Evolution: Basis for Racism

By Dr. Don Boys

Darwin and his disciples were not only pseudo-scientists, but they were also radical, rabid racists! Ernst Haeckel was a German biologist, and a contemporary of Darwin, who laid the foundation of racism and imperialism that resulted in Hitler's racist regime.

Edward Simon, a Jewish biology professor at Purdue University, wrote, "I don't claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution brought on the holocaust; but I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible."

I wonder what the "climate" is doing to students in public schools as they are taught they came from animals and are without any purpose in life? Could the incredible number and depth of our social problems be the result of Darwinism? I am convinced this is so, for if one believes that life has no purpose, and man came from beasts, then dignity, fairness, kindness, honesty, faithfulness and justice have no relevance and importance.

Sir Arthur Keith, a well-known evolutionist, assessed Darwin's impact on Hitler and Germany: "We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy....The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter which has drenched Europe in blood."

The unreasonable, unbiblical, unscientific philosophy of Darwin and his disciples laid a foundation for hundreds of years of hatred, barbarity and unbelief reaching into the future and impacting millions of innocent lives.

If Darwin were alive today, he would be hooted out of the scientific community because he was not a trained scientist and because of his outrageous views about black people. Darwin thought that blacks were closer to man's ape "ancestors" than the white race! Wonder what Jesse Jackson thinks of that?

Darwin's disciple, T. H. Huxley, wrote, "It may be quite true that some negroes [sic] are better than some white men, but no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro [sic] is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man....The highest places in the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins...." (I "siced" the above places not because he used the term, negro but because he did not capitalize it.)

"Dusky cousins!" How would that be received down at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People? But it gets worse. Henry Osborne, who was professor of biology and zoology at Columbia University, said that blacks were further back on the evolutionary ladder (nearer the apes) than whites, and "The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens." Blacks aren't human! Wow! the most KKK nut doesn't believe that!

Edwin Conklin, professor of biology at Princeton University and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said that blacks had not evolved as far as whites and "Every consideration should lead those who believe in the superiority of the white race to strive to preserve its purity and to establish and maintain the segregation of the races, for the longer this is maintained, the greater the preponderance of the white race will be." Well, there goes any possibility of Ed ever becoming a life member of the NAACP. Too bad.

The major haters of the last 100 years have been evolutionists. Men like Nietzsche (who often said God was dead, called for the breeding of a master race, and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), Hitler, Mussolini, Marx, Engels, and Stalin were all outspoken evolutionists, and these people and their theories have been responsible for the slaughter of multi-millions of people, and the destruction of freedom all over the earth. It is amazing that so many liberals, radicals, fascists, communists and the easily impressed worship at Darwin's shrine.

Yes, the foundation of racism, hatred and violence in the last hundred years is based in evolutionary teaching.

© 2000 Cornerstone Communications

http://www.cstnews.com/Code/BasisForRacism.html

Read More

Children are born believers in God, academic claims

Children are "born believers" in God and do not simply acquire religious beliefs through indoctrination, according to an academic. 

Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose.

He says that young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God.

"The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God."

In a lecture to be given at the University of Cambridge's Faraday Institute on Tuesday, Dr Barrett will cite psychological experiments carried out on children that he says show they instinctively believe that almost everything has been designed with a specific purpose.

In one study, six and seven-year-olds who were asked why the first bird existed replied "to make nice music" and "because it makes the world look nice".

Another experiment on 12-month-old babies suggested that they were surprised by a film in which a rolling ball apparently created a neat stack of blocks from a disordered heap.

Dr Barrett said there is evidence that even by the age of four, children understand that although some objects are made by humans, the natural world is different.

He added that this means children are more likely to believe in creationism rather than evolution, despite what they may be told by parents or teachers.

Dr Barrett claimed anthropologists have found that in some cultures children believe in God even when religious teachings are withheld from them.

"Children's normally and naturally developing minds make them prone to believe in divine creation and intelligent design. In contrast, evolution is unnatural for human minds; relatively difficult to believe."
 

Source: http://ow.ly/oZhMo

Read More

The Word "Macroevolution"

Source

Subject:

The word “macroevolution” Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 00:35:45 -0600

From: Jim

Do you answer questions over the net? If you do, can you tell me when, where and who came up with the word "microevolution?" I consider myself a Scientific Creationist and have taught many Sunday School classes on it. I also write letters to the editor on the subject. I just got a reply from a person that threw me. He said microevolution is a word made up by creationists and it is to be ignored. The word macroevolution covers all "science" concerning evolution according to him. Thank You, Jim

We do answer questions, when time permits.

It took us a while to track down the source of the words “microevolution” and "macroevolution", but we finally found it. According to an evolutionist’s web page, ¹

The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the transliteration), in his German-language work Variabilität und Variation, which was the first attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics and evolution.

That same web page goes on to explain …

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa. Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. The history of the concept of macroevolution In the "modern synthesis" of neo-Darwinism, which developed in the period from 1930 to 1950 with the reconciliation of evolution by natural selection and modern genetics, macroevolution is thought to be the combined effects of microevolutionary processes. In theories proposing "orthogenetic evolution" (literally, straight line evolution), macroevolution is thought to be of a different caliber and process than microevolution. Nobody has been able to make a good case for orthogenesis since the 1950s, especially since the uncovering of molecular genetics between 1952 and the late 1960s. Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails. Conclusion There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species).

Apparently the person who told Jim that the term “microevolution” was made up by creationists is wrong. It is a term that is used in evolutionary biology by evolutionary biologists.

Creationists do like to make the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution because the term “evolution” is too vague. It can mean anything from “change over time”, to the alleged process that converts molecules to man.

A newspaper gets old and yellow. Since it changes, one could say it "evolves". But it isn't very useful to call that process "evolution" because the process that causes a newspaper to get yellow has nothing to do with the creation of new species, which is what most people think of when you use the word "evolution.".

