Just got back from a bright dinner with Richard Dawkins at the pad of Christopher Hitchens (left), author of God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, currently #2 on NYTimes Bestseller list.
Thanks to David Cowan for organizing the soiree after Dawkins’ talk at Kepler’s.
I learned one thing from this talk (from the picture : ) The most advance "being" in the evolution of the species : Beer is the Heineken…. ! How do i know ?…Well a world expert in evolution, drink it, over all other beer ‘s species… (and please..i am not doing advertising..i don t drink ; P )
Steve how is he in private ? Is he as much "direct" (but logical), in private about this subjects? Or less…or more… than in front of a TvCamera etc ?
And is there anything, you could and would share about the person himself..something that may have surprised you for exemple, or anything : ) I am always very curious to see or learn how people like him are, between their private life and the "BigShow"
Ho and if you meet him again here is a question to ask :
http://www.flickr.com/photos/photonquantique/816820405/
Perhaps it’s divine intervention that I can only see this image if I look at the "original" size.
Maybe the inner flickr code knows that this is unsafe content…. 😉
If you’ve changed your mind about wanting to see this content, you can ESCAPE. TAKE ME TO THE KITTENS!
Photon: I had a hard time relating to Hitchens, perhaps because I had not read his book yet. I found Dawkins to be much more amicable and refined.
The part I found fascinating is Dawkins’ struggle to reach his audience without summary rejection of the messenger (since people reflexively reject disconfirming evidence, especially after decades of sunk costs pursuing one line of thought). I asked, and he confirmed, that the opening of God Delusion, which starts with a detailed analysis of Einstein’s beliefs, was aimed at the rational scientist in the closet… to try to hook them with a baby step away from their cluster of inconsistent beliefs. Dawkins shares that 60% of scientists and 90% of accomplished scientists do not believe in God, but most reveal this only in anonymous surveys. I can see why Dawkins targets this group – he is surrounded by them at work (Oxford Univ.).
But I asked about a bigger group, at least in the U.S. – the mass of people who believe in the potential of belief, in spirituality, in transcendence, in paranormal possibilities, but not in organized mainstream religious ritual. They regard themselves to be open-minded, hip and modern and see atheist rants as close-minded, anti-social and archaic. How might Dawkins and the modern atheists appeal to this group, because they too might be nudged by a positive attractor, a viral meme that embraces their current beliefs and extends them to a more rational and scientific exploration? Perhaps Jujutsu (the Eastern art of deflection) would be more effective than a frontal assault.
For a sense of how many people there are like this, consider the following statistics on American adults:
• 39% believe astrology is scientific (astrology, not astronomy).
• 33% believe in ghosts and communication with the dead.
Ponder that for a moment. One out of every three U.S. adults believes in ghosts. (even less flattering stats)
In my experience talking with people, the attacks of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and others run into a powerful immune response from these people, and communication rapidly breaks down.
I pointed out that Sam Harris’ End of Faith starts with a frontal assault on religion, and thus probably loses most readers who do not already agree with Sam.
Sam’s last chapter is very different. He extols the virtues of transcendental meditation, Buddhist texts and Eastern mysticism. Dawkins was understandably critical of that last chapter, but I argued that it might be a better place to start to reach the mainstream without summary rejection. I am trying a little experiment with that as we speak, having sent the book to three people and urging them to start with the last chapter. In one extreme case, a relative of mine who is a devout Christian kept refusing to read Dawkins because he is a “closed minded fundamentalist” but when I described the content of Harris’ last chapter, she begged me for the book and I predict she will read it. She dismisses Dawkins by reputation but Harris is an unknown to her. I then suggested the chapter on Islam, again to avoid the direct assault before a foundation of analogies has been laid. We’ll see.
Dawkins seemed intrigued. He is currently thinking about a different large group of people that might be influenced – children. His next book may be a children’s book.
Bravo! What better dinner company could you ask for?! I saw Dawkins give the same talk at the University of Kansas (right in the heart of the anti-Darwinian Evolution camp). It was simply superb!
In response to Dawkins’ struggle with delivering a successful message (actually the message is utterly successful – it is in the receiving given the ghost-fearing masses)… to quote Lady McBeth, "…screw your courage to the sticking-place, and we’ll not fail.’
