not allowed him to get away with his reasoning in my reply to him, but I was wondering what your thoughts are?

Comment by Donald Smith on August 30, 2014 at 12:46pm

Hi Dr Bergman,

Charles Darwin's tree of life is 'wrong and misleading', claim scientists

Just reading some of the quotes in this article, shows a vagueness that makes evolution hard to pin down.

What are your views on Darwin's Tree of Life?

Comment by Lou Hamby on August 31, 2014 at 10:30am

Darwinian views of the phylogenetic tree is being challenged by DNA information and better science at all turns, even taxonomists are challenging the inferences and relationships that don't seem to pan out.  THis is a tool that evolutionists have used for decades to promote their agenda with ancestry.  While most people on this forum would probably accept the YE view below, I cannot rectify the observable evidences and DNA mechanisms with this...I believe the Fixity view better explains what is known and infers a Biblical model. Cheers!!!

Fixity View

YE veiw

Comment by Mary White on September 1, 2014 at 6:46am

Many Christians don't want to take the time to read or hear creation/apologetic issues.  Do you have suggestions to motivate action?  What about the much harder task of motivating pastors?

Comment by Jerry Bergman on September 3, 2014 at 1:49pm


I would point out that 99.9 percent of all mutations are near neutral or harmful. Near neutral means that they are not lethal, but add up and eventually cause genetic meltdown. Thus evolution is true, but going the wrong way! This fact is well documented scientifically and there is no way he can refute this well documented fact.

Comment by Jerry Bergman on September 3, 2014 at 1:52pm

Donald Smith.

Good post! A very common response by evolutionists is to be vague, thus they can sound correct and move around the problems as if there were none.

Comment by Jerry Bergman on September 3, 2014 at 2:05pm


I have been studying the fossil record for over 30 years and it is very clear that the creation YE view you showed is clearly supported by the facts, not the evolution view. I hope my book will be out soon on this topic. Jerry Bergman.

Comment by Jerry Bergman on September 3, 2014 at 2:05pm


How true! The best way to get them into apologetics is to let an evolutionist challenge them! As the scriptures teach, an enemy’s sword sharpens your sword. Also, involvement in a creation group can motivate many people. If they are a science major and a Christian, that usually gets them into creation books. The best (or worst, actually) example I can think of is a college professor who taught biology on the first day of class asked if anyone in the class did not accept molecules to man evolution to raise their hands. Several brave students did. He then told them to stand up, so they did. Last, he told them to leave the room and drop the class. He made it clear he did not want them in his class. So they left and dropped the class. This was told to me by a creationist who was in his class and did not raise his hand because he was forewarned as to what was coming. I have lots more stories, but this is one of the worst.

Jerry Bergman

Comment by Lou Hamby on September 3, 2014 at 2:44pm

Dear Jerry apparently you don't understand the model I posted, I am not an evolutionists and nothing about that model assumes such. Your YE model you stand behind starts with an animals species...lets say a mammoth. Within the confines of Mammoths and mastodons there are something like 10 or 11 I believe.  What your model assumes is an original ancestor and off that ancestor branched new body plans and new species?  IS this what you support?  I do not, I believe that if you have studied the fossil record then it should be clear that the columbian mammoth, the woolly or the mastodon, or the T-Rex has one body plan period,  every time that body is dug up we recognize it as that "specific" species.  What we know about the fossil record is that that specie was created by GOD that is the bible.  Within the confines of the creative acts of God, For as long as Mammoths or T-Rex or what ever species you want to inculcate, they had the same body plan over the time they lived and finally went extinct.  Now we also have 100,000's of "living fossils" that have a fossil record but still live today.  We show no change in their body plans.  THe horseshoe crab, the cockroach, the Flying lizard, Geckos, Anoles, Tuatara, Coelacanths, orb spider --  these are just a small sample of living fossils.  The only thing we observe is one line of decendancy from the time the animal shows up in the fossil record and until it wether goes extinct or it still lives today?  So I think you misunderstood what my model represents.... Since this seems to be observable record in every living fossil I have studied or ascertained, there is no evidences of these animals such as  dinos, Mammoths, Marine dino fish, etc. is clearly a single line of ascendancy. The same animals 6,000 years ago on the Savannah's are still producing the same body plans.  Where in that model (YE) does animals species originally created by God branch off into new body plans?  THe only way body plans can be changed is through hybridization but all species are not from Hybridization although rarely in nature hybridization does take place.  Only procreative genes can be responsible for new body plans.  When God made "animal" his Biblical expectation was the male and female would have offspring of the same.  This is exactly what we observe in the fossil record (Fixity view).  Therefore I have a hard time rectifying that model with known DNA, gene, and procreative protocols as observed in the record.  By the way I am YE as well on purpose because the evidences lead me there.  I am not an evolutionist, I believe the bible is clear about Gods work in nature.  Having spent the last 45 years of my life in nature studying reptiles, I am well acquainted with the spectrum of eco-niche to body plan designs and what is observable in all facets of the record. 