People who use the term "microevolution" use it to describe a process that has been observed many times in nature--specifically, a small, limited change in species over an observable period of time. They use the term "macroevolution" to describe the idea that species can change into entirely different species, given enough time.

Since these are two entirely different processes, there are two different terms for them. The only reason we can imagine that one would want to use the one term for two different things is to cause confusion intentionally.

The inconsistent use of the term “evolution” reminds us of this exchange between Alice and Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carol’s story, Through the Looking Glass.

“..There’s glory for you!” “I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’” Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t--until I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knockdown argument for you!’” “But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knockdown argument,’” Alice objected. “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

The question is, we say, whether evolutionists can make the word “evolution” mean so many different things.

Evolutionists, like the one whose web page we quoted, would like you to believe that there isn’t any fundamental difference between microevolution and macroevolution. They claim it is merely a matter of degree. They say that given enough microevolution, you get macroevolution.

The fallacy of the argument lies in the assertion that “the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered.” They are different processes, one can’t be extrapolated to the other, and there is a mechanism that prevents microevolution from causing macroevolution. Let us explain it very carefully.

For simplicity, we (and many evolutionists, too) talk about “the gene for blue eyes” and “the gene for brown eyes.” In most cases, there usually isn’t a one-to-one correspondence between single genes and visible characteristics. Visible traits are usually caused by a combination of genes. Individuals who have undesirable combinations of genes typically die before they reach sexual maturity, thereby reducing the abundance of those genes. But the genes still exist in the population, and may resurface if environmental conditions make them beneficial again.

So, the “processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles” are natural selection and, to some extent, dumb luck. (Some evolutionists say that luck is more important than natural selection, but let’s not go there.) The important point is that these are processes that vary the abundance of existing genetic information by causing some genes to become very rare, or disappear entirely. This makes other, existing genes more plentiful (relatively speaking) in the population.

For a dinosaur to turn into a bird, you need to give it new genetic information that tells the body how to grow feathers. There is no known process that creates genetic information.

Information can get lost through random processes. (If you don’t believe me, rub a floppy disk with a strong magnet in a random pattern.) Information cannot be created by a random process. (If you want to convince me, rub a blank floppy disk with a strong magnet in a random pattern, and send me the resulting randomly-generated text file that explains how it can happen.)

The genetic information in a horse is greater than the genetic information in a bacteria. For a bacteria to evolve into a horse, genetic information had to be added. A horse’s genetic code is not simply a rearrangement of the genetic information already in a bacteria.

Evolutionists believe that genetic information somehow accumulates slowly over millions of years. But speed isn’t really the issue. Genetic information does not naturally increase at any rate at all. It does, however, get lost over time through the processes of mutation and extinction. We can’t clone any dinosaurs in the lab today because that genetic information has been lost.

Finally, we want to draw your attention to something the evolutionist said on his web page. According to him, “Nobody has been able to make a good case for orthogenesis [literally, straight line evolution] since the 1950s, especially since the uncovering of molecular genetics between 1952 and the late 1960s.”

Read More

Medical Doctors dissect Darwinism

Read More

Glenn Beck & Rabbi Lapin Discuss Baal

- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

Read More

The Religion of Evolution

Source

I was asked recently during an interview if I thought that the Theory of Evolution was a religion. I said that I think it is.

If evolution is responsible for everything that has evolved--everything, then it is worthy of praise. What it did was miraculous, and time is the miracle-method it used.

Its prophet was Charles Darwin (the faithful can pay homage to his facial hair in the Natural History Museum, in London), and Richard Dawkins is the sitting pope.

According to his decree, if you disagree with the canon of evolution you are "wicked." So those who don't believe, should therefore be excommunicated from the realm of science.

The "Bible" of the Darwinian believer is On the Origin of Species. If you write a mere Introduction that disagrees with its sacred contents, it is tantamount to blasphemy. Be prepared for an inquisition from believers and threats of book burnings.

So, if you believe in evolution, don’t question dating methods, or the credibility of revered paleontologists, or the learned priestly professors.

Just believe.

Read More

Creation Ministries International named as a ‘threat’ to Britain’s school children

by Dominic Statham

Sir David Attenborough (Credit Wikipedia)

In May of this year, CMI-UK’s Philip Bell addressed some pupils at a Religious Education study day at a Church of England school in Exeter. As a result, the self-styled ‘British Centre for Science Education’ (BCSE) launched its ‘Creationism In Schools Isn’t Science’ (CrISIS) campaign, supported by the National Secular Society.

This took the form of a letter to the UK Secretary of State for Education, signed by a number of prominent scientists, demanding that action be taken to prevent creationism being taught in schools as having any kind of scientific validity.

This week, the British Humanist Association (BHA) joined the party, making their bid to silence all who would seek to inform children of the scientific short comings of evolutionary theory and to present them with an alternative view of origins. Supported by a much more impressive group of scientists than those co-opted by the BCSE, the BHA has launched their ‘Teach Evolution, not Creationism!’ campaign.

Backed by over twenty Fellows of the Royal Society, including Sir David Attenborough (pictured above) and Prof Richard Dawkins, they are calling for “enforceable statutory guidance that [creationism and intelligent design] may not be presented as scientific theories in any publically funded school.”¹

Desperate to quash dissent

These people are demanding that the belief in ‘molecules-to-man evolution’ be taught as scientifically proven fact, and are determined that pupils should be denied the possibility of hearing any scientific criticism of this view.

There’s no doubt that such a regime of indoctrination would ensure that very few would leave school knowing that considerable dissent about evolution exists among scientists, or that many of the top evolutionary scientists admit that they have no idea how inanimate matter could have evolved into living organisms.