A children’s book would be a most strategic step in that this is obviously the first phase in indoctrination that people usually go through in their lifelong culturally-reinforced religious undertakings.
hello steve
the boxbe message delivery verification for your address doesn’t seem to work nor does the $1.35 payment method. can you please provide me with a different address? i would like to send confidential information that will be very useful to you.
tifotter , no… it was not static. It simply wasn’t there. It was blank where the photo should be. I see this from time to time on flickr. No need to think someone flagged it based on my experience. I just think it’s a bug in flickr that happens rarely.
BTW, I see it now.
A children’s book will be interesting and good for introducing the scientific method. Dawkin’s letter to his daughter seems like a good start.
thanks for your detailed discussion steve.
i am in the middle of Harris’ End of Faith, and have read Dawkins, but Hitchens will be next.
i agree with your observations that it would take a bit of a leap for many christians to read End of Faith from cover to cover. perhaps this might be why he penned Letter to a Christian Nation – it’s written in a much more personal tone specifically targeted towards a special group and is so short in length that it wouldn’t take long for a religious person to read it (and suffer a much shorter barrage of criticism of their beliefs through reason than the much longer End of Faith).
i feel that Dawkins’ approach resonates the strongest with me so far because it was the first book to really help the masses open up a discussion about faith. this is a vital first step to getting people to make reasoned decisions for believing the things that they believe. it is the first book to make atheist no longer a dirty word and to begin the featuring of prominent atheists in mainstream media. personally for me, it gave myself and i am sure countless other atheists, the courage to speak out and say that enough is enough of the ridiculous political correctness that is preventing society from having a proper reasoned discourse about faith – it has allowed us to speak to friends and family who may be religious, and to engage in a meaningful discussion. this is such a huge step in itself on the long road to steering us from the self destructive path of faith.
you can see from your own experience that these books have allowed us greater freedoms to discuss these sensitive topics with our religious friends and family. that’s why i think that between Dawkins’ and Harris’ books, The God Delusion is one which is written in such a way that makes it easier to give it to a loved one to read, as opposed to The End of Faith which is great for atheists, but not such a good conversation opener with the religious.
i’m thrilled that Dawkins is considering writing a children’s book! from his brilliant lectures in his Growing Up in the Universe video, the children are clearly enjoying his engaging discussions of how the world works from a scientific perspective. i would love to be able to give a children’s version of The God Delusion for my nephews and niece to read.
"excellent! are they planning a global movement to take over the world?! where do i sign? :)"
wouldn’t that just be another religion? I do sense a bit or irony when somebody is preaching their point of view against another persons point of view..
@Nik Cubrilovic – i’m sorry that the sarcasm in that statement was lost on you.
regardless of that, you would first have to define "religion". so, even if my fatuous statement were to be taken seriously, then no, it wouldn’t be just like another religion. would you consider joining a global movement to tackle poverty or global warming the same as joining a religion? i think not.
once again, sweating the small stuff and dodging the real questions doesn’t get us anywhere.
i’d much rather hear your personal point of view on the issues at hand.
"Among those who no longer believe in the religion of their fathers, some are proudly defiant, and many are indifferent. But there are also a few, perhaps an increasing number, who feel that there is a vacancy in their lives. This inquiry deals with their problem. It is not intended to disturb the serenity of those who are unshaken in the faith they hold, and it is not concerned with those who are still exhilarated by their escape from some stale orthodoxy. It is concerned with those who are perplexed by the consequences of their own irreligion. It deals with the problem of unbelief, not as believers are accustomed to deal with it, in the spirit of men confidently calling the lost sheep back into the fold, but as unbelievers themselves must, I think, face the problem if they face it candidly and without presumption."
Walter Lippmann, A Preface to Morals (1929).
Worth a read…
One of the things we discussed at dinner has finally become a reality:
"After more than a year of expensive negotiation, we are delighted to announce that both the US and the UK versions of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science have been granted charitable, tax-exempt status in their respective countries."
richarddawkinsfoundation.org/foundation,donations
P.S. Nik – no, rationalism is not like a religion
A great mind went back to dust…but his spirit and ideas will keep replicating among the collective…
Christopher Hitchens dies after battle with cancer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16212418
If people would only think for themselves – there would be no atheists.
Atheism is anti-logic and anti-science ……
Atheism is the rejection of one of the only 2 origins options.
