Search This Blog

Loading...

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Horsing Around with Evolution

When asking proponents of evolution for evidence for their belief system, there was a time that they would proudly trot out horse evolution. It has been considered one of the best evidences for evolution; the ever-reliable and unbiased Wikipedia still says so (he said as he rolled his eyes disdainfully). This is another shining example of presuppositions dictating interpretations of the evidence — very badly, too.


Big Sugar / by Michelle Studer, copyright 2013, used with permission
Horse evolution should bridle their enthusiasm. Instead of demonstrating multiple stages of evolution, it is a swayback about finding an assortment of animals with some resemblance to the horse, then manufacturing a Just So Story. Some candidates for transitional forms are not even related to the horse, there are no believable models to support assertions of gradual changes, no evidence for assertions of where and how they lived, and more. However, the fossils do show variety and rapid burial in the Noachian Flood.
The horse series has long been a showcase of evolution. But in reality, this series is the best argument that can be presented against evolution from the fossil record. Creationists have various opinions on whether the horse series is in fact made up of different created kinds. This article addresses some of the current problems, and concludes that the horse series probably comprise three different created kinds, not including all animals that have been labeled Hyracotherium. Hyracotherium itself appears to contain several different created kinds such as animals similar to tapirs.
To finish reading, hoof on over to "The Evolution of the Horse".



I'm sorry, Wilbur!

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Is Racism a Product of Evolution and Genetics?


It is an established fact that evolution has been used to "scientifically" justify racism. Nobody is saying that evolutionary thinking causes racism, it's just that the two work so well together. In fact, racism is a natural extension of evolution. In fact, our political views are evolutionary as well. Notice how leftists see people as groups and not as individuals?

Today, it is politically incorrect in most places to be a racist, and evolutionists have been distancing themselves from their own racist past. Then someone writes a book and says that racism is a natural result of evolution, and that it is in the genes. Oh, boy. The evolutionary community is upset that someone is taking evolution to a logical result that makes them look bad. Meanwhile, Bible believers know that there is only one race, and ridiculous scientific interpretations toward racism are unconscionable.
A well-known science writer is in hot water for linking evolution to alleged differences in racial abilities. But where will his evolutionary critics run?

Geneticists and evolutionists are stepping on themselves to condemn Nicholas Wade’s politically-incorrect new book, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History, where the author makes links between alleged racial inequalities in IQ to evolution, concluding that’s why African countries can’t handle democracy. Writing for Nature, Ewen Calloway reports that “More than 130 leading population geneticists have condemned a book arguing that genetic variation between human populations could underlie global economic, political and social differences.” Ditto for Michael Balter, reporting in Science Magazine that “Geneticists decry book on race and evolution.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Evolution Is Racist, Evolutionist Writes".

Wednesday, August 06, 2014

Evolutionary Pronouncements, Chromosomes and Research


In yet another instance of evolutionary presuppositions hindering science (and refusal to learn from past embarrassments like so-called "junk" DNA), assertions that chromosomal fusion showed that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor are falling apart. Not only do evolutionists force and manipulate the data to fit their worldview, but they ignore alternative explanations for what is observed. To make matters worse, they saw what they wanted to see but further examination shows that these scientists were seeing things that were not there.

Chromosomal fusion is not a threat to biblical creation. Also, the evidence shows the opposite of what evolutionists expected to find.
Evidence never speaks for itself; it must be interpreted. When it is interpreted in a particular worldview, it can sound very convincing that the evidence supports that worldview. This was the case for the proposed chromosomal fusion that supposedly resulted in human chromosome 2. It was promoted as unequivocal evidence that humans and apes shared a common ancestor. In a biblical worldview, it is possible for a chromosome to have resulted from the fusion of two smaller chromosomes. However, there were details about the story that didn’t make sense. The biblical worldview provided the motivation to dig deeper. Further investigation now makes it clear that human chromosome 2 was not derived from a fusion of ape chromosomes; its structure is consistent with being designed by a wise Creator.

In my lifetime I have seen a number of supposedly powerful arguments for evolution come and go. Generally, they seem powerful because it is implied there is only one way to interpret the evidence, and only an evolutionary interpretation is given. I have found that the biblical worldview is far more robust, and it is only a matter of time and some research before it is clear that the evidence is better explained by a biblical model.

Human chromosome 2 was said to have been formed by the fusion of two primate chromosomes that remain separate in chimps. It was supposed to be an end-to-end (telomere-to-telomere) fusion. Known fusions in mammals are different in that they occur near at least one centromere region. A few years ago I wrote about one example of a “compelling” evolutionary argument, the supposed evidence for a fusion involving human chromosome 2.1 According to Dr. Ken Miller, this was incredibly powerful evidence of common ancestry between humans and apes.2 Since apes have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs) and humans have 46 (23 pairs), evolutionists propose that a fusion occurred to account for the difference.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Chromosome Tales and the Importance of a Biblical Worldview".