The co-discoverer of DNA Francis Crick admitted, “The origin of life seems almost to be a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”² Similarly, the top evolutionary scientist Professor Stuart Kaufman wrote, “Anyone who tells you that he or she knows how life started on earth some 3.4 billion years ago is a fool or a knave.

Nobody knows.”³ Committed evolutionist and former director of the human genome project Francis Collins wrote, “No current hypothesis comes close to explaining how … the prebiotic environment that existed on planet earth gave rise to life.”⁴

In fact, everything we know about science tells us that ordinary chemicals would not self-assemble to form living cells. The laws of chemistry dictate that the biopolymers required for life would break down rather than build themselves up. Moreover basic mathematical analyses make clear that, even if by some miracle they did self-assemble, it is absurd to imagine that undirected processes would cause them to have the correct form.⁵

Of course, informed evolutionists know all this very well—but still insist that ‘abiogenesis is a fact’.⁶ Why? Because they are committed to the religion of scientism, the belief that everything we see around us can and should be explained only by natural processes.

The fact that we don’t observe natural processes that appear remotely capable of producing life from non-life is irrelevant. To them, such processes must exist, or must have existed in the past, because life exists—and it’s unthinkable that a Creator God is responsible for biological life.

Such thinking makes clear that the creation/evolution debate is not about science; it is about one worldview versus another. Ironically, the faith of scientism flies in the face of scientific knowledge.

One of the prominent supporters of the BHA’s campaign is the Oxford University Neuroscientist Professor Colin Blakemore, who is quoted on the BHA website:

“The evidence for evolution as the basis of life on earth is overwhelming and we see it all around us – from the effects of selective breeding in domestic and farm animals to the continuous changes in ’flu viruses.”

Actually, all the observational evidence makes plain that, however much dogs, cows, chickens and horses are selectively bred, dogs remain dogs, cows remain cows, chickens remain chickens and horses remain horses. Moreover, whenever we study the changes which are claimed to demonstrate the evolution of flu viruses, bacteria resistant to antibiotics or insects resistant to pesticides, we are unable to find any evidence of the novelties that are required for microbe-to-man evolution.

These ‘examples of evolution’ are invariably found to arise from the use of existing genetic information or the loss of genetic information and associated loss of function. For microbe-to-man evolution, mutations would be required that increase information and function—and on an enormous scale. Such changes are conspicuous by their absence.

Media mendacity

Unfortunately, the media’s general reporting of this latest campaign is as misleading as the statements made by the scientists seeking to support the BHA and its apostles of secularism. According to the Guardian, “Speakers from Creation Ministries International are touring the UK, presenting themselves as scientists and their creationist views as science at a number of schools.”⁷

In fact, the majority of our speaking engagements are at churches and we visit schools only occasionally. When we do speak at schools, it is by invitation or has been instigated by someone known to the school locally and never solicited by CMI. Moreover, it is extremely rare for us to speak in a science class. It was also reported that “Creation Ministries International was unavailable for comment.”

However, since the invitation to comment was received in an e-mail on Saturday at 8.15 pm, along with notification that the article had to be finished by the following Sunday at midday, it is hardly surprising that we were unable to respond before their publication deadline; but with this article we have now done so.

On their website, the BHA proudly quote the journalist Ariane Sherine: “All children should be free to grow up in a world where they are allowed to question, doubt, think freely, and reach their own conclusions about what they believe.” Ironically, this is exactly what the BHA and its associates are fighting so hard to prevent.

This latest move by the BHA is likely to be treated much more seriously than the BCSE’s CrISIS campaign. At times like this we particularly value the support and prayers of Christian people.

Read More

Zakir Naik - 25 mistakes in 5 min

Read More

Let the polar bears die, liberals: It's only your beloved evolution at work

Wednesday, December 22nd 2010, 4:00 AM

Amstrup/AP
If polar bears are on track for extinction, we should not intefere.

If you own a television, you've probably seen them: commercials pleading in somber tones to save the polar bear from extinction. A memorable public service announcement for the World Wildlife Fund features one-time "ER" actor (and now, it would seem, full-time polar bear advocate) Noah Wyle, assuring us that, "Climate change is threatening one of the most magnificent wild animals on the planet." However you feel about these creatures, the heart-tugging WWF ads are nonetheless pretty compelling.

Liberal animal rights and global warming activists have bonded together to save this formidable predator from what they tell us is certain death. They insist that, thanks to us, species are becoming extinct faster than ever (though I don't think we were measuring back in 500 BC).

Good rule of thumb: If you're quick to blame America for most bad things that happen in the world, you also may be quick to blame human kind for everything sad that happens on the planet. And frankly, that's just species-ist.

But unsurprisingly, President Obama isn't impervious to the maudlin message. He is currently considering reclassifying the poor polar bear's status from "threatened" to "endangered" under the federal Endangered Species Act. This year, he set aside 187,000 square miles in Alaska as a "critical habitat" for polar bears, which has prompted the state of Alaska to consider suing the administration for potentially costing it millions in lost economic activity and tax revenue.

But here's a question that's rarely asked: Why should we necessarily bother saving a species - any species - from extinction? And what's so gosh-darn special about the polar bear? Yes, animals are dying. But death - of a single animal or a whole species - is a part of life.

At least, that's what Darwinists tell us. In fact, if you think hard about it, animal conservation should actually be anathema to the Darwin-loving liberal agenda, which holds up evolution - and not altruistic compassion - as the final word on the survival of a species.

Sure, it's possible that we're crowding out the polar bear - but aren't we animals, too? And don't animals sometimes crowd each other out? Isn't it entirely possible that the polar bear is simply going extinct, like countless species before it?

The crass and sometimes violent coming and going of species proves evolution's central logic. So why, then, do polar bear activists insist that another species - that would be us - tamper with Darwin's grand design and swoop in to save an animal that simply wasn't fit enough to make it in the cutthroat world of biological survival?