The only two options are:
1. An uncaused, supernatural first cause.
2. An uncaused, natural first cause.
Atheists categorically reject option one, therefore they believe in option two – by default.
Option two (an uncaused, natural first cause) is impossible according to logic, natural laws and the scientific method.
Every natural event/effect/entity has to have an adequate cause.
All material/natural entities/events are contingent, they rely on preceding causes.
A natural first cause, cannot be a very FIRST cause because something (which didn’t need a cause) must have caused it.
A natural first cause also cannot be the very first cause of the universe because it is woefully inadequate for the effect. An effect cannot be greater than its cause.
So atheism is a set of beliefs which violate the scientific method, ignore logic and defy natural laws.
Atheism is akin to a religion because it credits matter/energy with similar creative powers and attributes as those applied to a creator God, which is really just a more sophisticated version of pagan naturalism, which imbued natural entities such as Mother Nature, The Sun or Moon god etc. with creative and magical powers.
To explain further ….
If there are only 2 options and one is ruled out as ‘impossible’ by logic, natural law and the scientific method, then it is safe, indeed sensible, to deduce that the other option is the only possible, and likely one.
Anyone who believes in science should know – that the basis of the scientific method is looking for adequate causes for every natural event/effect.
An ‘uncaused’ natural event is an anathema to science, it cannot even contemplate such a prospect.
If someone were to propose a natural first cause of everything, science would have to ask – what caused it? You cannot claim it was uncaused – that defies the scientific method.
However, if it was caused – if it had a preceding cause, … then it cannot be the FIRST cause. Because FIRST means FIRST, not second or third.
So the very first cause of everything must be UNCAUSED … which means, according to science, it CANNOT be a NATURAL cause.
In other words … it cannot be a contingent entity, it can only be an eternally self-existent, self-reliant, autonomous, infinite, omnipotent entity which is entirely independent of causes, and the limitations that causes impose. In other words …. a Creator God.
Furthermore, the first cause also has to be completely adequate for the effect, the effect cannot be greater than the cause … so the first cause has to have adequate powers, properties and potentiality to create the entirety of the universe, i.e. nothing in the universe can be superior in any respect to the first cause.
That means the first cause must embody, or be able to create, every property and quality that exists, which includes: natural laws, matter/energy, information, life, intelligence, consciousness, self-awareness, design, skill, moral values, love, sense of beauty, justice etc.
All proposed, natural first causes – Big Bang’s, Singularities, quantum mechanics etc. are not only ruled out because, as contingent events, they cannot be uncaused, they are also grossly inferior to the effect, which definitively rules them all out as credible first causes.
To put it more simply … all effects/events/entities are the result of a combination of numerous, preceding causes, but the very first cause is unique, inasmuch as it is a lone cause of everything.
Everything can be traced back to that single cause, it is responsible for every other cause, entity and effect that follows it. Unlike other lesser or subsequent causes, it has to account for the totality of everything that exists. So it cannot be inferior in any respect to any particular property, entity, event, effect, or to the totality of them all.
For example …..
If we have intelligence then, that which ultimately caused us cannot be non-intelligent.
Atheists assume that we are greater in that respect than that which caused us …. that is ridiculous and it defies logic and natural law. Foolish indeed!
What about infinite time?
Time is simply a chronology of natural events. Time began with the origin of the material realm. No natural events …means – no time. All natural entities, events/effects are contingent, they cannot be self-existent, they rely on causes and the limitations that causes impose. they are not autonomous entities, to propose that is anti-science.
Atheism = NOTHING created EVERYTHING, for NO REASON.
Makes perfect sense …. NOT!
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments- gods-existen…
Atheists often say: you can’t fill gaps in knowledge with a supernatural first cause.
But we are not talking about filling gaps, we are talking about a fundamental issue … the origin of everything in the material realm.
The first cause is not a gap, it is the beginning – and many of the greatest scientists in the history of science had no problem whatsoever with the logic that – a natural, first cause was impossible, and the only possible option was a supernatural creator.
Why do atheists have such a problem with it?
Atheists seem to think that to explain the origin of the universe without a God, simply involves explaining what triggered it, as though its formation from that point on, just happens automatically.
This has been compared by some as similar to lighting the blue touch paper of a firework. They think that if they can propose such a naturalistic trigger, then God is made redundant.
That may sound plausible to some members of the public, who take such pronouncements at face value, and are somewhat in awe of anything that is claimed to be ‘scientific’.
