Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Darwinism and the Problem With the Fossil Record

I'm a Darwin skeptic, and it has nothing to do with religion, the Bible or creationism.  I say this because the Darwinists do not take too kindly to anyone who does not buy Darwinian evolution as being without question.  My skepticism is due to the fact that the theory has not been proven, despite what you hear from Darwinists.  My main point is that the fossil record does not have any proof of any transitional forms, required by Darwin's theory.  On social media, you should see the responses to any dissent; it is vicious.  Ad hominem attacks are the order of the day.  The Darwinist immediately go to their first strategy when answering a Darwin skeptic: you're a creationist or a Bible thumper.  This is a way of dismissing you without answering your argument.

I admire Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution.   I read his masterpiece, "On the Origin of Species;" twice.  First as a young college student and a second time over 30 years later.  Darwin was a great scientist.  He stated his theory and made it falsifiable.  According to Wikipedia falsifiability is: "refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is the inherent possibility that it can be proven false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which negates the statement in question."  Darwin specifically hung his theory on the fossil record.  He made this statement in The Origin of Species:  “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.”  Darwin believed that the fossil record eventually would prove his theory, once it was complete.  One hundred and fifty years later, the fossil record is no better than in 1859 when the Origin of Species was published.  Click here for a fine article by Casey Luskin on this problem.

Darwinists will tell you that there are transitional forms such as Archaeopteryx, wales and others.  None of these have any conclusive proof that such is the case. Here is another article in a science journal that denies that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form.   The data, on the contrary, lacks conclusive evidence of any transitional forms.  The Cambrian Explosion is one of the best case against transitional forms.  All the fossils appeared suddenly and complete species.  Most scientists admit that they have a problem with the fossil record.  Ask any Darwinist where the conclusive evidence is and they will circle the wagons.  There is no conclusive evidence, period.

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

What is a "Creationist"?

Whenever a Darwinists, or any proponent of Darwinian evolution encounters a proponent of Intelligent Design (ID) they will quickly brand them as a "creationist."  They do not define what they mean by "creationist."  Click here for a detailed definition of what is referred to as "creationism." This is usually used as a way to dismiss the ID proponent as being a religious nut.   There are two big reasons why this is false:

1.  Darwinist will call an ID proponent a "creationist," meaning they are Bible thumpers that can be dismissed out of hand.  After all, the Bible is not science, so an ID person must be an anti-science person.  False.  First of all the Bible does not say that the earth was created in six literal days.  Those who believe in a literal interpretation of this are plainly mistaken.  The Bible says that one day is like a thousand days, for instance.  See 2 Peter 3:8 which states:  "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."  I've read over 30 books by ID proponents.  Not one has ever stated that he/she believes in creationism.  There are Christians who believe in creationism, meaning the the earth was created in six literal days, but I've never heard of one ID proponent claiming to be a creationist.  I'm not a creationist.  I believe that God created the universe but I also believe that science has shown the universe to be about 13.7 billion years old and the earth about 4.5 billions years old.  Even if you are a "creationist" how does that negate the evidence of ID?  If you brain surgeon is a creationist will this disqualify him from doing brain surgery?  When you disagree you must present evidence to nullify the other's evidence, not ad hominem attacks.

2. When Darwinist call an ID proponent a "creationist," they falsely assume this.  They believe that since you're not a Darwinist you must be a "creationist.  Again, this is a false charge not based on any knowledge of the accused person.

The Darwinist handle any opposition with ad hominem attacks; they try to slime you.  They do not present opposing evidence, they just call you names such as "creationist," anti-science and other hateful epithets.  A few years ago I attended a debate at Biola University in La Mirada, California where a Christian debated an atheist, William Lane Craig was the Christian and Peter Singer of Princeton University, the atheist.  Darwinist will never allow an ID person to step foot in a college campus.

If you're a science teacher, try mentioning any evidence against the Darwinian theory and see what happens.  You will be escorted out of the school and fired on the spot.  Is this academic freedom?  This is pure academic tyranny.  A few years ago a movie was released dealing with this issue and details what happened to scientists who dared say anything other than tow the Darwinian line.  Watch a trailer of this film here.  

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

My Way or the Highway: Why Opponents of ID Will Not Let Them Speak

On today's Michael Medved radio show he had a person on who represents the Freedom from Religion Foundation; an organization that  is against religion in the public square and in education.  They're suing a professor at Ball State University who dared to disagree with Darwin in one of his physics classes.  Now the very first question is why sue someone in court who disagrees with you on a scientific point?  Why not present the evidence against that view?  Perhaps they don't have any.  Why are Darwinist so threatened by Intelligent Design (ID)?  I believe they're petrified that their faith in Darwin is being destroyed. What happened to academic freedom?  The Freedom From Religion representative kept saying that ID has been debunked.  What?  Have you seen the list of prominent scientists who disagree with Darwin?  Click here to see it.  This is academic tyranny run amok.