Take the Monteverde golden toad of Costa Rica, for example, which many thought went extinct in the 1980s because of global warming - the same villain that is now apparently killing the polar bear. Well, it turns out that the Monteverde toad died from disease, according to a recent study.

Oops.

The fact is, we don't know conclusively what is killing the polar bears. If it's global warming, then doesn't bovine flatulence deserve some of the blame? Don't laugh - it's a potentially harmful discharge. No, seriously.

And what about global warming and melting polar ice caps? A study by the National Snow and Ice Data Center indicates that in the last three years alone, summer sea ice has increased by a staggering 409,000 square miles.

Oops again.

One recent study in Nature suggested that polar bear hybridization with grizzlies had something to do with their decline. So maybe it's the grizzly's fault - he's probably a Republican.

Maybe we should admit that our science is not as perfect as we would like to believe and that nature is ultimately inexplicable and beyond our control. There is no sense in meddling with the extinction of polar bears, not when so many more pressing human problems await. Until there's ironclad proof of how and why extinction works, and how much evil we've done to hasten it along, I'm going to save my emotional anguish for dying and suffering members of my own species. Okay, and puppies. They're just too cute.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/12/22/2010-12-22_let_the_polar_bears_die_liberals_its_only_your_beloved_evolution_at_work.html#ixzz1945AC6tB

secupp@redsecupp.com

Read More

Neanderthals cooked and ate plants and vegetables

When will evolutionists finally realize that there were no "primitive men"?

---

Hunter, gatherer, vegetarian masterchef?

Neanderthals cooked and ate plants and vegetables, a new study of Neanderthal remains reveals.

Researchers in the US have found grains of cooked plant material in their teeth.

The study is the first to confirm that the Neanderthal diet was not confined to meat and was more sophisticated than previously thought.

The research has been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The popular image of Neanderthals as great meat eaters is one that has up until now been backed by some circumstantial evidence. Chemical analysis of their bones suggested they ate little or no vegetables.

This perceived reliance on meat had been put forward by some as one of the reasons these humans become extinct as large animals such as mammoths declined due to an Ice Age.

But a new analysis of Neanderthal remains from across the world has found direct evidence that contradicts the chemical studies. Researchers found fossilised grains of vegetable material in their teeth and some of it was cooked.

Although pollen grains have been found before on Neanderthal sites and some in hearths, it is only now there is clear evidence that plant food was actually eaten by these people.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

We have found pollen grains in Neanderthal sites before but you never know whether they were eating the plant or sleeping on them or what”

End Quote Professor Alison Brooks George Washington University

Professor Alison Brooks, from George Washington University, told BBC News: "We have found pollen grains in Neanderthal sites before but you never know whether they were eating the plant or sleeping on them or what.

"But here we have a case where a little bit of the plant is in the mouth so we know that the Neanderthals were consuming the food."

More like us

One question raised by the study is why the chemical studies on Neanderthal bones have been wide of the mark. According to Professor Brooks, the tests were measuring proteins levels, which the researchers assumed came from meat.

"We've tended to assume that if you have a very high value for protein in the diet that must come from meat. But... it's possible that some of the protein in their diet was coming from plants," she said.

This study is the latest to suggest that, far from being brutish savages, Neanderthals were more like us than we previously thought.

Read More

Does Medical School Need Courses in Evolution?

by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

In a recent issue of the journal The Scientist, University of Florida College of Medicine professor Leonid Moroz lamented the current lack of graduate program courses on the supposed basics of evolutionary biology and biosystematics. He attempted to defend the idea that evolution needs more emphasis for those being trained in fields that have made radical progress in recent decades in medicine, molecular biology, and genomics.¹

But if evolutionary biology courses are so fundamental, then how have scientists in those fields made their remarkable discoveries or developed new treatments without them?

Moroz wrote:

It appears that evolutionary biology and biosystematics courses, which deal with the most fundamental concepts in biology, have quietly lost their place of eminence within the biomedical curriculum—"outcompeted" by escalating specialization and the increasingly technical nature of many biological sciences.¹

Biosystematics is the study of which animals are related to which others within an evolutionary framework. Evolutionary biology is the study of changes within populations of organisms. How are either of these relevant to biomedical science? And which medical course(s) should be replaced with evolution-indoctrination classes—the one that teaches doctors how to set broken bones or the one that teaches proper amounts of medicine the body needs in a given situation?

One doesn't have to be either a scientist or a medical professional to agree that doctors should understand more about how to treat a patient's condition rather than ponder that patient's possible evolutionary history from a single-cell organism. Most likely, the "fundamental concepts" of evolution that Moroz suggests be taught have been "outcompeted" by the demands of real-world science. As one medical practitioner noted:

None of the Darwinian explanations integrate (much less are based on tests of) the phylogeny or actual physical evolutionary development of the organism itself. Given the long time to develop new drugs, a real test would be a Darwinist prediction—based solely on human evolutionary phylogeny—of a new, presently unobserved disease for which pharmaceutical companies should start developing a treatment. So far, no such predictions have been forthcoming.

This failure, coupled with increased needs to teach new medical research, is possibly why evolutionary medicine is currently squeezed out of every American medical school's curricula.²

Moroz unwittingly clarified exactly why evolution is irrelevant to real science:

Students of engineering must learn the fundamentals of mathematics and physics. A PhD chemist cannot bypass learning the periodic table and its elements. In contrast, ask a young or even a senior biologist with an active research program to name 15 to 20 animal phyla....Why have we accepted ignorance of evolutionary theory and knowledge of biodiversity in classrooms?¹

Math is fundamental to engineers and the periodic table of elements is fundamental to chemists. But medical practitioners have been demonstrably succeeding without stand-alone courses on evolutionary biology or taxonomy. These observations underscore the uselessness of evolution in the real world.