But it is obvious to anyone who thinks seriously about it, that a mere trigger is not necessarily an adequate cause.
A trigger presupposes that there is some sort of a mechanism/blueprint/plan already existing which is ready to spring into action if it is provided with an appropriate trigger. So a trigger is not a sole cause, or a first cause, it is merely one contributing cause.
Natural things do only what they are programmed to do, i.e. they obey natural laws and the demands of their own pre-ordered composition and structure. Lighting blue touch paper would do absolutely nothing, unless there is a carefully designed and manufactured firework already attached to it.
Atheists invent all sorts of bizarre myths to explain the origin of the universe and matter/energy.
Such as it arising from nothing of its own volition, for no reason.
Or even the utterly, ludicrous notion of the universe creating itself from nothing. Obviously for something to create itself, it would need to pre-exist its own creation, in order to do the creating!
Another idea which seems to be popular with atheists at present, is a continuously, reciprocating universe, one which ends by running out of energy potential and then rewinds itself in an never-ending cycle.
However, the idea that the universe can simply rewind itself in a never ending cycle, which had no beginning, is complete, unscientific nonsense.
It seems atheists will try anything to justify their naturalist ideology. They apparently have no compunction about completely disregarding natural laws.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out such atheist, pie-in-the-sky, origins mythology.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, the idea of a rewinding universe is tantamount to applying the discredited notion of perpetual motion – on a grand scale, to the universe.
Contingent things don’t just rewind of their own accord. The Second Law (not to mention common sense) rules it out. Where does the renewed power or renewed energy potential come from? If you wind up a clock, it doesn’t rewind itself after it has stopped. The universe had a beginning and it will have an end. That is what science tells us, it cannot rewind itself.
Such ridiculous atheist musings are just a desperate attempt to wriggle out of the inevitable conclusion of logic, and the Law of Cause and Effect which are the real enemies of atheist ideology.
Atheism is hoisted on its own petard by natural law and science, not by religion.
Atheists can’t refute the Law of Cause and Effect which is so devastating to their naturalist agenda, so they regularly invent bizarre scenarios which ignore natural laws, and hope people won’t notice. If anyone does they just brush it off with remarks like “we just don’t know ”.
Sorry, atheists apologists may not know …. but we do know, we certainly know what is impossible …. And we certainly know that you cannot blithely step outside the constraints of natural laws and scientific principles, as atheists do, and remain credible.
Atheists are anti-science, because they treat natural law and the whole principle of the scientific method with utter contempt, while they masquerade as the champions of science to the public.
A further nail in the coffin of atheist pseudoscience is existence of order.
The development of order requires an organizational element. To do useful work, or to counter the effects of entropy, energy needs to be directed or guided. Raw energy alone actually tends to increase the effects of entropy, it doesn’t increase order.
The organizational principle in living systems is provided by the informational element encoded in DNA.
Natural laws are a type of information which guide the behaviour of energy and matter, but also serve to limit it. They are an inherent property of matter/energy, natural processes operate only within the confines of natural laws. They cannot exceed the parameters of those laws.
A major problem for atheists is to explain where natural laws came from? In a purposeless universe there should be no regulatory principle at all.
Firstly, we would not expect anything to exist, we would expect eternal nothingness.
Secondly, even if we overlook that impossible hurdle, and assume by some amazing fluke and contrary to logic, something was able to create itself from nothing ….. we would expect the ‘something’ would have no ordered structure and we would expect it to behave randomly and chaotically.
This is an absolutely fundamental question to which atheists have no answer. The basic properties of matter/energy scream …. ‘purpose’. Atheists say the exact opposite.
Furthermore, if we add the accepted, atheist belief; that matter is inherently predisposed to produce life and the genetic information for life, whenever environmental conditions are conducive.
The atheist idea of a random, purposeless, universe is left completely in tatters.
It is the atheist ideology that is anti-science, not necessarily individual scientists.
There may be sincere, atheist scientists who respect the scientific method and natural laws, but they are wedded to an ideology that – when push comes to shove, does not respect natural laws.
It is evident that whenever natural laws interfere with atheist naturalist beliefs, the beliefs take precedence over the rigorous, scientific method. It is then that natural laws are disregarded by atheists in favour of unscientific fantasies which are conducive to their ideology.