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

God, Nature and Homosexuality

In the view of evolutionists and extreme environmentalists, there is nothing special about humans. We all evolved from a common ancestor but took different branches, and have the arrogance to think we're the most highly evolved creatures. Of course, there are huge differences between humanity and animals when it comes to culture, morality, intelligence and so on. Biblical creationists know that we are special, created in God's image and he has a purpose for each one of us. Those of us who believe the Bible know that homosexual behavior goes against what God commands. This is problematic in the emotionally-based "thinking" of political movements.


One objection to homosexuality was, "It's against the law of nature". Is it? There are people who try to use the exception to negate the bigger principle. For example, the word translated "day" in Genesis, יוֹם (yom), can be translated to mean an indefinite period of time when the context does not have a number, evening, morning or other qualifiers. For them, it means that they can add to God's written Word and shove in billions of years — they used an exception to ignore the rules. Similarly, some poorly-thinking people will say that because some species of animals practice forms of homosexual behavior, then it must be all right for people, too. There are serious problems with that kind of emotion-based reasoning.
The University of Oslo’s Natural Museum of History, in Norway, has opened a new exhibit called ‘Against Nature?’ The museum exhibit is aimed at providing scientific justification for homosexuality in both the animal world and humanity. Geir Soli, project leader, stated ‘The argument that a homosexual way of living cannot be accepted because it is against the “laws of nature” can now be rejected scientifically.’ It certainly sounds scientific, but what’s the real story?
To find out the real story (hint: the museum is politically motivated), click on "Homosexual Animals — Using ‘Science’ to Push a Political Agenda".

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

"Scientists Say" — That's Enough? Not Hardly!


Many times, people will appeal to the authority of scientists have said, often without bothering to find out which scientists said what things, when, and where. This fits in with the worship of Scientism, where scientists are the high priests of knowledge and wisdom. Many people think that scientists are dispassionate to the point of being automatons, collecting evidence and following where the evidence leads.

That is the opposite of the truth. Scientists have biases and presuppositions. Some of us disagree with the consensus, and are considered "misinformed". Some of us would rather follow the truth than follow the intellectually lazy crowd, even though our "marginal views" are considered unworthy of respect.
Many Americans are convinced that mainstream narratives are true—like humans descended from ape-like ancestors or that burning fossil fuels causes global warming. But many times large contingents totally disagree with these popular ideas. How can equally intelligent and educated people arrive at such opposing conclusions? Conventional thinkers often assume that those who diverge from mainstream narratives simply need more science education. However, a new study shows why some other factor must be to blame.
To finish reading the article, click on "Do We Always Believe What Scientists Say?".


Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Darwinian Fail Domino Effect


Some people knew that Darwin's evolutionary ideas were faulty from the beginning. Others abandoned them for neo-Darwinism later on. A few of the concepts are still around, but today's evolutionary speculations have almost no resemblance to the stuff that Darwin put forth.

Charles Robert Darwin did not think of evolution all by himself. No, it is actually an ancient pagan religion that had been adjusted and toyed with for a long time. (In fact, Alfred Russel Wallace almost wrote it first.) Chuck took ideas from Erasmus Darwin, Charles Lyell, James Hutton Herbert Spencer, Thomas Robert Malthus and others. Darwin's Drones insist that evolution is a fact, a law, and practically an irresistible force of nature that effects everything.

morgueFile / summer visit to Columbia Bottoms / jdurham
The ideas of Malthus about competition for survival had a tremendous impact, and was one of Darwin's themes. Some evolutionary scientists are seeing the dominoes falling, however. Algae is not so competitive. If competition in nature is not so true after all, then social Darwinism and vicious competition in human society is also out of place — as biblical Christians knew all along. No, the good competition of free market enterprise is healthy.
There’s no evidence for a key presumption of Darwinian theory – the very presumption that gave birth to Social Darwinism.

It’s rare to see a science article say “Darwin was wrong,” but Live Science reluctantly admitted that a key idea Darwin proposed in The Origin in 1859 is the opposite of the way nature actually works.

One of Charles Darwin’s hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true.
To finish reading and learn about where the dominoes fall, click on "Malthus Misled Darwin Who Misled the World".


Wednesday, July 09, 2014

Telling an Evolutionary Whale Tale


The whale is often cited as one of the best examples of evolution. But is the evidence actually there, or is it simply more wishful thinking on the part of Darwin's Cheerleaders? In reality, there is more fancy than fact.
One such evolutionary claim that has been around since the days of Darwin asserts that whales (which are mammals, not fish or reptiles) descended from some four-footed land mammal. Darwin thought that it was a bear-like animal that evolved into whales, but today evolutionists disagree. Some speculate that hoofed animals (like cattle) or wolf-like carnivores were the ancestors of whales. Others insist that DNA evidence indicates that the ancestors were hippopotamus-like. More recently, evolutionists claimed deer-like, raccoon-size animals had evolved into whales.
You can read the rest of the article in context by clicking "On Making a Whale".