Medical sciences, engineering, physics, and chemistry move forward through experimentation, a process called "empirical science." In contrast, evolution moves forward only by indoctrination.

References

1. Moroz, L. 2010. The Devolution of Evolution. The Scientist. 24 (11): 36.
2. Guliuzza, R. J. 2009. Darwinian Medicine: A Prescription for Failure. Acts & Facts. 38 (2): 32.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Article posted on December 8, 2010.

Read More

The Greatest Hoax On Earth -- Dr. Jonathan Sarfati

Read More

Giving Thanks for Dr. Philip Skell

Source

This past Sunday, science lost a bold and courageous voice for objectivity with the passing of Dr. Philip Skell. A member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) since 1977, "Phil" was Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and his research included work on reactive intermediates in chemistry such as carbene molecules, free-atom reactions, and reactions of free carbonium ions. A 1997 article in the journal Pure and Applied Chemistry described some of Skell's significant scientific contributions as follows:

Another class of intermediates, containing divalent carbon atoms, were suggested by John Nef early in this century but his ideas were generally rejected. However, the concept was revived with vigor when Philip Skell showed that: CCl,, dichlorocarbone, was formed as a reaction intermediate. Carbene chemistry almost immediately became the subject of extensive physical organic research.

Penn State University describes Skell's research thusly:

Philip S. Skell, sometimes called "the father of carbene chemistry," is widely known for the "Skell Rule," which was first applied to carbenes, the "fleeting species" of carbon. The rule, which predicts the most probable pathway through which certain chemical compounds will be formed, found use throughout the pharmaceutical and chemical industries.

Later in his career, Phil became a skeptic of neo-Darwinian evolution. His main position was that Darwinism does not serve as the cornerstone of biological thought that many claim it does. In 2007, I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Skell and doing three interviews with him for Discovery Institute's ID the Future Podcast.

In the first interview, Skell explained that the NAS is an "exclusive club," and that the election of NAS scientists is a generally secret process; the reasons for electing scientists are not always disclosed even to those who are elected. He speculated, however, that it was his research on carbene that got him elected. In this podcast, he maintained that many NAS members have a "bias in favor of" evolution--a bias he shared until he read the writings of fellow chemist Michael Polanyi.

In the second podcast, Skell elaborated on how Polanyi's work influenced his own thinking. After reading Polanyi, Skell asked himself whether Darwinian evolution was truly vital to his own research developing antibiotic drugs. Skell then queried other bioscience researchers and learned that they too had made no reliance upon Darwinian evolution in their work. This led Skell to investigate the history of Nobel Prize awards, and he could not find a single one where Darwinian evolution had directly dictated the research that led to the award.

In a 2005 article published in The Scientist, Skell reported this survey of his peers--more than 70 scientists in fact--on whether Darwin's theory directed their research. According to Skell, "The responses were all the same: No." In an eloquent statement that has been referenced many times since, Skell recounted that in many areas of biological research "Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss." He further elaborated:

[T]he modern form of Darwin's theory has been raised to its present high status because it's said to be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that correct? ... Darwinian evolution - whatever its other virtues - does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit. None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however, mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones for tangible breakthroughs.

(Phil Skell, "Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology," The Scientist Vol. 19(16):10 (August 29, 2005).)

The article generated some spirited rebuttals, leading to a vigorous response from Skell:

One letter mentions directed molecular evolution as a technique to discover antibodies, enzymes and drugs. Like comparative biology, this has certainly been fruitful, but it is not an application of Darwinian evolution -- it is the modern molecular equivalent of classical breeding. Long before Darwin, breeders used artificial selection to develop improved strains of crops and livestock. Darwin extrapolated this in an attempt to explain the origin of new species, but he did not invent the process of artificial selection itself.

Before dismissing Skell's position, the reader must understand that Skell should know whether Darwinian evolution provides guidance for producing antibiotics: some of own his early research helped pioneer the widespread use of antibiotics during World War II.

Thus Skell was a rare voice in the NAS who was willing to dissent from the majority neo-Darwinian viewpoint. In 2008 the NAS published a booklet, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, declaring that "[t]here is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution," and asserting that evolution by natural selection is "so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter" it. Skell published a rebuttal to the NAS's booklet in the journal Politics and the Life Sciences, explaining that it did not speak for all NAS members, and that the NAS was guilty of "overselling of the theory of evolution." He continued:

The public should view with profound alarm the unnecessary and misguided reintroduction of speculative historical, philosophical, and religious ideas into the realms of experimental science, coming from various sources, including this current publication of the National Academy of Sciences. Are we perhaps setting the stage for a return to that earlier, worldview-bound, pre-modern type of science, only this time with the substitution of Scientism for the earlier worldviews?

(Philip Skell, "Review of National Academy of Sciences, Science, Evolution, and Creationism (Washington, D.C.: NAS Press, 2008)," Politics and the Life Sciences, Vol. 27(2);47-49 (October 9, 2008).)

Phil also got involved with defending objectivity and academic freedom in evolution-education. He encouraged a middle-of-the-road approach, avoiding extremes that would force religion or dumbed-down evolutionary dogmatism into the science classroom. Instead, in a 2005 letter to the South Carolina Education Oversight Committee, he recommended:

Both these extremes are mistaken. Evolution is an important theory and students need to know about it. But scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory and students need to know about these as well.

As a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Skell had personal inside access to the thought and behavior patterns of many top scientists. This makes it all the more striking that his 2005 letter maintained that the claim that there are no scientific criticisms of neo-Darwinian evolution is a bluff promoted to the public. He wrote:

Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work. I have found that some of my scientific colleagues are very reluctant to acknowledge the existence of problems with evolutionary theory to the general public. They display an almost religious zeal for a strictly Darwinian view of biological origins.