Of course, in much day-to-day practical science and technology, the question of violating laws doesn’t even arise, and we cannot deny that in the course of such work, atheists will respect the scientific method of experiment and observation within the framework of the Law of Cause and Effect and other established laws of science.
Bizarrely, It is a different matter entirely, when it comes to hypotheses about origins. It then becomes an ‘anything goes’ situation. The main criteria then seems to be that it doesn’t matter whether your hypothesis violates natural laws (all sorts of excuses can be made as to why natural laws need not apply), all that matters is that it is entirely naturalistic, and can be made to sound plausible to the public.
However, the same atheist scientists would not entertain anything in general, day-to-day science, that is not completely in accordance with the scientific method, they make an exception ONLY with anything to do with origins, whether it be the origin of the universe, or the origin of life, or the origin of species.
Atheism is not simply passive non-belief, you can only be a ‘genuine’ atheist if you proactively believe in the following illogical and unscientific notions:
A natural, first cause of the universe that was ‘uncaused’.
A natural, first cause of the universe that was patently not adequate for the effect, (a cause which was able to produce an effect far greater than itself and superior to its own abilities).
That the universe created ITSELF from nothing.
That natural laws simply arose of their own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.
That energy potential at the start of everything material was able to wind itself up from absolute zero, of its own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.
That the effect of entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics) was somehow suspended or didn’t operate to permit the development of order in the universe.
That life spontaneously generated itself, of its own volition, from sterile matter, contrary to: the Law of Biogenesis, the laws of probability, the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, Information Theory and common sense.
That the complete human genome was created by means of a long chain of copying mistakes of the original, genetic information in the first living cell, (mutations of mutations of mutations, etc. etc.).
That the complex DNA code was produced by chemical processes.
That the very first, genetic information, encoded in the DNA of the first living cell, created itself by some unknown means.
That matter is somehow inherently predisposed to develop into living cells, whenever conditions are conducive to life. But such a predisposition for life just arose of its own accord, with no purpose and with no apparent cause.
That an ordered structure of atoms, guiding laws of physics, order in the cosmos, order in the living cell and complex information, are what we would expect to occur naturally in a purposeless universe.
The claim of Dawkins and other atheists to be the champions of science and reason is clearly bogus. They think they can get away with it by pretending to have no beliefs. However, when challenged, they indirectly espouse the unscientific beliefs outlined above, in their futile attempts to refute the evidence for a supernatural first cause. Whenever possible, they avoid declaring those beliefs explicitly, but you don’t need to be very astute to realize that relying on those beliefs is the unavoidable conclusion of their arguments. That is why atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is doomed to the dustbin of history.
Evolution is on the rocks – some recent evidence:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/7215 7635944904973/
Fossil museum:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/7215 7641367196613/
So much for atheism …. What about progressive (macro) evolution?
There is no credible mechanism for progressive evolution.
Darwin believed that there was unlimited variability in the gene pool of all creatures and plants.
However, the changes possible through selective breeding were known by breeders to be strictly limited.
This is because the changes seen in selective breeding are due to the shuffling, deletion and emphasis of genetic information already existing in the gene pool (micro-evolution). There is no viable mechanism for creating new, beneficial, genetic information required to create entirely new structures and features (macro-evolution).
Darwin ignored the limits which were well known to breeders (even though he selectively bred pigeons himself, and should have known better). He simply extrapolated the limited, minor changes observed in selective breeding to major, unlimited, progressive changes able to create new structures, organs etc. through natural selection, over millions of years.
Of course, the length of time involved made no difference, the existing, genetic information could not increase of its own accord, no matter how long the timescale.
That was a gigantic flaw in Darwinism, and opponents of Darwin’s ideas tried to argue that changes were limited, as selective breeding had demonstrated. But because Darwinism had acquired a status more akin to an ideology than purely, objective science, belief in the Darwinian idea outweighed the verdict of observational and experimental science, and classical Darwinism became firmly established as scientific orthodoxy for nearly a century.
Opponents continued to argue all this time, that Darwinism was unscientific nonsense, but they were ostracised and dismissed as cranks, weirdoes or religious fanatics.
Finally however, it was discovered that the opponents of Darwin were perfectly correct – and that constructive, genetic changes (progressive, macro-evolution) require new, additional, genetic information.
