Search This Blog

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Unions want your money and Spendocrats agree

Thomas Semesky reminded me of this video clip -

So teachers support Democrats? Of course their union does because it is Republicans and conservatives and parents that want vouchers and charter schools, two systems proven to work but systems hated by the NEA. Of course they don't want parents to have any choices or else the worst teachers might be out of a job!

Businesses and the Chamber of Commerce support Republicans because free enterprise provides jobs and helps lift the economy.

Union leaders support Democrats even when their membership does not. They hope that the Democrats will eliminate secret balloting. How communist is that?  Plus the more government employees, the bigger the tax bite on everyone else.   Unions want you to support them!

The more Democratic the government, the more spending.  Thanks to Paula Priesse!

Oh yes, and lest we forget...where are the jobs?!

Happy Halloween! So is Evolution/Darwinism scientific?

Arachnophobia spider fear animated pictures, backgrounds and images


Don't stare at the picture for TOO long, you might get a migraine...

I like spiders.   I have to get rid of big wolf spiders if found in the house, because my wife is vulnerable to insect bites and on occasion a wolf spider will bite you.  Naturally I had to kill a brown recluse spider I found behind the water heater a few years back.   Otherwise I let them do their thing and leave them alone.   We are usually unaware of the vast array of life around us, much of which is either hidden or too small for the human eye to detect.  Like spiders, the majority of things living around us are either somewhat beneficial or else do not represent any danger to us.   Spiders eat lots of insects like fruit flies and mosquitoes that I would prefer to be gone so I am not going to kill them for no purpose.

Around Halloween, spider webs become part and parcel of spooky decorations.   There are all sorts of people with arachnophobia and it was the title of a pretty funny-yet-scary movie from a couple of decades back, starring John Goodman, Jeff Daniels and Harley Jane Kozak (yep, some people pick odd stage names).

Before my shower today I was shaving and a tiny object came into my line of sight.   It was an apparently colorless or white very tiny little spider lowering itself down on a strand of web.   It was going to be in the way of my shaving activities, so I backed a little farther from the mirror and watched.   He lowered himself to within about three inches of the wet sink basin and probably just below the line of the top of the sink.   He hung momentarily and then moved up about five inches and began to look as if he was going to spin a web.   That would not do!

I gently blew some air at him and he sprinted up that line with surprising speed, moving up about six inches quite rapidly and not leaving any web behind.   I gently blew again and he resumed his trip back up towards the ceiling.   I hoped he would decide to build his web higher up and away from human activity after experiencing the dangerous territory in the vicinity of my bathroom sink.  A few hours later I came back and looked all around the sink area and no sign of a spider web at all.  Such a small spider was probably a juvenile house spider looking for his niche in the world.   He may find a secluded area to survive or he may meet his end during one of my wife's vacuuming forays.


After a time it occurred to me that what I had done was a bit of research and experimentation concerning tiny little spider behavior and it was probably more scientific than anything Richard Dawkins has done in the last few years.   After all, I was not inventing functions or fictional organisms, I was experimenting with a living organism and observing behavior.   Based on previous experiences with spiders I had presumed I could chase the spider away from an area of human activity and it appears I was right.   I have certainly observed more spider behavior than Dawkins has observed evolution in action!

So what?  Hopefully you have read my last post.   If you are not a brainwashed dyed-in-the-wool Darwinist, you find yourself asking the question, "Is evolution even science at all?!"   My hope is that the question will occur to you.   Calvin Smith explores that question using the National Science Education Standards (NSES) to audit Darwinism:

Is evolution ‘scientific’?

Published: 25 December 2008(GMT+10)
Photo by Dave Sackville,

Is evolution ‘scientific’? What better way would there be to decide this issue than to use the standards set out by the pro-evolution National Research Council (US).

Their 1995 report entitled the National Science Education Standards (NSES) was produced and approved (published in 1996, revised 1998) by the Governing Board of the Council listed criteria for defining science. The purpose of the report was to assist educators in setting goals for achievement that are appropriate for all members of the science education community’.1
Groups like the National Science Teachers Association are involved in an ongoing effort to implement the Standards in classrooms throughout the country. Why?