In a third podcast interview, Dr. Skell offered advice to a hypothetical young scientist who was skeptical of Darwinian evolution. Here, he urged great caution:

The academic community is incredibly intolerant of anyone not paying loyalty to Darwinian ideas, and have no hesitation in railroading such an individual out of the community, having them fired, and making life generally miserable for such a person. So for a young person to let his professors know that he might be skeptical of Darwinism ... even such a mild disowning of the Darwinian point of view is considered so dangerous among many of the professional biologists that such a person is railroaded out of the profession. The best advice I can give them is until this climate changes ... that a young prospective scientist in the biosciences keep that entirely to themselves and make it something which is not known to the academic structure on which they depend both for their education for their degrees and for recommendation to positions in the future.

Dr. Skell further explained that that climate of academic freedom has "deteriorated" over the course of his career, and that although it is "not an easy matter to judge," he believed that it is "more dangerous today for anyone to be declared a Darwinian skeptic of whatever color than it has been in the past."

In keeping with his commitment to academic freedom, in 2005 Skell put his name as the first signer on an amicus brief submitted to the court during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial stating "[i]t is crucial that advocates of new scientific theories be granted freedom of inquiry to question reigning scientific ideas if scientific progress is to be possible."

On this Thanksgiving, I personally am very thankful for having been given the opportunity to get to know Phil Skell a little over the past few years. He was a real gentleman, and had a great sense of humor, and a big smile. It's my understanding that he was quite athletic until just a couple years ago.

Dr. Skell will always have my most profound respect as someone who was willing to risk an impeccable scientific reputation for the sake of seeking scientific truth, vocally defending it whatever the personal cost. I have no doubt he will be missed by many.

Read More

Atheist With Doubts About Darwinism

Read More

Palaeontology is Hard!

Especially for palaeontologists, it would seem,

Many dinosaurs may be facing a new kind of extinction—a controversial theory suggests as many as a third of all known dinosaur species never existed in the first place.

That’s because young dinosaurs didn’t look like Mini-Me versions of their parents, according to new analyses by paleontologists Mark Goodwin, University of California, Berkeley, and Jack Horner, of Montana State University.

Instead, like birds and some other living animals, the juveniles went through dramatic physical changes during adulthood.

This means many fossils of young dinosaurs, including T. rex relatives, have been misidentified as unique species, the researchers argue.

How T. Rex Became a Terror

The lean and graceful Nanotyrannus is one strong example. Thought to be a smaller relative of T. rex, the supposed species is now considered by many experts to be based on a misidentified fossil of a juvenile T. rex.

The purported Nanotyrannus fossils have the look of a teenage T. rex, Horner said in the new documentary. That’s because T. rex’s skull changed dramatically as it grew, he said.

The skull morphed from an elongated shape to the more familiar, short snout and jaw, which could take in large quantities of food.

But the smoking gun, Horner said, was the discovery of a dinosaur between the size of an adult T. rex and Nanotyrannus.

As I’ve said before on numerous occasions, palaeontology isn’t necessarily an exact science. Just ask Java Man.

It’ll be interesting to see how evolutionists spin this. The one science that they really, truly were pinning their hopes on to save evolution’s bacon – and it turns out the primary “scientists” involved can’t even distinguish juvenile and adult dinosaurs of the same species. This – along with the long procession of “proto-human hominid ancestors” whose skeletons are reconstructed based on the testimony of a couple of jawbones, or wristbones from an extinct species of peccary – calls into question the competence of the whole structure of the palaeontological pseudoscience. It really does. We all the time hear about “missing links” and whatnot that are discovered, only to later turn out to be deformed members of already-known species, and so forth. That’s what happens when the obsession to validate a philosophical presupposition takes the place of careful, empirical study.

I find it ironic that the discovery of a missing link is what calls the science of missing links into question.

Read More

Like a Phoenix, Irreducible Complexity Rises Again

A couple of weeks ago, etihwelppA selrahC at LGF 1.0 posted about an article that appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) entitled “The Reducible Complexity of a Mitochondrial Molecular Machine.” As is usual for selrahC – who is not a scientist, and does not evince any actual knowledge of any scientific field – there was a whole lot of crowing about irreducible complexity “going down in flames.” Yet, this “evidence” for evolution was anything but. And today, Michael Behe, who pioneered irreducible complexity in the microbiological/biochemical fields, observes why this and other articles fail in this regard,

Recently a paper appeared online in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, entitled "The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial Molecular machine" As you might expect, I was very interested in reading what the authors had to say. Unfortunately, as is all too common on this topic, the claims made in the paper far surpassed the data, and distinctions between such basic ideas as “reducible” versus “irreducible” and “Darwinian” versus “non-Darwinian” were pretty much ignored.

Since PNAS publishes letters to the editor on its website, I wrote in. Alas, it seems that polite comments by a person whose work is the clear target of the paper are not as welcome as one might suppose from reading the journal’s letters-policy announcement (“We wish to provide readers with an opportunity to constructively address a difference of opinion with authors of recent papers. Readers are encouraged to point out potential flaws or discrepancies or to comment on exceptional studies published in the journal. Replication and refutation are cornerstones of scientific progress, and we welcome your comments.”) My letter received a brusque rejection. Below I reproduce the letter for anyone interested in my reaction to the paper. (By the way, it’s not just me. Other scientists whose work is targeted sometimes get the run around on letters to the editor, too. For an amusing / astounding example, see here.)

Call me paranoid, but it seems to me that some top-notch journals are real anxious to be rid of the idea of irreducible complexity. Recall that last year Genetics published a paper purportedly refuting the difficulty of getting multiple required mutations by showing it’s quick and easy in a computer - if one of the mutations is neutral (rather than harmful) and first spreads in the population. Not long before that, PNAS published a paper supposedly refuting irreducible complexity by postulating that the entire flagellum could evolve from a single remarkable prodigy-gene. Not long before that, Science published a paper allegedly refuting irreducible complexity by showing that if an investigator altered a couple amino acid residues in a steroid hormone receptor, the receptor would bind steroids more weakly than the unmutated form. (That one also made the New York Times!) For my responses, see here, here, here, and here. So, arguably picayune, question-begging, and just plain wrong results disputing IC find their way into front-line journals with surprising frequency. Meanwhile, in actual laboratory evolution experiments, genes are broken right and left as bacteria try to outgrow each other.

