Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Evolution Theory isn’t Scientific
When I quote a scientist who is an evolutionist making a statement relating to evolution which illustrates a problem with the evolution theory, the evolutionist will claim I am "quote mining" to imply the statement I provide is not correct because it is taken out of context, and since the scientist who made the statement is likely one who believes evolution is true and states so elsewhere, the evolutionist will almost invariably appeal to the authority of the consensus opinion and avoid the inference from the statement I quoted or information it refers to.
When I provide scientific evidence from a scientist who is a creationist making a statement relating to evolution which illustrates a problem with the evolution theory, the evolutionist will almost invariably claim that the scientist is not a real scientist since they believe in creation, regardless of their credentials. They will then almost invariably appeal to the authority of the consensus opinion and avoid the inference from the statement I quoted or information it refers to. It seems that to the evolutionist, no discovery actually provides a problem for evolution theory, and no scientist who argues against evolution theory is a real scientist. This is not a scientific approach to the issue, it is an emotional response.
When I cite a case of discrimination against an academic or scientist who is an evolution proponent whose work has either directly or indirectly provided a discovery which illuminates a problem for evolution theory, the evolutionist will say the academic or scientist I mention was not discriminated against because of the discovery, but instead because they have been caught doing faulty science and are a bad scientist.
When I cite a case of discrimination against an academic or scientist who is an ID or creation proponent whose work has either directly or indirectly provided a discovery which illustrates a problem for evolution theory, the evolutionist will say the academic or scientist whom I mention was not discriminated against because of what they have stated or because they have been caught doing faulty science and are a bad scientist. It seems that to the evolutionist, there are no cases of discrimination in academia or science which are unjustified. Neither is this a scientific approach to the issue, but instead it is an emotional response.
When I ask for evidence of the anatomical change necessary for evolution, the evolutionist will cite a replication of an existing feature observed to take place in an organism. When I then ask how the replication of an existing feature supports the claim that evolution produces new features not present in the anatomy, the evolutionist will say that new features arise incrementally in the same way the replicated one does and attempt to support their original claim with an endless series of arguments about other supposed evidences for evolution only marginally related to their original claim that new features are produced by evolution.
An example of such common scenarios by which evolutionists endlessly use miniature subordinate theories to support a claim without providing direct evidence of their claim might be as follows:
Creationist: What evidence is there that new anatomical features arise incrementally in organisms?
Evolutionist: Mutation causes polydactyl.
Creationist: But a polydactyl feature is a replication of an existing feature. Evolution claims new ones arise.
Evolutionist: New features arise in the same manner.
Creationist: What evidence is there that new anatomical features arise incrementally in organisms?
Evolutionist: Genetic change, such as genetic variation produced by reproduction and mutation causes it.
Creationist: But variously expressing existing information has not been demonstrated to produce new features.
Evolutionist: Genetic mutation modifies existing information into new information to code for new features.
Creationist: If that were true we should see new features arising incrementally in countless existing life forms.
Evolutionist: Existing organisms are well suited to their environments and in stasis, so we can't expect to see this in them.
Creationist: What evidence is there that new anatomical features arise incrementally in organisms?
Evolutionist: Genetic variation causes it.
In this way, the query and the argument both run in a circle without the evolutionist providing evidence to support their claim. Evolutionists employ this tactic regarding almost every claim of evolution when queried. They do this because they are unable to provide the actual evidence that supports their claim and rely on absolute and invariable faith that it all happens as they believe it does and often ask the creationist why they simply can't see the evidence. They are expecting us to accept the scenarios in their imagination as evidence and ridicule those who are unable to, all the while proclaiming evolution to be documented and scientific while the creationist is anti-scientific and blinded by their own faith. The irony is simply too obvious for the evolutionist to see and except. The worst case scenarios result in the evolutionists decanting into a seemingly endless abyss of miniature theories, one supposedly supporting the other, all in an attempt to keep from acknowledging that there in actuality is no scientific evidence that clearly supports their initial argument.