The online description of the product says:
‘Americans agree that our students urgently need better science education. The Standards offers a coherent vision of what it means to be scientifically literate, describing what all students should understand and be able to do in science. The volume reflects the principles that learning science is an inquiry-based process, that science in schools should reflect the intellectual traditions of contemporary science, and that all Americans have a role in science education reform’.2

Nature of Scientific Knowledge

Although pro-evolution, the NSES has some very specific criteria they promote in regards to the nature of scientific knowledge.
‘Science distinguishes itself from other ways of knowing and from other bodies of knowledge through the use of empirical standards, logical arguments, and scepticism.’
‘Scientific explanations must meet certain criteria. First and foremost, they must be consistent with experimental and observational evidence about nature, and must make accurate predictions, when appropriate, about systems being studied.’

‘They should also be logical, respect the rules of evidence, be open to criticism, report methods and procedures, and make knowledge public.’

‘Explanations on how the natural world changes based on myths, personal beliefs, religious values, mystical inspiration, superstition, or authority may be personally useful and socially relevant, but they are not scientific.’3
From this we can make a short list according to their criteria of what ‘science’ involves.

1-Observational data
2-Accurate predictions
4-Open to criticism
5-Accurate information
6-No presuppositions

Now, let’s apply these criteria to the ‘theory’ of evolution.

1-Observational data

Most evolutionists insist evolution is observable, but disingenuously point to examples of change that fall far short of what they really mean by evolution. According to a text evolution published by Pergamon, evolution is:

Photo by Olei, Wikipedia
‘ … the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’4
Ask the average person what evolution means and you’ll get the same idea. Often they will describe it like ‘We came from monkeys’.

So showing students examples such as light and dark coloured moths evolving into various populations of light and dark coloured moths hardly constitute proof of evolution. They do not show that amoebas somehow gained the massive amounts of functional genetic information to morph into a human being in the unobserved past. Even evolutionists have admitted this:
‘The experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection—or survival of the fittest—in action, but they do not show evolution in progress, for however the populations may alter in their content or light, intermediate or dark forms, all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston betularia.5
No one has ‘seen’ evolution.

Mutation and natural selection (evolutions supposed mechanism) have never once shown an ability to create new, functional genetic information in a creature. No one has ‘seen’ evolution.

Evolutionary champions such as Richard Dawkins are continually pinned down in this area when they are forced to defend their own faith position.

After being chided recently by a creationist on a UK TV program about his comment; ‘Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening’6, Dawkins attempted to parry with a prepared comment:
‘The refusal to believe in anything you can’t see yourself is absurd. Think about it, I never saw Napoleon with my own eyes, but that doesn’t mean Napoleon didn’t exist.’7
The existence of Napoleon or Jesus Christ can only be known through historical records, not operational science.

And Bible believers everywhere said, Amen! However, I’d reckon atheists were figuratively banging their heads against their TV sets because of Dawkins ‘letting the cat out of the bag’. The existence of Napoleon or Jesus Christ can only be known through historical records, not operational science. So the scientific method cannot be invoked.

Once again the world’s most vocal champion of evolution and the outgoing Oxford University Chair for the Public Understanding of Science has revealed that evolution hasn’t been observed! So according to the NSES, (‘ … all scientific ideas depend on experimental and observational confirmation … ’8) evolution fails their first criterion for being scientific.

2-Accurate predictions

Charles Darwin admitted there was a serious challenge to his hypothesis.
‘Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.’9
Darwin hoped that subsequent fossil discoveries would vindicate his ideas. So an accurate evolutionary prediction would be an abundance of transitional fossils.

Over 100 years later, Gould said:
‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology.’10
And recently National Geographic admitted;
‘Illuminating but spotty, the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 out of 1,000 frames have been lost.’11
In other words, they are admitting that 99.9% of the evidence is missing! Evolutionists continually point to a small group of highly disputed, (even within their own community) doubtful transitional candidates to justify their theory.