The representative of this organization against religion in the public square kept calling Intelligent Design advocates, "creationists."  Now they never define what they mean by "creationist."  They use this as a epithet against anyone who disagrees with them.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  ID advocates make no such claim to be "creationists."  A creationist is one who believes that the earth was created about six thousand years ago.  This is based on a mis-reading of the Bible.  The Bible makes no such claim that the each was created in six thousand years.  Opponents of ID always refer to us as "creationists."  This is an outright lie but it is their favorite method of answering why they oppose ID.  Memo to Darwinists:  Ad hominem attacks does not offer any evidence against ID.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Believe or be Banned: The Intolerance of the Darwinists

Darwinian evolutionists have a stranglehold the science of evolution.  A skeptic of Darwinian evolution cannot exist in any public institution of higher learning, High School and beyond.  If a teacher ever says anything close to casting any doubt on Darwinian evolution he/she will be expelled forthwith.  The fine documentary film,  Expelleddocumented this well.

Now, I thought that science meant to follow the evidence wherever it leads.  Apparently not, when it comes to anyone challenging evolution.  Why is the science establishment so afraid of anyone who doubts or wants to look into anything other than the party line?  Could it be that they're not so sure, or better yet, they don't have the evidence?

I've been a Darwin skeptic since my first Anthropology class in college.  After reading Darwin's classic  The Origin of Species,  I suspected then that Darwin had jumped the sharks after he claimed that the beak change in Finches could be a sign of one species turning into another.  Nothing of the kind has ever happened.  I believed then and I still believe now that Darwin was a great scientist.  I believe that The Origin of Species deserves to be an all time classic;  it is.  Darwin, was an honest scientist.  He clearly stated that if what he proposed in this book did not turn out to be true, such as the fossil record, his theory would break down.  The fossil record is no better now than it was in 1859 when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species.  Where are the transitional forms?  They have not come up with a single one yet; evolutionists  will circle the wagons and dazzle you with their vacuous scientific jargon.  I have a simple question:  Show me the transitional forms?

Darwinian evolution is more blind faith than science.  Their definition of science is all the evidence that "we" allow and if you present anything else you will be eliminated.  Back to the fossil record.  Ask any Darwinian about the Cambrian Explosion and see what he says.  The Cambrian Explosion is a devastating rebuttal to gradual incremental change.  All the fossils found there were all fully formed; no transitional forms; no gradual incremental change.  Click here to watch this YouTube video about the Cambrian Explosion.  I'm convinced that Darwinian evolution has been the biggest fraud committed on science in history. Darwinians are the Bernie Madoff of science.  A house built on sand.

Most Darwinists will tell you that most scientists support Darwinian evolution.  In fact this is not true.  Click here for a list of hundreds of top scientists who dissent from Darwin.  The Darwinists will answer with ad hominem attacks; they will call you every name in the book but cannot prove their theory.  One of their favorite ad hominem attack is to call you a "creationist" or a religious zealot.  No, show me the transitional forms.  If you cannot prove your theory, calling people names will not do it.

Monday, March 5, 2012

To Chase the Wind: In Search of Darwinian Evolution

The 1960 movie Inherit the Wind is used frequently by those who support Darwinian evolution to point to the supposed stupidity of not believing in evolution .   The movie made those who opposed evolution look like religious fools.  Nothing is further from the truth.  The movie had a designed bent in favor of evolutionist and it was a very biased point of view.  The truth behind this movie is beyond this piece so I will not spend any more time on it.

In my introductory piece, I mentioned that Charles Darwin was a good scientist who was intellectually honest.  Darwin makes this statement in "On the Origin of Species:"  "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."   Here is the question: Do we have evidence today that answers Darwin's statement?  After 150 years the answer is no. Darwin's theory has broken down, as he predicted.

It was no accident that two years after the publication of On the Origin of Species, Darwin's followers came up with a missing link:  Archaeopteryx, the oldest bird.  For 150 years Darwinists have used this bird as the missing link.  As it turns out this bird was not the oldest bird and Darwinist now have been reluctantly forced to abandon it, but it was done quietly.  Wow!  The bird that you based your belief in Darwinism is now gone?  Click here for more information on this.  As it turns out, Archaeopteryx was not really a bird after all, but a dinosaur.