Well, at least it’s nice to know that my work gives some authors a hook on which to hang results that otherwise would be publishable only in journals with impact factors of -3 or less. But if these are the best “refutations” that leading journals such as PNAS and Science can produce in more than a decade, then the concept of irreducible complexity is in very fine shape indeed.

This is pretty typical, really. Since evolutionism is not science, but is a philosophical predilection, it is very difficult for those who have had their whistles whetted by the thought that finally, this time around, they’ve refuted them doggone creationists to have to backtrack and admit that maybe they were a bit hasty. For them, doing so is, in a sense, a lot like having to recant a dearly held religious doctrine. Remember, this happened with Ida. The supposedly rock-solid evidence of proto-human evolution turned out to be an extinct lemur or some such. The MSM loudly trumped it, and were mimicked by non-science types like selrahC, even as the scientists were quietly backing away from the initial claims as it became apparent that there were too many problems with the data for Ida to retain celebrity status.

When I saw the post at LGF 1.0, the first thing I did was to go to PNAS’ website and print off the actual paper, figuring that the claims being made were not supported by the actual data. I was not disappointed. The data in Lithgow et al. does NOT support the wild-eyed ravings about refuting irreducible complexity. Not even close. I was going to go through the actual science involved and provide a precise demonstration of why the paper in question is scientific junk, but I just noticed that Casey Luskin at the Discovery Institute already did so. Go there and read the details. When I call Lithgow et al. “scientific junk,” I’m not just being pejorative. It actually IS junk. The whole paper is full of speculation, argument from (loose) analogy, and argument using assertions that have not been proven (and hence cannot, by the strict rules of logic, be used as support for their arguments) but are merely assumed a priori. At one point, the authors even say that they are engaging in speculation (their word, not mine) about a key point needed to sustain their argument.

As an aside, I also appreciate the point that Luskin makes that the authors of this paper are forced, once again, to rely upon the use of teleological language in their discussion. No matter how hard evolutionists try to get around it, it seems as if purpose and design keep intruding. This is a point I’ve consistently made for quite a while now – evolutionism can’t get anywhere without making evolution (a process) act teleologically (which presumes an intelligence directing the process to a definite, purposeful end). You see it all the time when evolutionists talk about evolution “designing more complex eyes” and whatnot.

Anywise, back to the article. Essentially, the logic behind this paper can be boiled down to a four-point syllogism:

1) The molecular machines that transport proteins through the mitochondrial membranes are made up of one complex of proteins.

2) In certain species of alpha-proteobacteria (which are assumed, but never demonstrated, to be evolutionary precursors to mitochondria, which were then "captured" by other cells, and became mitochondria), there are proteins with similar structures.

3) The genome that codes for these proteins could possibly have mutated to start coding for the proteins we see in mitochondria, which then could have adopted a new function (i.e. the mitochondrial transmembrane protein transport).

4) Therefore, they did.

That’s it. Behe and Luskin are right – the logic is spurious, and so is the PNAS article. There’s no demonstration that any of the presumptions in the article actually happened. No exhibition of data or evidence that would suggest that these speculations were anything more than that – mere speculations. Similarity of protein structure, I hate to tell them, does not prove, or even necessarily suggest, common descent or origin. They certainly haven’t provided anything to suggest otherwise in this case.

Read More

Citation: Charles and "fact-checking"

Charles made an hilarious question that I just couldn't let go by:

"After all, who cares about basic fact checking when there’s an ideology to be promoted?"

Yes, who cares about checking the facts, when there is an ideology to be promoted? Remember Ida? Piltdown Man? Nebraska Man? Lucy? Where was the "fact-checking" then?

Oh, I forgot. That can't be done in such cases because there's an ideology to be promoted.

Read More

Evolutionism, Environmentalism, and Cosmic Sympathy

The latest from some right wing nut over at Renew America showing the connexion between evolution, environmentalism, and the resurgence of pagan philosophy,

I'll start with evolutionism, and that by defining my use of the term. When I refer to "evolutionism," I am not referring strictly to the principles of biological evolution — natural selection and what have you — some of which I have no fundamental issue with when speaking of adaptation at the sub-orderial level (i.e. microevolution). Rather, I am referring to the philosophical underpinning that is used to interpret our observations of the material world, and which posits that "change" in the physical world is completely naturalistic, that there is no supernatural, there is no outside Being who created or interferes in the operation of things in this universe. As such, the term "evolutionism" encompasses everything from cosmology to biology (via the unsubstantiated suppositions of macroevolution) and the philosophical hand-waving that is used to support non-theistic arguments in these areas.

Evolutionism starts from essentially the same pagan first principle as did the ancient mythologies — that of the eternal pre-existence of the cosmos as a self-contained (even if not yet in finished form) whole. To the ancients, it was an eternally pre-existent heaven and earth whose pre-existence was never rationally explained, and rarely addressed. Today, it manifests itself as a variety of competing cosmological theories, the most prominent of which are the steady-state theory of Fred Hoyle (which has fallen out of favor) and the more well-known Big Bang theory. Both theories implicitly rest on the premise of eternal pre-existence without an initiatory Creator. The steady state theory suggested that the universe has no beginning and will have no end, and will always appear to us to be the same (on an extremely large cosmological scale, of course, change and greater order are accounted for at lower levels like, say, the galactic). The Big Bang, which has largely supplanted the steady state theory, while appearing to suggest that the universe has a beginning (the singular point from which everything "banged"), nevertheless fails to explain where that point came from — meaning once again the rejection of a Creator and the positing of an eternally pre-existing cosmos in some form or another.