Firstly, we need to understand what evolution theory claims in order to know if it is scientific or not. The kinds of changes that we observe in organisms, referred to as microevolution, cannot be extrapolated to infer that organisms begat new kinds of life, referred to as macroevolution, over time. Changes to DNA, the development of an immunity, changes to the frequency of a gene variant in a population over time, referred to as changes to allelic frequency, or changes in the color, size, patterns, or even shape of an organism cannot be inferred to bring about the kinds of changes that evolution theory claims occur over time. None of these can in any way be considered evidence of anatomical transition because they do not cause change to the anatomy of organisms, either incrementally or in a sudden "Hopeful Monster" sense. It is the claim of evolutionists that a cell brought forth multicellular organisms, that fish brought forth land-dwelling organisms, that reptiles brought forth birds, that an ape-like creature brought forth mankind. These and millions of other such imagined scenarios require innumerable changes to anatomy to produce the plethora or various life forms that exist today and those which are now extinct. In fact, many millions of such anatomical changes would be necessary even before the end of the Cambrian Explosion just to produce those creatures which exist in the Cambrian strata. Yet there are no transitional fossils found in the Cambrian any more than in any other strata of the earth.
"The fossils from the Cambrian period can cause a real headache for evolutionary biologists. Instinct tells us to expect simple organisms evolving over time to become increasingly more complex. However during the Cambrian period there was an apparent explosion of different major groups of animals, all appearing simultaneously in the fossil record. We looked at priapulid worms, which were among the first ever predators. What's remarkable is that they had already evolved into a diverse array of forms -- comparable to the morphological variety of their living cousins -- when we first encounter them in the Cambrian fossil record. It's precisely this apparent explosion of anatomical diversity that vexed Darwin and famously attracted the attention of Harvard biologist Stephen Jay Gould." - evolutionary biologist Matthew Wills, University of Bath
We cannot concern ourselves with any mechanism which has no potential to fulfill the requirements of evolution that one kind of life begets new kinds over time. Only change to anatomy would be capable of substantiating evolution as scientific. Without evidence of anatomical change by a mechanism known to produce it there can be no substantiation to the claim that evolution is the explanation for the various forms of life. There is only one mechanism that would have the potential to cause change to the anatomy of an organism and substantiate the claim of evolution theory that all of the kinds of life are related. That mechanism would have to be mutation to genetic information in such a way as to produce anatomical changes that are built incrementally to ultimately produce new anatomical features. There is no evidence in the vast body of mutation experimentation that mutation is capable of doing this. On this basis alone, evolution theory is not scientific, since the scientific evidence which is observable, testable, and repeatable has produced no support for evolution theory. Evolution is therefore not scientific in that it's proponents have demonstrated with millions of experiments that the one mechanism that would make evolution possible does not exist.
Dr. David Menton, Ph.D. in Biology from Brown University, has been involved in biomedical research and education for over 30 years. He has said, "The very name "micro evolution" is intended to imply that it is this kind of variation that accumulates to produce macro evolution though a growing number of evolutionists admit there is no evidence for this. Thus an observable phenomenon is extrapolated into an unobservable phenomenon for which there is no evidence, and then the latter is declared to be a "fact" on the strength of the former. It is this kind of limitless extrapolation that comprises much of the argument for evolution."
Here are a couple of the great many statements of academics which reveal the true nature and atheistic necessity of evolution theory:
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact." - Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA.
“Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles.” - James D. Watson, Molecular Biology of the Gene “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity it has.” - Malcolm Muggeridge, philosopher, journalist, atheist who converted to Christian
There are a great many things which would be different if evolution theory were actually scientific. Here are just a few:
1. the theory would not exist
2. there would not be so much controversy over whether or not it is scientific amongst academics
3. evolutionists would not need to endlessly invent theories with which to explain away the failures of their theory, such as Punctuated Equilibrium, Hopeful Monster, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy.
4. The idea that random mutation caused evolutionary change was first postulated by evolutionists shortly after it was realized in the late 19th century that DNA is an information package that defines an organism. If evolution were scientific, evolutionists would accept the evidence from the millions of mutation experiments which have consistently verified for 100 years that the effect of random mutation is the degradation of the genome of an organism, causing a loss of complexity by a loss of information, disease, weakness, and deformity or death. Instead of accepting a century of consistent, observable evidence about the effects of random mutation, evolutionists continue to claim that random mutation causes upward development in complexity, the development of new anatomical features or transformation of extant features into those with a new biomechanical function.
5. there would be a tremendous number of species living today which show in their anatomies that evolution is incrementally developing new anatomical features or transforming extant features to have new biomechanical functions. There are no such incrementally developing or transforming features known in any species.