Comment by Floyd on September 4, 2014 at 7:47am

Dr. Bergman, it seems to me the persons point about macro-evolution fails on five different distinct levels:

  1. Life cannot come from non-life, not even once. That is, it needs a higher life to create life where there were no life. Reproduction and Natural selection is missing here. Which makes macro-evolution impossible. 
  2. Up until the first reproductive cell, mutations and natural selection is an irrelevance. Reproduction, Natural selection and mutations are irrelevant here. Which makes macro-evolution impossible. 
  3. When there is reproduction natural selection only works when a phenotype appears such a nose, eyebrow, etc. This means natural selection is no help to mutations up until the phenotype appears. Natural selection is no help here. Which makes macro-evolution impossible.
  4. Natural selection is indifferent to a change at the nucleic acid sequencing level, because natural selection is blind to potential functionality that produces the phenotype. Natural selection is no help here. Which makes macro-evolution impossible. 
  5. 99.9 percent of all mutations are near neutral or harmful. Near neutral means that they are not lethal, but add up and eventually cause genetic meltdown. Which makes macro-evolution go the wrong way.

The very foundations that macro-evolution needs for the three core components to work together (such as mutations, natural selection, reproduction) simply isn’t there in the first place. Am I missing something? How can Professors, Highly qualified individuals miss such elementary failings?

Comment by Lou Hamby on September 4, 2014 at 8:42am

Dr. Bergman loved your response to Floyd!!!  

Comment by Jerry Bergman on September 4, 2014 at 4:30pm


Thanks for your note.I agree with most of what you wrote. I am at the college now and will respond ASAP!


Comment by Jerry Bergman on September 11, 2014 at 11:56am

I will try to respond now to Lou.

All I am saying is that the original created kinds have an inbuilt ability to produce great variety. A good example is the dog kind, from which we have several different breeds od dogs. A new report on a zebra and a donkey shows they can inter breed, and we now know that many kinds of big cats can inter breed. This is not evolution, but variation within the genesis kind. The same is true of people. From Adam and Eve we got 10 or so what we used to call races. Clear limits exist, thus documenting the genesis kind concept. Does this help? Read the book titled close to  The Limits of Genetic Change.

Comment by Jerry Bergman on September 11, 2014 at 11:57am


You background is very interesting!! Please tell us more. Thanks!


Comment by Jerry Bergman on September 11, 2014 at 12:03pm

A news report from Christianity Today:

InterVarsity Christian Fellowship (IVCF) has been, in modern campus terminology, “derecognized” by California State University schools. Basically, they will no longer be a recognized campus organization on any of the 23 schools in that system. IVCF has been derecognized because they require their leaders to have Christian beliefs.

It's not just InterVarsity that will be impacted. Following the same logic, any group that insists on requiring its leaders to follow an agreed upon set of guiding beliefs is no longer kosher (irony intended) at California's state universities. This will impact many other faith-based organizations with actual, well, faith-based beliefs. Presumably, even People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals would have to allow Oscar Meyer to lead their campus chapters. Only in a modern American university would this make any sense.