This looked like the ignominious end of Darwinism, as there was no credible, natural mechanism able to create new, constructive, genetic information. And Darwinism should have been heading for the dustbin of history,
However, rather than ditch the whole idea, the vested interests in Darwinism had become so great, with numerous, lifelong careers and an ideological agenda which had become dependant on the Darwinian belief system, a desperate attempt was made to rescue it from its justified demise.
A mechanism had to be invented to explain the origin of new, constructive information.
That invented mechanism was ‘mutations’. Mutations are … genetic, copying MISTAKES.
The general public had already been convinced that classical Darwinism was a scientific fact, and that anyone who questioned it was a crank, so all that had to be done, as far as the public was concerned, was to give the impression that the theory had simply been refined and updated in the light of modern science.
The fact that classical Darwinism had been wrong all along, and was fatally flawed from the outset was kept quiet. This meant that the opponents of Darwinism, who had been right all along, and were the real champions of science, continued to be vilified as cranks and scorned by the mass media and establishment.
The new developments were simply portrayed as the evolution and development of the theory. The impression was given that there was nothing wrong with the idea of progressive (macro) evolution, it had simply ‘evolved’ and ‘improved’ in the light of greater knowledge.
A sort of progressive evolution of the idea of evolution.
This new, ‘improved’ Darwinism became known as Neo-Darwinism.
So what is Neo-Darwinism? And did it really solve the fatal flaws of the Darwinian idea?
Neo Darwinism is progressive, macro evolution – as Darwin had proposed, but based on the ludicrous idea that random mutations (accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected by natural selection, can provide the constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, structures, organs, and biological systems. In other words, it is macro evolution based on a belief in a total progression from microbes to man through billions of random, genetic, copying MISTAKES, over millions of years.
However, there is no evidence for it whatsoever, and it is should be classified as unscientific nonsense which defies logic, the laws of probability and Information Theory.
People are sometimes confused, because they know that ‘micro’-evolution is an observable fact, which everyone accepts. However, evolutionists often cynically exploit that confusion by citing obvious examples of micro-evolution such as: the Peppered Moth, Darwin’s finches, so-called superbugs etc., as evidence of macro-evolution.
Of course such examples are not evidence of macro-evolution at all. The public is simply being hoodwinked, and it is a disgrace to science. There are no observable examples or evidence of macro-evolution and no examples of a mutation, or a series of mutations capable of creating new structures, organs etc. and that is a fact. It is no wonder that W R Thompson stated in the preface to the 1959 centenary edition of Darwin’s Origin of the Species, that … the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity.
Micro-evolution is simply the small changes which take place, through natural selection or selective breeding, but only within the strict limits of the built-in variability of the existing gene pool. Any constructive changes outside the extent of the existing gene pool requires a credible mechanism for the creation of new, beneficial, genetic information, that is essential for macro evolution.
Micro evolution does not involve or require the creation of any new, genetic information. So micro evolution and macro evolution are entirely different. There is no connection between them at all, whatever evolutionists may claim.
Once people fully understand that the differences they see in various dogs breeds, for example, are merely an example of limited micro-evolution (selection of existing genetic information) and nothing to do with progressive macro-evolution, they begin to realise that they have been fed an incredible story.
To explain further…. Neo-Darwinian, macro evolution is the ridiculous idea that everything in the genome of humans and every living thing past and present (apart from the original genetic information in the very first living cell) is the result of millions of genetic copying mistakes….. mutations … of mutations …. of mutations…. of mutations …. and so on – and on – and on.
In other words, Neo-Darwinism proposes that the complete genome (every scrap of genetic information in the DNA) of every living thing that has ever lived was created by a series … of mistakes … of mistakes …. of mistakes …. of mistakes etc. etc.
If we look at the whole picture we soon realise that what is actually being proposed by evolutionists is that, apart from the original information in the first living cell (and evolutionists have yet to explain where that original information came from?) – every additional scrap of genetic information for all – features, structures, systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed in living things, such as:
skin, bones, bone joints, shells, flowers, leaves, wings, scales, muscles, fur, hair, teeth, claws, toe and finger nails, horns, beaks, nervous systems, blood, blood vessels, brains, lungs, hearts, digestive systems, vascular systems, liver, kidneys, pancreas, bowels, immune systems, senses, eyes, ears, sex organs, sexual reproduction, sperm, eggs, pollen, the process of metamorphosis, marsupial pouches, marsupial embryo migration, mammary glands, hormone production, melanin etc. …. have been created from scratch, by an incredibly long series of small, accumulated mistakes … mistake – upon mistake – upon mistake – upon mistake – over and over again, millions of times. That is … every part, system and process of all living things are the result of literally billions of genetic MISTAKES of MISTAKES, accumulated over many millions of years.