Read the whole thing!

Read More

An Honest Admission

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

"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 counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - Dr. Richard Lewontin

Basically, he is describing the difference between "science" and "scientism" (which he wrongly conflates with science). "Science" is simply a set of investigative principles that is, by its own admission, limited in scope and ability. "Scientism", on the other hand, is a philosophical underpinning which forms the basis of evolutionism, and which refuses to accept the limitations on science that are imposed by the fact that science can only deal with physical evidences. Scientism gets around the limitation by arguing for materialism - the unsubstantiated delusion that since metaphysical and supernatural evidences are outside the strict realm of science (as it presently exists at least) to investigate, that they therefore simply don't exist. It's sort of like saying that all those people who talk about China and show you pictures from there are just raving superstitious morons since you've personally never been there. "Science" knows its limits and accepts them, since it has no stake in doing otherwise. "Scientism" doesn't accept the limits, because of its fanatical need to eliminate the non-material. The former is legitimate investigation, the later is simply a not very well-thought out attempt at justifying atheism.

Read More

Much Ado About Nothing

The latest evo post over at Little Green Footballs is even more clueless about actual science than usual. In this one, Charles Johnson links a hyperventilating screed from the Reuters "science" section about the presence of an amino acid in the tail of a comet,

The amino acid glycine, a fundamental building block of proteins, has been found in a comet for the first time, bolstering the theory that raw ingredients of life arrived on Earth from outer space, scientists said on Monday.

Microscopic traces of glycine were discovered in a sample of particles retrieved from the tail of comet Wild 2 by the NASA spacecraft Stardust deep in the solar system some 242 million miles (390 million km) from Earth, in January 2004....

[snip]

....The latest findings add credence to the notion that extraterrestrial objects such as meteorites and comets may have seeded ancient Earth, and other planets, with the raw materials of life that formed elsewhere in the cosmos.

"The discovery of glycine in a comet supports the idea that the fundamental building blocks of life are prevalent in space, and strengthens the argument that life in the universe may be common rather than rare," said Carl Pilcher, the director of the NASA Astrobiology Institute in California, which co-funded the research.

Glycine and other amino acids have been found in a number of meteorites before, most notably one that landed near the town of Murchison, Australia in 1969, Elsila said.

Even for a mainstream media science article, this one is remarkably clueless about the basic science surrounding this issue. The way the article reads, they found glycine - GLYCINE!!!!! - in the tail of a comet, and poof, this practically proves that earth was seeded by extraterrestrial amino acids and *poof* life appeared!

Frankly, they're just lucky it was glycine they found, and not any other amino acid.

The reason is that glycine - which the article correctly notes is the "simplest" amino acid - is also the only amino acid which does not contain a chiral centre. Now, glycine is relatively simple to produce in nature - Miller-Urey produced it primarily when they did their little "lightning in a bottle of ammonia and methane" trick that the evos usually hold up as evidence that early earth conditions could have produced amino acids, which formed proteins, which formed everything else! (I'm simplifying, of course) There's no reason to think that the input of a little solar energy couldn't have done the same thing with ammonia and methane in the tail of a comet, at least enough to produce the "microscopic traces" of glycine the article mentions.

In fact, as the article also mentions, the Murchison strike in Australia yielded evidence for extraterrestrially-produced amino acid production.

But, the problem with using that as evidence is that a number of amino acids from the Murchison strike were non-biological, and all of them, biological and non-biological alike, were present as racemates - meaning that they were present in both left-handed and right-handed chiralities. Problem is, biologically active proteins incorporate left-handed amino acids exclusively. Yet, there is no chemical reason why a protein would selectively incorporate only one handedness of amino acid into a growing polymer chain. What this means is that any proteins that did somehow manage to overcome all the other things that basically rule out the naturalistic arguments for abiogenesis, like ionising radiation in an "oxygenless early earth atmosphere" (think, no ozone layer) and the Le Chatelier impossibility of performing a condensation reaction with water as a product (such as, you know, amino acid polymerisation to form proteins) in an ocean, would still have incorporated both handedness of amino acids, and have been completely useless as evolution-bearing precursors to life on this earth.

This is why I said that the evos got lucky that only glycine was found in the comet's tail, because any more complex amino acids would - if the evidence from every other extraterrestrial source of amino acids we've found to date is any indication - have been enantiomerically mixed, and would have been useless from an origins-of-life perspective. Being achiral, glycine does not have "handedness", and hence does not present the problem for the requirement of enantiopurity that any other amino acid would.

And let's note - merely finding glycine (ONE amino acid) does not prove anything about any evolutionarily-demanded "seeding" of life on earth. You don't build proteins out of just glycine. You need other amino acids as well - and to date, the scattered few that we're found from off-planet would be useless.

Not only is the science underlying the suppositions of the article faulty, but the article itself is written somewhat deceptive, like they're trying to slip stuff past the undiscerning reader. For instance, having admitted early on that "microscopic traces" of glycine were found in Wolf 1's tail, we are later told,

"The discovery of glycine in a comet supports the idea that the fundamental building blocks of life are prevalent in space, and strengthens the argument that life in the universe may be common rather than rare."

So, they're "microscopic traces", but they're "prevalent in space" and show that life in the universe "may be common." Friends, that's not science, that's wishful thinking. And it's not even supported by scientifically-valid evidence. Find trace amounts of glycine in a comet's tail and assuming from this that life may well be common all across this universe is simply non-sequitur.

Articles like this do nothing to actually "prove" the truth of evolution, or even its likelihood. They only demonstrate the scientific illiteracy of so many of the MSM's "science writers" and those who repeat them ignorant, like Charles Johnson at LGF 1.0.

Read More