Professional Evolutionists. They are not all that smart.


 


Prologue

A couple of events have come to my attention after I wrote this essay, and I’m wondering if there could be any connection.

First is the recent Texas textbook controversy to include only evolution. It seems there is invariably a flurry of anti-creation activity in the popular press coincident with such decisions.

Second is the mocking of Rick Perry’s comments on creation and evolution in Texas, and calling into question Michelle Bachman’s faith as related to her governance qualifications.

Just wondering!


Incredibly stupid is what they are! And, they would like you to be stupid as well. Or, they would like to deceive you and make you as stupid as they are.

The pattern is consistent and very old; I have been seeing it in the popular literature for  over 30 years now, and it seldom varies from the script. A bold statement up front claiming the settled scientific truth and fact of evolution then followed by a long series of speculations and suppositions supported by little if any scientific fact.

A couple of illustrations to make my point:

You may have seen the latest Discovery Magazine publication “Evolution” with the subtitle “From Ooze to Us”.  Lets browse through the Table of Contents to get a sense of what is contained within:

  • The Slime Years 4 Billion to 2 Billion Years Ago.
  • A Cold Start. Freezing temperatures might have jump started the chemistry of life. 
  • Did Life Start With a Virus? …. could have been the very foundation of Biology.
  • The Living Fossils, Some of todays organisms appear almost untouched ….
  • Before the Womb. A controversial theory …. asserts that earliest mammals probably crawled out

Do you see what is happening here? Solid scientific observations and evidence is replaced by “might have …”, “could have been …”, “probably …” and other similar speculations. Sloppy and deceptive is what it is!

If you actually read the articles, and many others of a similar ilk, you will get more of the same, and little if any solid science.

Then there is a recent issue of Scientific American (July 2011) and an article on the “Evolution of the eye” by Trevor d. Lamb. Again, the article makes a bold claim of scientific fact, and claims to demolish Creationist and Intelligent Design arguments about the eye. The article then follows the old familiar pattern. I’ve highlighted many of the catch phrases (my emphasis added) in the article which illustrate the shallowness of the supposed research:

  • … these findings put the nail in the coffin of irreducible complexity and beautifully support Darwin’s idea. …
  • Around a billion years ago simple multicellular animals diverged into two groups: …
  • The bilateria themselves then diverged
  • This burst of evolution laid the groundwork for the emergence of our complex eye.
  • … during the Cambrian explosion two fundamentally different styles of eye arose. The first seems to have been a compound eye …
  • … such visual ability may have given
  • Hence, as body size increased, so too, did the selective pressures favoring …
  • This pattern suggests
  • …(which probably resembled modern day …
  • We reasoned that … must therefor have still deeper roots, …
  • … although it has apparently not evolved …
  • These striking similarities … are far too numerous …
  • must have been present
  • Unfortunately, there are no living representatives …
  • But we found clues …
  • Observations of hagfish behavior suggest
  • … this ancestor presumably had
  • This persistence suggests that
  • could thus throw light on …
  • Hints about the role of the hagfish eye … Perhaps then
  • … first served … and only later evolved … Studies  … support this notion.
  • We can with caution …
  • … to inform our reconstruction of how the eye evolved.
  • … exhibits telltale clues
  • … one would expect to see if the vertebrate retina evolved …
  • It therefore seems entirely plausible
  • … represents a holdover from a period in evolution …
  • … which evolved independently …
  • … early in the evolution of … a change occurred
  • may have been able to …
  • We postulate that …
  • … or – had evolved in an ancestor of …
  • It seems likely that
  • could have easily evolved …
  • may have risen …
  • in a geological instant.
  • … because they presumably had
  • Thus, there would have been
  • must have been present

The author then concludes this hammering the final nail into the coffin of intelligent design/creation as follows: “The design of our eye is not intelligent – but it makes perfect sense when viewed in the bright light of evolution.”