6. evolutionists would not point to variations within a kind, such as varieties of moth, butterfly, or fish and claim that they are transitional forms, when their anatomies do not show a developing new anatomical feature or transforming extant features to have new biomechanical functions.
7. evolutionists would not point to extinct species in the rock record (fossils) of one kind and claim it is transitional to another kind when the example itself does not show anatomical change.
8. evolutionists would accept the clear fact that the features of the genome of any organism is empirical evidence of creation, since it is a multi-dimensional information package which is organized to conform to linguistics laws more advanced than Zipf's Law of Linguistics, possesses algorithmic information processing, countless interdependencies with itself and the cell, and possesses in chemical form the language properties of grammar, syntax, semantics, and punctuation. Information, algorithms, and linguistics are non-material and there is no potential for natural material processes to produce them. This is empirical evidence that an immaterial mind has designed all life.
9. evolutionists would not cite as evidence of their theory things which have no potential to cause the anatomical transition of one kind of organism into that of another, such as the gaining of immunities, the ability of a bacteria to synthesize an enzyme capable of digesting nylon. By the way, both of these are in fact evidence of Intelligent Design.
10. evolutionists would not, and often spuriously, turn their arguments away from evolution and toward the existence or nonexistence of God when they have realized they are not doing well in a debate about evolution and creation, revealing that evolution theory for them is not about science but about having what they believe to be an excuse for denying their creator.
11. evolutionists would not speak of evolution theory as if it as if it were a fact since it is not observable.
12. the theory of evolution would not be endlessly evolving to adopt new knowledge that refutes evolution theory and twist it to include countless "just so" stories to explain away the new discovery and incorporate it into evolution theory
13. evolutionists would not militaristically defend evolution theory by discriminating against, even creating personal smear campaigns to ostracize anyone who doubts evolution theory or wishes to discuss it's weaknesses in academia. Science is supposed to be about following the evidence wherever it may lead and questioning the currently believed ideas so as to advance knowledge. Evolutionists dogmatically refuse to allow evolution theory to be discussed in that way within the scientific community or academia.
14. the majority of scientists in the ruling bodies of the scientific community would not be atheists, demonstrating that the above statement (13) is true because the scientific community is largely governed by atheists who seek to prevent anyone who is not an atheist from becoming part of their governing bodies.
15. evolutionists would let go of their failed uniformitarian theory because of the well documented fact that the "geologic column" (the average of 1,800 meters of strata covering the continents) is comprised of strata from bottom to top which are not of any significant difference in age because of what scientific experimentation in hydrology and sedimentology has verified.
Education Standards (NSES) states the following:
‘Science distinguishes itself from other ways of knowing and from other bodies of knowledge through the use of empirical standards, logical arguments, and skepticism.’
And yet, evolution theory has no empirical evidence whatsoever. The imagination is requires to see the evidence of it.
‘Scientific explanations must meet certain criteria. First and foremost, they must be consistent with experimental and observational evidence about nature, and must make accurate predictions, when appropriate, about systems being studied.’
And yet, no experimental or observational evidence exists for evolution theory: "Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening" - Richard Dawkins
‘They should also be logical, respect the rules of evidence, be open to criticism, report methods and procedures, and make knowledge public.’
And yet, evolutionism is illogical, since Natural Selection actually argues against evolution instead of for it. For example, if fish were evolving anatomically so as to be able to crawl around upon the land, Natural Selection would remove them because at some point their fins would have become inefficient for swimming while not yet suitable for walking on land, and they would be inept at survival in both land and water environments. Evolution is said to proceed by that which is beneficial, not that which is nonbeneficial.
‘Explanations on how the natural world changes based on myths, personal beliefs, religious values, mystical inspiration, superstition, or authority may be personally useful and socially relevant, but they are not scientific.’
And yet since evolution theory is evolution theory is based solely on myths, personal beliefs, religious values, mystical inspiration, superstition, and authority.
Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World (and grandson of T.H. Huxley, ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’) admitted meaninglessness (Godlessness) was central to his world view:
‘I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly view their role as the proselytizers of a new faith … The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new; the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of Humanism … ’
As for the failure of evolution theory to make accurate predictions, the most glaring failure comes from the historical evidence of life on the earth:
“But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” - Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 163.