Gould’s attempt to overcome the situation was to invent ‘punctuated equilibrium’, an evolutionary hypothesis that basically says creatures evolved so quickly that they left little trace of it in the fossil record. But such a shift from Darwin’s expectation of a finely graduated organic chain of fossils is a public admission of evolution’s lack of predictive ability. By a sleight of hand the the absence of evidence becomes ‘evidence’ of evolution.

Similarly, predictions about useless vestigial organs like the appendix (supposedly a usefuless left over from our evolutionary past) and non coding regions of DNA being described as millions of years of left-over junk have proven equally wrong. The latter prediction resulted in one researcher saying;
‘ … the failure to recognise the implications of the non-coding DNA will go down as the biggest mistake in the history of molecular biology’.12
And further research has revealed that the appendix is a fully functional and important organ, particularly in early childhood.

The NSES proposes that true science should make accurate predictions but the evolutionary story is continuously plagued with false guesses. If over 100 years of in-depth research has not confirmed even Darwin’s biggest prediction about the fossil record evolution is clearly non-science.


Imagine you open your front door and see a robot walking on two legs along the street carrying a package on its shoulder. The package is marked with an address, that the robot has followed and arrived at.

Glancing at your neighbour you say ‘Who do you think made the robot?’ To which he says ‘I don’t think anyone made it, I think it made itself!’ With even a lay person’s knowledge of basic engineering, would this be a logical conclusion?

For many people, discoveries inside living things of micro technology of an astounding nature (analogous to the scenario above) have stretched concepts of self assembly to the limits of credulity.

For example, the tiny protein kinesin is the miniature ‘postman’ contained in abundance within every living cell. Kinesin carry parcels of proteins along cellular roadways, walking on two legs in a similar fashion to humans. Somehow the cell knows when and what ‘parts’ (proteins) to manufacture, which it then does in tiny factories and packages them (in Golgi apparatus), somehow transmits a signal to the ‘robot’ (kinesin) that arrives, picks up and delivers these ‘packages’ (vesicles) to the specified destination.

Similarly, knowledge of motors such as the bacterial flagellum (equivalent to a 32-piece outboard motor, which also has a clutch) and the incredible ATP synthase (a motor that spins at 1000 rpm and faster, producing ATP, the universal energy currency of all known life forms) cause any thinking person to ask, ‘Where did these machines inside living beings come from?’

No logical person would conclude their car’s motor designed and assembled itself

Occam’s razor is often paraphrased ‘All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.’ Is it more logical and rational when observing things like motors and robot-like mechanisms to believe they created themselves or they were created by an intelligent designer? No logical person would conclude their car’s motor designed and assembled itself, or that computer software writes itself! The NSES states scientific explanations must be logical, so once again evolution fails.

4-Open to criticism

The newly released documentary Expelled blows the whistle on what many evolutionists have been doing for decades, which is brooking no opposition to anything that challenges Darwinian dogma.

The movie reveals that even Darwinists themselves, when attempting to be open-minded, are often removed from their positions for daring to allow other points of view. A recent example is evolutionary Prof. Michael Reiss, the Royal Society’s former director of education, who was forced to resign within a couple of days after suggesting that creation and ID should be discussed in classrooms (he proposed this so that they could be countered!).

When first making their way into the public education system, Darwinists argued that evolution should at least be taught alongside creationism in the spirit of fairness. But today the intellectual elite command total obeisance to their interpretation of origins as the ‘only way’, and use taxpayer’s money to indoctrinate children in public schools by disallowing competing viewpoints.

Far from encouraging scientific scrutiny, evolution fails the NSES criteria of being open to criticism.

5-Accurate information

Those remembering the long-running radio and TV show ‘Dragnet’ may recall Detective Joe Friday’s exhortation for truth; ‘All we want are the facts, ma’am.’ Many people imagine scientists the same way.
But scientists are people and people make mistakes, including knowingly fudging their data to promote their theories. Those that have been around the creation/evolution debate are usually familiar with hoaxes like Piltdown Man, Archaeoraptor (the Piltdown Bird!), Nebraska man and the Staged photos of peppered moths, all fraudulent ‘evidences’ used to promote the theory of evolution.

drawings of Haeckel's embryos compared with real photographs
Top row: Haeckel’s drawings of several different embryos, showing incredible similarity, in their early ‘tailbud’ stage.