So what we are asked to believe is that something like a vascular system, or reproductive organs, developed in small, random, incremental steps, with every step being the result of a copying mistake, and with each step being able to provide a significant survival or reproductive advantage in order to be preserved and become dominant in the gene pool. Incredible!
If you believe that … you will believe anything.
Even worse, evolutionists have yet to cite a single example of a positive, beneficial, mutation which adds constructive information to the genome of any creature. Yet they expect us to believe that we have been converted from an original, single living cell into humans by an accumulation of billions of beneficial mutations (mistakes).
Conclusion:
Progressive, microbes-to-man evolution is impossible – there is no credible mechanism to produce all the new, genetic information which is essential for that to take place.
The evolution story is an obvious fairy tale presented as scientific fact.
However, nothing has changed – those who dare to question Neo-Darwinism are still portrayed as idiots, retards, cranks, weirdoes, anti-scientific ignoramuses or religious fanatics.
Want to join the club?
What about the fossil record?
The formation of fossils.
Books explaining how fossils are formed frequently give the impression that it takes many years of build up of layers of sediment to bury organic remains, which then become fossilised.
Therefore many people don’t realise that this impression is erroneous, because it is a fact that all good, intact fossils require rapid burial in sufficient sediment to prevent decay or predatory destruction.
So it is evident that rock containing good, undamaged fossils was laid down rapidly, sometimes in catastrophic conditions.
The very existence of intact fossils is a testament to rapid burial and sedimentation.
You don’t get fossils from slow burial. Organic remains don’t just sit around on the sea bed, or elsewhere, waiting for sediment to cover them a millimetre at a time, over a long period.
Unless they are buried rapidly, they would soon be damaged or destroyed by predation and/or decay.
The fact that so many sedimentary rocks contain fossils, indicates that the sediment that created them was normally laid down within a short time.
Another important factor is that many large fossils (tree trunks, large fish, dinosaurs etc.) intersect several or many strata (sometimes called layers) which clearly indicates that multiple strata were formed simultaneously in a single event by grading/segregation of sedimentary particles into distinct layers, and not stratum by stratum over long periods of time or different geological eras, which is the evolutionist’s, uniformitarian interpretation of the geological column.
In view of the fact that many large fossils required a substantial amount of sediment to bury them, and the fact that they intersect multiple strata (polystrate fossils), how can any sensible person claim that strata or, for that matter, any fossil bearing rock, could have taken millions of years to form?
You don’t even need to be a qualified sedimentologist or geologist to come to that conclusion, it is common sense.
Rapid formation of strata – latest evidence:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/7215 7635944904973/
All creatures and plants alive today, which are found as fossils, are the same in their fossil form as the living examples, in spite of the fact that the fossils are claimed to be millions of years old. So all living things today could be called ‘living fossils’ inasmuch as there is no evidence of any evolutionary changes in the alleged multi-million year timescale. The fossil record shows either extinct species or unchanged species, that is all.
The Cambrian Explosion.
Trilobites and other many creatures appeared suddenly in some of the earliest rocks of the fossil record, with no intermediate ancestors. This sudden appearance of a great variety of advanced, fully developed creatures is called the Cambrian Explosion. Trilobites are especially interesting because they have complex eyes, which would need a lot of progressive evolution to develop such advanced features However, there is no evidence of any evolution leading up to the Cambrian Explosion, and that is a serious dilemma for evolutionists.
Trilobites are now thought to be extinct, although it is possible that similar creatures could still exist in unexplored parts of deep oceans.
See fossil of a crab unchanged after many millions of years:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/127020466 04/in/set-72…
Fossil museum: http://www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/7215 7641367196613/
What about all the claimed scientific evidence that evolutionists have found for evolution?