Hogwash!!! It does no such thing. All it shows is the ignorance and bigotry of the author, a supposed scientist. I urge you to seek the truth in this matter yourself, don’t trust me, and don’t trust supposed experts such as Mr. Lamb. Breaking away from this evolutionary propaganda may be difficult for you as it was for me a number of years ago. Evolutionary thinking of this nature is like an addiction, and addictions are hard to break free from; ask a recovering alcoholic, or one trying to quit smoking. But it can be done. There is much good scientific research and data available out there that supports the Creation/Intelligent Design model of life. And start using your own common sense and  personal observations as to the beautiful design attributes of what you see, hear, feel and smell around you.

You would think that major publications targeting the public at large would be able to come up with convincing evidence and facts on evolution. I consistently find them greatly lacking in this area, and this from a magazine that touts on it’s cover “Winner of the 2011 National Magazine Award for General excellence”.

What’s interesting about the SA article is that this same magazine published an incredibly fascinating article “The Movies in Our Eyes” (April 2007). This article shows legitimate research into the incredible capability of the eye and brain. The authors liken the capabilities of the eye to a system having 12 cameras, each having a visual and spacial specialization (with some overlap between the various cameras) giving us the wonderful gift of vision. The article sticks to observed fact and phenomena and avoids entirely the nonsensical speculations of the articles referenced above. There are no speculations as to how this marvelous visual system came into being, just a straight forward presentation of a scientific investigation. 

After reading this article, I was impressed in how strong a case was made for the eye being a designed and created system, and with absolutely no mention of Creation or Intelligent Design (nor of evolution).

It seems as if somewhere along the road to PhD, some of these folks take on a strong dose of stupidity rather than the strong dose of wisdom you would expect from an advanced degree from a prestigious university. But then again, I’m just the son of an immigrant TV repairman from Butte Montana, what could I possible know?

Don Johnson

 

About these ads

19 responses to “Professional Evolutionists. They are not all that smart.

  1. Pingback: Wading into the primordial slime… « CreationCare Kids

  2. Instead of speculating, measure. Someone went to the trouble of entering all hominin skull sizes so far discovered, correlated with their age. It’s very elegant:

    http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/09/fun_with_homini.html

    It shows how humans are the result of a long process of evolution. No gods involved. Get over it.

  3. Grendelus Malleolus

    The article you have demonstrated above does not serve your arguement but illustrates how poorly you understand science and how discoveries are described. Science does not fix a fact in place with language but allows for the possibility that what has been demonstrated on existing evidence to be the most likely explanation may, in the light of later evidence, be incorrect.

    • Thank you Grendelus for your comment.
      I appreciate what you are saying, but I have a different viewpoint.
      First let me address my problem with Darwinian Evolution which has to do with what I’ve come to label “Massively Complex Synchronicity”; meaning that for evolution to be true means that the entirety of the universe must have somehow evolved to the point where all conditions for my live and yours arrived together in a sort of majestic synchronicity. I have written about this in a more recent essay The Origins of the Universe … Simple or Complex, Your Choice: Part 1 as well as The Origins of the Universe … Simple or Complex: Part 2 … The Problem of “Massively Complex Synchronicity” And no, I am not a scientist and make no claims to be such, just a layman interested in the topic.
      Secondly, what I see is that in our culture we have a massive presentation of “evolution as fact” in pretty much all cultural areas; television, newspapers, education, magazines, museums etc. where we are inundated in a continuous fog of “evolution as fact”. Even the churches have for the most part folded to the mantra of evolution and rarely does one hear a sermon or experience any teaching to the contrary. And, there are and have been many scientists who do and have disagreed to the mainstream dogma of Darwinian Evolution, and have presented evidence and arguments to the contrary; they are there, but the mainstreamers have relegated them to the gheto and have shut them out of any reasonable conversation. Two organizations I would highly recommend to you are the Institute for Creation Research (icr.org) and discovery.org. ICR in particular has addressed dating methods in a study called Radioisitopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) which I recommend you spend some time examining.
      Again, thanks for the comment. Appreciate the chance to exchange ideas.