Bottom row: Richardson’s photographs of how the embryos really look at the same stage of development. 

Creationists point these out not as an example of differing opinions on how evidence can be interpreted, but rather as complete falsehoods, which evolutionists have admitted to. Why then do scientists and science educators continue to endorse such blatant lies?

One such fraud refuses to die it seems. I was shocked days ago when flipping through my daughter’s science text book to find Haeckel’s forged embryo drawings! I knew these had still been used in textbooks up to a short while ago but couldn’t believe my eyes to see it used in a 2008 science curriculum. This false ‘evidence’ was created in the 1860’s, so if the NSES states accurate information be given to the public, where is the outcry from these evolutionists demanding the removal of this material?

6-No presuppositions

Although many evolutionists deride creationists as pseudo-scientists because of their ‘religious’ presuppositions, one can quickly conclude the same of evolutionists by their own definitions.

Photo by Sanja Gjenero,
study and textbooks

In order to be truly neutral (hold no presuppositions) regarding the theory of origins, one would have to be open to the view that life could have arisen completely naturalistically, while simultaneously accepting that it may have been intelligently designed. You would then conduct investigations to see which hypothesis is better supported. But many evolutionists are atheists or were taught by atheists. By definition an atheist is;
A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.13
So how can an atheist be unbiased or hold no presuppositions when their world view pre-supposes ‘no-God’?
‘I would describe myself as a humanist or a nontheist.’14
Eugenie Scott, Executive director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE-America)
Evolutionist Richard Lewontin revealed his bias in this quote;
‘It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’15
And this bias has deep roots in Darwinian tradition. Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World (and grandson of T.H. Huxley, ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’) admitted meaninglessness (no God) was central to his world view;
‘I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.’16
Huxley’s quote reminds us that humanist philosophy, unbound by any absolute moral restrictions, has no qualms about seizing political power to promote their atheistic views. No wonder we see quotes like these in humanist publications;
‘I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly view their role as the proselytizers of a new faith … The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new; the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of Humanism … ’17
according to the NSES’ own stipulations, evolution fails every test they have put forth to qualify as true science

Evolutionists are religious too. Religion is defined as:
  1. A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.
  2. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons.18
So Humanism is a religion being promoted in public schools. And what is the weapon that teachers are wielding to promote the religion of humanism? Evolution!
‘ … belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.’19
So looking into the roots of evolution we see a deep seated tradition of naturalism, with an incredible bias against any concept of intelligent design or God. So much for the NSES’s appeal for no religious presuppositions.


Where does this leave us? The table summarises our analysis:

Science Evolution
1-Observational data Fail
2-Accurate predictions Fail
3-Logical Fail
4-Open to criticism Fail
5-Accurate information Fail
6-No presuppositions Fail

Many people will profess loudly that they do not believe in God because ‘science’ has proven that evolution explains our existence without God. But according to the NSES’ own stipulations, evolution fails the test they have put forth to qualify as true science.

In light of this, why do so many scientists, who ought to know better, blindly accept evolutionary notions of our origins, instead of at least considering the possibility of a Creator?

Perhaps Hebrews 11:6 is appropriate to cite in this context. It says:
And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