The evolutionist ‘scientific’ method has resulted in a serious decline in scientific integrity, and has given us such scientific abominations as:
Piltdown Man (a fake),
Nebraska Man (a pig),
South West Colorado Man (a horse),
Orce man (a donkey),
Embryonic Recapitulation (a fraud),
Archaeoraptor (a fake),
Java Man (a giant gibbon),
Peking Man (a monkey),
Montana Man (an extinct dog-like creature)
Nutcracker Man (an extinct type of ape – Australopithecus)
The Horse Series (unrelated species cobbled together),
Peppered Moth (faked photographs)
The Orgueil meteorite (faked evidence)
Etc. etc.
Anyone can call anything ‘science’ … it doesn’t make it so.
All these examples were trumpeted by evolutionists as scientific evidence for evolution.
Do we want to trust evolutionists claims about scientific evidence, when they have such an appalling record?
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
http://www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-scie nce-paper-ju…
Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man were even used in the famous, Scopes Trial as positive evidence for evolution.
Piltdown Man reigned for over 40 years, as a supreme example of human evolution, before it was exposed as a crudely, fashioned fake.
Is that ‘science’?
The ludicrous Hopeful Monster Theory and so-called Punctuated Equilibrium (evolution in big jumps) were invented by evolutionists as a desperate attempt to explain away the lack of fossil evidence for evolution. They are proposed methods of evolution which, it is claimed, need no fossil evidence. They are actually an admission that the required fossil evidence does not exist.
Piltdown Man… it survived as alleged proof of evolution for over 40 years in evolution textbooks and was taught in schools and universities, it survived peer reviews etc. and was used as supposed irrefutable evidence for evolution at the famous Scopes Trial..
Nebraska Man, this was a single tooth of a peccary. it was trumpeted as evidence for the evolution of humans, and artists impressions of an ape-like man appeared in newspapers magazines etc. It was also used as ‘scientific’ evidence for evolution in the Scopes Trial. Such ‘scientific’ evidence is enough to make any genuine, respectable scientist weep.
South West Colorado Man, another tooth …. of a horse this time… It was presented as evidence for human evolution.
Orce man, a fragment of skullcap, which was most likely from a donkey, but even if it was human. such a tiny fragment is certainly not any proof of human evolution as it was made out to be.
Embryonic Recapitulation, the evolutionist zealot Ernst Haeckel (who was a hero of Hitler) published fraudulent drawings of embryos and his theory was readily accepted by evolutionists as proof of evolution. Even after he was exposed as a fraudster, evolutionists still continued to use his fraudulent evidence in books and publications on evolution, including school textbooks, until very recently.
Archaeoraptor, A so-called feathered dinosaur from the Chinese fossil faking industry. It managed to fool credulous evolutionists, because it was exactly what they were looking for. The evidence fitted the wishful thinking.
Java Man, Dubois, the man who discovered Java Man and declared it a human ancestor ….. admitted much later that it was actually a giant gibbon, however, that spoilt the evolution story which had been built up around it, so evolutionists were reluctant to get rid of it, and still maintained it was a human ancestor. Dubois had also ‘forgotten’ to mention that he found the bones of modern humans at the same site.
Peking Man, made up from monkey skulls which were found in an ancient limestone burning industrial site where there were crushed monkey skulls and modern human bones. Drawings were made of Peking Man, but the original skull conveniently disappeared. So that allowed evolutionists to continue to use it as evidence without fear of it ever being debunked.
The Horse Series, unrelated species cobbled together, They were from different continents and were in no way a proper series of intermediates, They had different numbers of ribs etc. and the very first in the line, is similar to a creature alive today – the Hyrax.
Peppered Moth, moths were glued to trees to fake photographs for the peppered moth evidence. They don’t normally rest on trees in daytime. In any case, the selection of a trait which is part of the variability of the existing gene pool, is not progressive evolution. It is just normal, natural selection within limits, which no-one disputes.
Is macro evolution even science? The answer to that has to be an emphatic – NO!
The usual definition of science is: that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or tested; it is claimed to have happened in the past, and, as such, it is not subject to the scientific method. It is merely a belief.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with having beliefs, especially if there is a wealth of evidence to support them, but they should not be presented as scientific fact. As we have shown, in the case of progressive evolution, there is a wealth of evidence against it. Nevertheless, we are told by evolutionist zealots that microbes to man evolution is a fact and likewise the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter. They are deliberately misleading the public on both counts. Evolution is not only not a fact, it is not even proper science.
Leave a Reply to jurvetson Cancel reply