This problem is a major concern of mine, and it relates to my latest book published by Master books titled The Darwin Effect. Any feedback on this????

Comment by Jerry Bergman on September 11, 2014 at 12:09pm

Another example

He also ruled:


Initially, it must be noted that a wealth of evidence was presented to substantiate that John Freshwater was a successful eighth grade science teacher.  Many, possibly most of his students seemed to enjoy his class and remember it fondly.  On the average, Freshwater students performed at or above the state requirements and expectations for eighth grade science students. 


He added that Freshwater’s did not buy evolution, concluding that


John Freshwater’s bias grew from his fervent and deep seated Christian beliefs.  Such beliefs and convictions, while admirable character traits in other settings, proved to be John Freshwater’s downfall as an eighth grade science teacher in a public school.  .


In fact the conclusion that he was a Christian was only inferred and it was never brought out in court that he was a Christian. The judge concluded


Both overtly and covertly, John Freshwater began to instruct his eighth grade students in such a way that they were examining evidence both for and against evolution. 


This was not acceptable.


One of his sins was to allow the students extra credit to view the film Expelled on their own time. As a result, he was expelled, lost his career, his home, and his ability to make a living!

Comment by Jerry Bergman on September 11, 2014 at 12:11pm

The above post should have read the Judge ruled, not He also ruled

Comment by Lou Hamby on September 11, 2014 at 3:41pm

Jerry I will let this go, your giving me a canned answer to a mechanism that does not exist.  What I mean by this, you give me “variation”, the model YE employs is not variation its body plan changes from kinds???  Of course there is variations and mutations we both agree on that, I did say that above.  But the only reason we have thousands of dog species is because of Hybridization which indeed changes the procreative genes. This is due to man’s tampering.  

That mechanism is observable.  However in nature Hybridization rarely if ever happens,  and this is not a mechanism for creation of all species in the beginning.  God created specific body plans.  Those body plans are inculcated with a specific DNA dialogue or information that cannot be changed out side of procreation.  Animals have no power of “self-determination” whatsoever. While we all agree there is variation, variation does not produce new body plans and/or species.  Having studied Biology I know you are well aware that new species cannot come from variation. You re probably aware that the California King Snake has 21 difference color morphs or variations in color dependent on locals, however each and every one of them are indeed California King Snakes....

In other words,  I do not accept your inference that say two terrestrial green iguanas could mate and the off spring of that mating could produce change and a whole new whole body plan and eventually come up with 11 or 12 sperate iguana species???  Where would the new DNA information come form Jerry?  There is no known mechanism ever observed in nature that a male and female could produce a whole new species.  IF your trying to defend this, your going to have a huge uphill battle to produce evidence.  Every observable part of nature living and dead shows male and female and the offspring the same.

 With respect to hybridization I have often mentioned as an example Goode's Horned Lizard which is a cross between a Flat tail Horned Lizards and a Desert Horned Lizard.  These were discovered back in the 40's around Ocotillo Wells (Southern California Desert) where the two species intergrade into the same distribution area.  These indeed did mate and produce a hybrid.  The hybrid has now been given a new species status (Phrynosoma goode).  But you cannot invoke this as a basis for the observable fossil record which is clearly evidence of fixity and not Kinds changing body plans.  The only expectation of Gods creative acts (per scripture) was male and female would have offspring and that offspring would indeed be the same kind. Jerry your argument does not support this, so I question where in scripture you can come up with variation in kinds because the scripture through out history of man and animal is the same, the only exception is hybridization, but this is not a viable mechanism.

This (male-female-offspring)) is observable in the animal kingdom, I was very clear about what I said.  You are inferring hybridization which you believe answers the plethora of species we observe?  You know and I know that hybridization is not responsible for the species. Gods specific design and creation is.... God did not give the animal kingdom “self-determination” any more than any human has.  I believe the scriptures and they say that when he created the whole biosphere he said to was good and rested, all that ever was needed was taken care of in the first creation week.  

Continued to next page.....