Related articles

Further reading


  1. Return to text.
  2. Return to text.
  3. National Science Education Standards (page 221) National Academy Press (1996) Return to text.
  4. Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960. Return to text.
  5. L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin’s Origin of the Species J. M. Dent & Sons, London, 1971, p. XI. Return to text.
  6. Transcript at: Return to text.
  7. "The Genius of Charles Darwin (Episode 3): Richard Dawkins, Channel 4 (UK), Monday 18th August 2008. Return to text.
  8. National Science Education Standards (page 221) National Academy Press (1996) Return to text.
  9. C. Darwin, Origin of Species, 6th ed. 1872 (London: John Murray, 1902), p. 413. Return to text.
  10. S.J. Gould, Evolution’s Erratic Pace, Natural History 86(5):14, 1977. Return to text.
  11. National Geographic Nov. 2004 Page 25 Article: Was Darwin Wrong? No! Return to text.
  12. Return to text.
  13. atheist. (n.d.). Unabridged (v 1.1). website: Return to text.
  14. Research News and Opportunities in Science and Theology Return to text.
  15. Richard Lewontin, Harvard Geneticist, “Billions & Billions of Demons”, The New York Review of Books, Jan. 9, 1997, Pg. 31. Return to text.
  16. Huxley, A., Ends and Means, pp. 270 ff. Return to text.
  17. Official Journal-American Humanist Association (1983) Return to text.
  18. "religion." Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 28 Oct. 2008. >. Return to text.
  19. Provine, W.B., ‘No free will’ in Catching up with the Vision, Margaret W Rossiter (Ed.), Chicago University Press, p. S123, 1999. Return to text.
Hey Darwinist?  Boo! (Hat tip to Karl Priest)

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Discovery Institute reports on Vibrant Dance...finds abundance of left feet!

First read the report from Anika Smith...

Then consider this list of questions posed to atheists:

"But what about arguments for New Atheism? Casual perusal of New Atheist discourse reveals recurring themes. 

The New Atheism Cliff Notes:

1) There are no gods
2) Theists are IDiots
3) Catholic priests molest children. 

Surely there's more to New Atheism. Some old atheism (Epicurus, Lucretius, Hume, Russell, Quine) was pretty profound. New Atheism should be even better. Reason, Modern Science, Brights, etc.

I want to learn more about what New Atheists really believe. So I'm asking Moran a few questions, although other atheists (Myers, Coyne, Novella, Shallit, etc) are invited to reply on their blogs, and I will answer. 

Here are the questions:

1) Why is there anything?
2) What caused the Universe?
3) Why is there regularity (Law) in nature?
4) Of the Four Causes in nature proposed by Aristotle (material, formal, efficient, and final), which of them are real? Do final causes exist?
5) Why do we have subjective experience, and not merely objective existence?
6) Why is the human mind intentional, in the technical philosophical sense of aboutness, which is the referral to something besides itself? How can mental states be about something?
7) Does Moral Law exist in itself, or is it an artifact of nature (natural selection, etc.)
8) Why is there evil?

I'm not expecting a treatise on each. Theists don't have all the answers. I don't expect New Atheists to have them either. But each metaphysical tradition -- Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, animist, old atheist, heck, even Scientologist and Raelian -- has addressed at least some of these questions, for better or worse. How do New Atheists address them? Just a few coherent sentences for each question that will begin a conversation. If any of the questions are too hard, say so and skip them. Soon, I'll post my answers as well. 

No peeking.

The rules:

1) Answers can't be limited to the shortcomings of theism (e.g. 'So who caused God?'). I'm looking for an exposition of New Atheist belief, not a criticism of theist belief. Mutual criticism will come once all beliefs are on the table. If New Atheist belief can only be expressed by negation of the beliefs of others, just say so.
2) Myers' "Courtier's Reply" gambit is fine. If you think that a question is nonsense, say so.
3) No changing the subject. New questions are welcome, once the old questions are addressed.
4) The Law of Snark Conservation applies; thoughtful courteous answers get thoughtful courteous replies.

I want to learn more about what New Atheists really believe."

Now you have the context for the P.Z. Myers post (PS - in the USA editions of the LOTR the character's name is spelled Smeagol rather than Smaegol):

Theologians nice to Myers...naaasty little Theologians...