"The more one studies paleontology [the fossil record] the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." - Professor Louis T More, evolutionist
“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.” - Stanley, p. 95.
As for evolution theory being solidly logical:
"Occam’s razor is often paraphrased "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." Is it more logical and rational when observing things like motors and robot-like mechanisms to believe they created themselves or they were created by an intelligent designer? No logical person would conclude their car’s motor designed and assembled itself, or that computer software writes itself! The NSES states scientific explanations must be logical, so once again evolution fails." - Calvin Smith
As for evolution theory being open to criticism, as all scientific theories must be, a recent example of the closed-door dogma of evolutionists is evolutionary Prof. Michael Reiss, the Royal Society’s former director of education, who was forced to resign within a couple of days after suggesting that creation and ID should be discussed in classrooms, which he proposed this so that creation and ID could be countered in the presence of students.
As for the accuracy of the information produced by evolution theory, Evolution has always been rife with hoaxes, including Haeckel’s drawings, Piltdown Man, Archaeoraptor (the Piltdown Bird!), Nebraska man and the Staged photos of peppered moths, all fraudulent ‘evidences’ used to promote the theory of evolution. More recently we have examples such as Per Ahlber's reconstruction of Ichthyostega, the now falsified claim that the Laitoli prints, supposedly footprints of a hominid creature, are in every way human as testified to by evolutionist scientists themselves.
As for evolution theory including no presuppositions, evolutionist Richard Lewontin revealed his bias in the following quote, "‘It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Evolution theory did not begin as a scientific idea. It began as a religious one, which humanists have attempted to transform into a scientific idea in order to try to remove the creator from the human consciousness. Charles Darwin got his idea from the authority of the opinion of men of his time and the writings of Aristotle, who believed that organisms became most fully what they are because they adapted to their environments. It was Aristotle who put forth the idea of natural Selection influencing the features of organisms. Darwin took Aristotle's ideas far beyond it's initial meaning to extrapolate that all life for5ms were related over time and produced his "Tree of Life" concept. Darwin was in fact indoctrinated by Charles Lyell and Thomas Huxley to believe in evolution after his voyage on the beagle. Lyell convinced him that if he were to write a book using the many examples of life he collected on that voyage as evidence for evolution, he would become famous. Darwin became enamored with this idea, and the patting on the back of Lyell and Huxley, and succumbed to the idea of fame, which appealed to him so much largely because he was a mediocre student who was for the most given to a laxidazical lifestyle filled with hours of billiards, drinking alcohol for which he was worrisome to his father. He was offered the opportunity to take the voyage on the Beagle as a way of boosting his interest in academic matters, and he saw it as a way of restoring his father’s faith in him, and it seems also, taking a stab at authority and God Himself by claiming God had not created the living things of this world, He later admitted that he feared that he had told the world a great lie - a truth which rotted his soul for the rest of his life, causing him to be nearly continuously physically ill and I believe ultimately brought about his demise.
The National Research Council 1995 report entitled the National Science Evolution is an ancient idea that began as part of the earliest religions of the Hindus. It did not begin as and is not today a scientific theory, nor is the practice of study of life forms through evolutionist glasses a scientific one. It is merely a presupposition to which the evolutionist attempts to but is unable to apply science.
Here is a condensed history of evolutionism:
1. The theory of evolution came from the Hindu Brahmins
2. pantheistic evolution was passed down by Pythagoras to the Greeks
3. Thales and his Ionic School branched out from Pantheistic Evolution to Naturalistic Evolution
4. Anaximander (610 BCE-546 BCE), who was the first to suggest that physical forces, rather than supernatural forces, create order in the universe
5. Plato and Aristotle's evolutionary ideas were dispersed through the Alexandrian School in Egypt
6. The ideas were followed through the Middle Ages (Aquinas), Renaissance and into Freemasonry, where they were preserved
7. Freemasonry and the Enlightenment had a re-birth of the philosophy of evolution
8. Lord Monboddo and Erasmus Darwin carried the philosophy forward
9. Charles Darwin, coaxed by Charles Lyell to write about the idea after the voyage on the Beagle, developed the idea into a pseudoscientific theory.
Should anyone tell you that evolution theory is well documented scientific fact supported by a tremendous number of evidences in various fields of biological science, have yourself a healthy sigh, and refer them to this article... please.