Comment by Lou Hamby on September 11, 2014 at 3:42pm

Continued from above to Jerry:

IF what you imply were true--then you could sequence any species like the Goode's Horned Lizard  or h*** sapien, or neanderthal-h*** sapien and find DNA for both the flat tail and the desert horned lizard.  So hybridization is easy to understand, but this does no coincide with the two models I put up in the original post. Having read some of your stuff I already know you know that to be the truth.  I really appreciate the way you do put things together.  But this one place that YE colleagues are gravitating too is something that needs to be discussed in further detail, some on the forum are bothered by what I say because they have been spoon fed this idea which is theoretical but has no mechanism.  Period.     
 Continued to next page.....So  Specific Information, specific DNA, specific design, and specific placement....within the context of design max-min affords you no opportunity to imply male and female having some “self determination” through variation and producing new body plans.  Humans rightly do have different hair, different colors, different builds, just like lizards, foxes , dogs, that is clearly observable!!  What we don't see is new humankind. New species being procreated from a male and female of certain kind.   The are all h*** sapiens.... This is Gods design.  I’ll say this again, the murals on the walls of Egypt are covered with pictures of various species.  There is no doubt that the same species multiplying across the land of Egypt are still producing the same species unless they are extinct, when God gave natural history to each and every animals species as well as their symbiotic relationships which no one here speaks about, clearly this information is fixed within the body plan. How about the travel of the Monarch Butterfly, that’s not evolution, or variation, that is specific information and design, via natural history for that insect.

Jerry if you would like to have further more specific discussions about this I am open.  There seems to be one answer on the forum -- what I don’t understand is why you and others with such a great background buy into this theory when there is no demonstrable evidence or mechanism for it’s workings? I think our YE people should look at this deeper and move away from evolutionary inferences and follow the biblical language closely. Why are we (Christians) trying to reinvent the wheel with Kinds.  We already have a systematic that could be adopted by Christians and defined in light of scripture and the observable.  Everything I have spoken of here is not some rocket science, but strictly observable in the animal kingdom and the fossil is evidence and is staring us right in the face.....

Comment by Jerry Bergman on September 11, 2014 at 4:32pm

Any feedback on my new book? A review of the last book  published by Master books I especially enjoyed is as follows

   Upon being instructed to purchase this book for a class material, I was slightly apprehensive. I hold Charles Darwin in very high regard, and held his beliefs very closely to mine. When the first assignment came about to read one section, I found myself diving further into the book then required from the assignment. Unlike most books about this type of subject, the book was written in a way that is very easy to understand and truly get involved. After finishing the section that was required for my assignment, I found myself going back to the start of the book to read more. This book shines an interesting like on Darwin, and has certainly opened my eyes to parts of this man that are not usually discussed. I would suggest this book to anyone who thinks they know about Charles Darwin, and would like to expand their mindset more.

Comment by Jerry Bergman on September 11, 2014 at 4:33pm


Thanks for your note. I have published several papers on this topic that I could send you. I assume that you subscribe to The Creation Research Journal and other creation journals. I agree with most of what you wrote. My one concern is the concept of species is very problematic. Also, new variety, not new whole new body plans, (something I never accepted or implied), results from genetic crossing over during meiosis, epigenetics, regulation variations and other mechanisms.

Comment by Jerry Bergman on September 11, 2014 at 4:34pm

My address at the college is

Jerry Bergman PhD Northwest State College 22600 State Rt 34 Archbold, OH 43502

Comment by Jerry Bergman on September 11, 2014 at 8:55pm
My newest book, The Darwin Effect will be out next week and can be pre-ordered now (see Amazon link below or better order directly from Master books). It has no competition and shows the social implications of Darwinism. I have invested 30 years of research in this book.
In short, According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (Oxford University Press, 2001) and other reliable sources, 77 million Christians were martyred since Christ walked the earth, and 45.5 million were martyred in the last century alone, and I document with around 1,000 footnotes that a major reason was the Darwinism philosophy. The book was peer reviewed by three PhD historians. World Magazine cover story of May 17 documented the plight of Christians in Iraq and the middle east as a whole, which is a continuation of this problem.
Comment by Floyd on September 12, 2014 at 4:25am

Will the book be in an eBook format as well as paperback? Without having the privilege of reading the book, is it only specific to Christianity? I am assuming that Christians didn't suffer alone under social Darwinism. Who suffered the most? And is suffering only defined by numbers? I’m sure aborted babies will far supersede martyred Christians or the progressive extinction of the aborigines. 