P.Z. Myers was at his hissing best in reply to my recent philosophical questions for New Atheists:
...the graveyard of rotting ideas that the Discovery Institute calls a blog...a particularly crusty and dogmatic alchemist stirring beneath the cobwebs of his dead discipline ...imposing the cracked and cloudy lens of his superstition...
Imagine my surprise when a couple of days later Myers pens a post lavishly extolling...theologians(!):
I would never deny that there are many smart people among the believers, some are incredibly brilliant and thoughtful scholars. Theology is also awesomely sophisticated and complex...
"Awesomely sophisticated..."? Myers goes on with an unusually long post, part man-crush on Aquinas, part hissing rage, alternately praising theology and excoriating it for twenty five paragraphs.
What to make of it all? "Theology is also awesomely sophisticated and complex ... crusty and dogmatic alchemist stirring beneath the cobwebs of his dead discipline ..." Yet it seemed oddly so familiar -- and then I remembered my favorite movie scene. From Lord of the Rings, the famous Gollum-Smaegol scene, where Smaegol, a hobbit who retains shreds of his soul, struggles with his evil doppelganger, Gollum.
Life imitates art. Now let's review Myers' post, in context:


Anselm and Aquinas, to name a few, were men of genius who applied the power of human reason... and their intellectual craft...was remarkable...("Hobbits nice to Smaegol..." )

...misapplied as it may be prop up archaic superstitions.. ("sneaky little hobbitses...")

We should also recognize the historical fact of religion's influence on scholarship. If I'd been born a thousand years ago, I would have aspired to the priesthood myself; it was virtually the only outlet for men of the mind to apply themselves. Even up to about 500 years ago, it was almost the only option for the literate and bookish, and most of the smartest men in Western history made it to their position by virtue of the priesthood directly or indirectly, through a religious education...("Hobbitses good...")

That, of course, has all changed now, and I suspect that we can credit the proliferation of third rate minds in religion to the fact that there are secular options now, and the really brilliant men and women of our time can pursue science and art while completely bypassing religion, and they're smarter to do that than to continue to posture for the follies of faith. ("nasty hobbitses..." )

It happens even in mid-sentence: Smaegol:

But yes, religion is full of clever people who make sophisticated arguments, bolstered in particular by a long history of literate savants who built up vast archives... ("...master's my frieeend...")

...of painstakingly dense rationalizations... religion has accumulated an armor of twisty, convoluted logic to defend itself...(" don'ts haaave any friendsss...")
Myers sputters for several paragraphs about Adam and Eve, and from there on it's pretty much all Gollum:
I personally don't feel that I need redemption...disobeying a psychopathic tyrant seems rather commendable to me...clever minds have constructed an elaborate castle of wind and vapor for their fairy tales, but bullshit shoveled into majestic mountains must still slump into shapeless, decaying mounds when the props are knocked out with the facts...amounts to nothing but a heap of compost now. (...nasty Christianseees...)
So what occasioned Myers' little breakdown? My bet is that after one of Myers' recent ignorant posts -- 'Nothing abhors a vacuum; nothing caused the universe; philosophy is alchemy; there's no Moral Law' -- one of the better-educated (i.e. semi-educated) godless-cult members dropped Myers a line. Perhaps it one of the brightest of the Brights- a godless washed-up magician, or a New Atheist Buddhist faux-neuroscientist, or a 'Skeptic' naked lounge lizard and SGU special guest. Dawkins maybe. "You're making atheists look like a bunch of Luddites..." or something to that effect. So Myers wikipedia'ed Aristotle, Anslem, Aquinas (he just started with "a"; hasn't a clue about any of them), and, biting his lip, penned a couple of paragraphs about "genius," "brilliant men" and so on, praising and sputtering in turn.

It's an amusing battle in Myers' psyche, made public. P.Z. vs. Myers. Who'll prevail? The honest skeptic in search of truth? I'll put my money on the coprolalic narcissist.


Those of you used to a relatively cordial debate on this blog would be shocked by the tone of many Darwinist blogs.   The arrogance and nastiness represented on many Darwinist (or Evolutionist) blogs may well give you an insight into the character of the author and also his or her integrity.   A scientist who is confident in his point of view has no problem being courteous to his opposition in normal circumstances and keeps his temper under some kind of control even when pressed.   A religious zealot whose belief system is threatened, and whose belief system does not include any rational basis for determining right or wrong?   One can almost imagine a wild-eyed maniacal frothing at the mouth while in the process of pouring out bile in word form!