  4. Fact: these hominin skulls have been measured and dated by scientists.
    Fact: radiometric dating is a fantastic tool, used by many large commercial companies. No-one seriously doubts the skulls’ ages, some of which go back millions of years.
    Fact: plot the skulls on a graph and you see a clear increase through time of skull size until they reach the cubic capacity of homo sapiens, ie us.

    I see no way out of your dilemma over evolution unless you believe that all mainstream scientists are engaged in a conspiracy, not least to blindly misunderstand their own science.

    • Thank you Mike for your comment.
      I appreciate what you are saying, but I have a different viewpoint.
      First let me address my “dilemma” over evolution. My real dilemma has to do more with what I’ve come to label “Massively Complex Synchronicity”; meaning that for evolution to be true means that the entirety of the universe must have somehow evolved to the point where all conditions for my live and yours arrived together in a sort of majestic synchronicity. I have written about this in a more recent essay The Origins of the Universe … Simple or Complex, Your Choice: Part 1 as well as The Origins of the Universe … Simple or Complex: Part 2 … The Problem of “Massively Complex Synchronicity” And no, I am not a scientist and make no claims to be such, just a layman interested in the topic.
      Secondly, I don’t beleive “all mainstream scientists are engaged in a conspiracy, but what I do see is that in our culture we have a massive presentation of “evolution as fact” in pretty much all cultural areas; television, newspapers, education, magazines, museums etc. where we are inundated in a continuous fog of “evolution as fact”. Even the churches have for the most part folded to the mantra of evolution and rarely does one hear a sermon or experience any teaching to the contrary. And, there are and have been many scientists who do and have disagreed to the mainstream dogma of Darwinian Evolution, and have presented evidence and arguments to the contrary; they are there, but the mainstreamers have relegated them to the gheto and have shut them out of any reasonable conversation. Two organizations I would highly recommend to you are the Institute for Creation Research (icr.org) and discovery.org. ICR in particular has addressed dating methods in a study called Radioisitopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) which I recommend you spend some time examining.
      Again, thanks for the comment. Appreciate the chance to exchange ideas.

  5. If you will indulge me once again Grendelus, let me respond to your characterization of how “poorly I understand Science”. I am not a scientist, and make no claims to be one. What I have been for close to 40 years is a software developer … a computer programmer. As such, while I may lack creds in such such things as theoretical physics or micro-biology or astro-psysics, what I do have is a keen sense of design, engineering and manufacturing; all things necessary to bring a “created” software system to a successful conclusion as a useful product. I know from 40 years of hands on experience that complex and useful systems never come about by chance; never! A single bit error, for example in a communications system, will make the entire system useless untill such time as the bug is corrected.
    So while I do not denigrate scientists or science, I do know something of the limits of scientific speculation, and I do know the realities of system design, engineering and manufacturing, and can measure the plausability of a scientific (often ideological) speculation against the realities of system design methodologies to gauge the truth.
    Regards,
    Don

    • And single bit error is fatal in communication system. Animals tolerate multiple DNA errors. The systems are fundamentally different. Forget programming and try to understand evolution by natural selection. It is not random chance, it is a design algorithm.

  6. Bill, you are saying that evolution is a “design algorithm?” Interesting choice of words there, because machines having specific purpose, and certainly systems having specific purpose are necessarily “designed.” And as we now know, life is composed of many, many machines working in concert with one another. The key question is “who is the designer?”
    It’s hard to forget programming given my programming background. When we see the development of a child in the womb, and at various points along the way cells differentiating into hair, bone, heart, brain, muscle, left ventricle, right ventricle … etc.; programming at work is evident, and one must ask “who is the programmer?”