Another arrow into the heart of Darwinian evolution are the icons they've trotted out in the last 150 years.  Icons such as Piltdown Man, The Miller-Urey Experiment, Haeckel's Embryos,  Darwin's Finches, Peppered Moths and many others have proved to be false or not supported by the evidence.  Let's take Piltdown Man who was first introduced in 1912.  Piltdown Man was exposed to be a fraud.  According the the book, Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells, in 1953 scientists proved that Piltdown Man, though thousands of years old, belonged to a modern human, while the jaw fragments was more recent, and belongs to a modern orangutan.  Haeckel's embryos drawings have been proven to be fakes. In his popular book, Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells points out that scientists in the middle 1990s, in an interview with Science Magazine, concluded that: "It looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology (p.92).  Yet these drawings still appear in modern biology textbooks.  The Miller-Urey experiment has now proven not to support what it proposed to support.  The Peppered Moths turned out to be planted on the trees and a complete fraud, as described by Wells's Icons of Evolution.

The biggest challenge to Darwinism though is the Cambrian Explosion, which is rarely mentioned in evolution books.  The Cambrian Explosion which happened about 500 million years ago shows the animal forms complete with no evolutionary connection at all.  Phillip E. Johnson, in his book Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds says this about the Cambrian Explosion:  "The basic animal groups appear suddenly and without evidence of evolutionary ancestors.  What is even more interesting is that the evidence for Darwinian's macroevolutinary transformations is most conspicuously absent just where the fossil evidence is most plentiful among marine invertebrates." A documentary was done a few years ago by Illustra Media called Darwin's Dilemma that beautifully describes in vivid dramatic detail why this is such a big issue challenging Darwinism.  The DVD is still available.  Click on the indicated hyperlink to see it on Amazon.com.

Obviously, this is a huge subject and many books have been written on these issues.  One important clue about why evolution, as described by neo-Darwinists, is not credible is how they react to anyone who does not follow their line:  They blow them away, literally.  No biology professor can survive if he/she remotely questions Darwinism.  As an example, click here to read about how the editor of a Smithsonian science magazine was fired for printing a peer reviewed and approved article by Stephen Meyer, PhD, favorable to Intelligent Design. No opposing views are tolerated.

Dr. Meyer later wrote a devastating rebuttal to Darwinian evolution in his best selling book, Signature in the cell. The Darwinian way is "our way or the highway."  This is science?  The 2008 movie "Expelled" dealt with this issue in detail.  The movie is still available on DVD.  Click here for a short trailer.  This is akin to the Muslim way of executing anyone who leaves Islam, as is the current case of a Christian Pastor in Iran who has been sentenced to death for converting to Christianity.  Anyone who questions Darwin is sentenced to a figurative death by the Taliban wing of science, the Darwinian evolution lobby.

Opponents of Intelligent Design (ID) will often tell you that it is not science.  They will usually link ID to creationism.  This is totally untrue and a way to avoid the issue instead of giving an answer.  Dr. Stephen Meyer, author of the popular book just mentioned earlier has a fine seven minute video on just this issue.  Click here to view it.

Monday, February 27, 2012

Why I Believe in Intelligent Design

When I was a young, green, college student at Compton College California in 1966, I took an Anthropology class; the teacher was Mr. Kay, I don't remember his first name.  In the class we were required to read the classic by Charles Darwin, On The Origin of Species.  After reading the book and the following class discussions, I was puzzled by Darwin's argument on the Galapagos Finches, which is a major reason he gave for his theory.  I found the argument unconvincing to say the least.  How can a slight increase or decrease (no more than one fifth of an inch) in the the size of a small bird's beak  be used to jump to the conclusion that this supports species changing from one to another, say, a fish to a bird or an aquatic animal to a land animal, and all you needed is time.  I found it to be quite a stretch.

In the late 1990s, I happened to hear a radio interview with Phillip Johnson, a law professor from the University of California at Berkley, who had written a book called Darwin on Trial .  When I heard Dr. Johnson speak it quickly ignited my interest in Darwinian evolution.  Johnson challenged Darwin's views using a courtroom method of challenging a premise to see if it could be true.  To date, I've read about 30 books on the subject and continue to be energized by it.  What puzzles me today is how Darwinism is taken as proven fact and how anyone who challenges their view is demonized and, in some cases, viciously attacked.   Why would anyone be annoyed, as Darwinists are, when they hear dissenting views?  This, to me, says that they are not at all comfortable with their evidence.  if they were, why would they be so exorcised by any dissent?  It is obvious to me that the Darwinian view is more faith than evidence, whereas, Intelligent Design is based on the preponderance of evidence as seen in the fine tuning of the universe. How people can say that the universe is the result of mindless chance is, again, beyond me.  Darwin's main claim was that, although his fossil record was incomplete, in time scientists would find the missing links.  One hundred and fifty years later there are still no missing links.

Now, I have great respect for Charles Darwin, and specifically his work The Origins of Species.  Darwin was a good scientist.  I believe that he followed the scientific method and was intellectually honest.  In this work, Darwin did point out the weakness of his theory but he believed that his theory would be justified once science found the missing pieces, specifically the missing fossils.  Darwin further stated this about his theory: "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."   

I will develop this subject in future posts and will provide links and supporting documentation.  I hope you will return and read them and comment on them.