Comment by Lou Hamby on September 12, 2014 at 9:49am

Jerry I must of misunderstood your view. I would love to exchange over the "new variety" as you say.  Should I write you or can we exchange by friending on the forum here and private email, or could I give you my private email.  There is no rush at all with this, but I would be interested in discussing body plans further....Thanks for your kindly response... Cheers. 

Comment by Lou Hamby on September 12, 2014 at 9:57am

I agree with you about species... totally, however we already have a sytematics in place, within the confine of that, a Christian response could easily be ascertained. Having read many YE articles on KInds and new research via the 81/14 latest article, I see the KInds as a much more difficult problem, I also think that the Bible while not using species does specify specific animals and kinds "can" imply species.  MY discussions with Christian YE biologists they too write their papers with using species such as Tom Hannigan and others. THere needs to be a drill down and kinds is too high up from the actual.  Yes its horned lizard but what kind?  What does its morphological characteristics infer short horned, long tail no tail, horn structure etc.  al require specific nomenclature to describe.  So while I am fine at the family level with Horned lizard, the specifics of the various "kinds" needs a drill down.  I do think Christians could use the systematics that exist and tweak it to a Biblical expression, but that just one idea....  Species indeed has issues....  Cheers!!

Comment by Mary White on September 12, 2014 at 10:20pm

Referring to The Darwin Effect comment - When the decay or genetic entropy of the Human DNA is widely accepted, eugenics on a grand scale may happen.  Christians, with their value of human life, could be seen as accelerating the decay by allowing physically or mentally inferior people to live.  And theistic evolutionists could support the eugenics, since God created by letting the unfit die.  Governments and people of the world could get very harsh again, but with the new  technology they could be far more controlling.   Your book is historical research, but do you write about possible future events?

Comment by Jerry Bergman on September 15, 2014 at 2:22pm


Thanks for your note. Sorry I have not been able to respond sooner. I was on a speaking tour and was kept very busy and did not have my computer with me. If you write me I would like you to serve as a professional reviewer for a paper I am working on. You will be a perfect reviewer. You are clearly very knowledgeable and have a lot of facts at your fingertips. The conflict we had at the beginning was terminology, and I believe you could help me with that. Thanks!!!  I am always looking for good reviewers in my role as the biology editor for the Creation Research Society Quarterly

Comment by Jerry Bergman on September 15, 2014 at 2:31pm


Well put! This is why Hitler and others wanted to destroy Christianity. The concern is life, and to conclude, as Darwin did, that we should destroy inferior races and people or evolution,  is naive to say the least. And yes I do write about future events. Darwin's exact words are:

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.


Comment by Jerry Bergman on September 15, 2014 at 2:32pm

Thus the fact is

“Darwinism by itself did not produce the Holocaust, but without Darwinism... neither Hitler nor his Nazi followers would have had the necessary scientific underpinnings to convince themselves and their collaborators that one of the worlds greatest atrocities was really morally praiseworthy.” 
―    Richard Weikart,    From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in...

Comment by Jerry Bergman on September 15, 2014 at 2:34pm

My conclusion is, althought I am not a Catholic, I agree with the Pope on this topic

“We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God.” 
―    Pope Benedict XVI

Comment by Jerry Bergman on September 15, 2014 at 2:36pm

A common responce to Darwinism is it is scientific consensus. My responce is

“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.” 
―    Michael Crichton MD Harverd University Medical School

Comment by Jerry Bergman on September 15, 2014 at 4:13pm

My new book,The Darwin Effect, published by Masters books will both an E-book and a paperback.

About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms

Homeschool Curriculum


Creation Conversations 2018

What's new @ CC for 2018? 

Creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2019   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service