    Cheers,
    don

  7. Pingback: Are The Laws Of Nature Accidental? | A Yearning for Publius

  8. Nice display of (willfull) ignorance. I almost called POE on this. The problem is that correcting your ignorance would require long detailed posts and you will spew more bullshit faster than anyone can correct (even though all the bullshit you spew is standard creationinst nonsense which has already been debunked all over the internet … (which means you are either lazy, stupid or a liar)). Combined with the fact that you simply ignore counter arguments makes any in depth reply a waste of time.

  9. Thanks Dyz, and welcome to my blog.

    I congratulate you on your scholarly critique of my thoughts, and your thorough debunking of my “willfull” ignorance. Your very professional skill in using words of persuasion are first rate; words such as ‘ignorance’, ‘bull****’ (My mother taught me to avoid such words), ‘nonsense’, ‘lazy’, ‘stupid’, ‘liar’ are stellar. I myself have long thought that the most effective way to argue a point is the “Ad hominem” attack and try to destroy the opposition in a personal way. This avoids the often embarrassing situation where one is shown to be wrong.

    So Mr. Dyz, lets talk a bit about debunking shall we? Let’s cut to the chase.

    “The fool has said in his heart, There is no God.” Psalm 14:1

    “The heavens declare the glory of God;
    the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
    Day after day they pour forth speech;
    night after night they reveal knowledge.
    They have no speech, they use no words;
    no sound is heard from them.
    Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
    their words to the ends of the world.” Psalm 19

    “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth … “ Genesis 1:1

    Oh yea, I don’t suppose you place much confidence in the Bible … do you? So then let me steer you to just a few sources (there are many more) that have a view decidedly different from your own:

    The reliability of the Bible: Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell. If you are an objective person seeking truth, this book may show you that you can indeed have confidence in the Bible.
    He Who Thinks Has to Believe by A.E. Wilder-Smith. A thought provoking allegory set as a discussion between “modern man” (you?) and a group of Neanderthals (me?). Wilder-Smith was a distinguished organic chemist and pharmacologist (i.e. a scientist.)
    The natural sciences know nothing of evolution by A.E. Wilder-Smith A bold title don’t you think?
    Discovery.org Discovery Institute is an inter-disciplinary community of scholars and policy advocates dedicated to the reinvigoration of traditional Western principles and institutions and the worldview from which they issued. Discovery Institute has a special concern for the role that science and technology play in our culture and how they can advance free markets, illuminate public policy and support the theistic foundations of the West.
    ( You will find a great deal of debunking here, but of a different sort)
    Institute for Creation Research. For over four decades, the Institute for Creation Research has equipped believers with evidence of the Bible’s accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework.
    ( You will find a great deal of debunking here, but of a different sort)

    So Mr. Dyz, don’t be a fool, think for yourself and seek the answers for yourself.

    Regards,
    don

  10. Agnostic theists are as unreasonable as gnostic atheists (by definition) so I guess you think you’re a gnostic theist.

    36 arguments for the existence of god;

    http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/goldstein09/goldstein09_index.html

    (23. The Argument from Holy Books; “Only the most arrogant provincialism could allow someone to believe that the holy documents that happen to be held sacred by the clan he was born into are true, while all the documents held sacred by the clans he wasn’t born into are false. “)

    “So Mr. Dyz, don’t be a fool, think for yourself and seek the answers for yourself.” < This almost blew my irony meter.

  11. Pingback: Who Made God? A Response From The Author | A Yearning for Publius

  12. Pingback: Maybe We Should Pay More Attention To The Bible … Part 5: Can we trust the Bible as truth? | A Yearning for Publius

  13. Pingback: Darwin & Baseball: The Evidence and Peer Review | A Yearning for Publius

  14. Pingback: Who says we have to choose between God and science? | A Yearning for Publius

  15. Pingback: Oh – Why Don’t You Use Your Head!! | A Yearning for Publius

  16. Pingback: Creation vs. Evolution … Revisited | A Yearning for Publius

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s