In the world of real science, what usually happens is that during research and in presentation of research a few nods to Darwinism that have nothing at all to do with the research will be tossed in and the actual discoveries tend to support the idea of design.   For instance, here is the Discovery Institute's take on Bonnie Bassler's astounding presentation of bacterial quorum sensing.   Her Darwinist presumptions show up at the start (in assigning ages to bacteria and mankind) and a couple of times in the middle and one big presumption at the end.   Other than that, what she shows us is a brilliant design feature of both bacteria and one particular squid that was useful to the research team that demonstrates a design that requires symbiotic relationships.   It should be inconceivable to the logical mind that all this information, this brilliant design of a squid-bacteria partnership and these chemical languages are all simply chance happenings.   But that is where Darwinist brainwashing has won the day.   No matter what is discovered, the information is wrapped in Darwinist paper and you have to unwrap the present to see the content which invariably makes more sense in a non-Darwinist context.   For instance, mutating bacteria are not the problem, but rather the selecting out from pre-existing information for only resistant bacteria to common antibiotics IS the problem.   Understanding quorum sensing can be the solution. 

Another Layer on the Information Story: Quorum Sensing

I was recently directed to a video lecture on the phenomenon of quorum sensing, the mechanism by which bacteria communicate with one another to establish the population density of micro-organisms of their own kind within their proximal environment. Bonnie Bassler, the lecturer in this video, does a masterful job of portraying fairly technical concepts and ideas to a lay-audience.

The purpose of quorum sensing is essentially to ensure that sufficient cell numbers of a given species are present before initiating a response that requires the population density to be above a certain threshold. A single bacterial cell secreting a toxin into a eukaryotic organism is not likely to do the host any harm and would waste resources. If, however, all of the bacterial cells in a large population co-ordinate the expression of the toxin, the toxin is more likely to have the desired effect.

Each species that employs quorum sensing -- which includes most gram negative bacteria, and also some gram positive bacteria -- synthesises a tiny signalling molecule (technically called an "autoinducer"), which diffuses freely across the cell's membrane. Autoinducers are species-specific, which means that each cell of the same species makes the same molecule. This means that the autoinducer is only present in high concentrations inside the cell when there are many cells of the same species nearby. Inside the cell, the autoinducer binds to an activator protein which is specific for that particular molecule and thus signals the bacteria to begin transcription of specific genes. As noted in the video, there is also evidence of a common autoinducer which is shared between many species of bacteria as a "conventional language."

The embedded video discusses the elucidation of this process and its application in regulating light emission in bioluminescent bacteria (in this case, the marine bacterium Aliivibro fischeri). The light results from the action of the enzyme, luciferase (so aptly named!). An activator protein, called LuxR, is responsible for controlling the lux operons, which are in turn responsible for the transcription of the proteins required for luminescence. These operons are induced when the concentration of the autoinducer specific to Aliivibro fischeri reaches a high enough concentration. This autoinducer is itself synthesised by the enzyme which is encoded by the luxI gene.

Quorum sensing is very wide spread, particularly in gram negative bacteria. Pseudomonas aeruginosa, for example, uses such "population sampling" processes to trigger the expression of a significant number of unrelated genes when the population density reaches a certain threshold. These genes subsequently allow the cells to form a biofilm (which increases the pathogenicity of the organism and prevents the penetration of antibiotics).

What is especially striking about quorum sensing is the species-specificity of the autoinducer, as well as the more common language convention. And one wonders -- naturally -- what kind of Darwinian process may have led to its arisal. We are only beginning to scale the foothills of multicellular developmental biology. But there is also evidence that similar processes of cell-cell signalling are at work in higher taxa in influencing how cells work together and co-operate as part of an interconnected unit.

Is it an over-statement to say that information runs the show in Biology?


There will come a day when the various great researchers and scientists and students exemplified by Bonnie Bassler and her team will come to understand that Darwinism has nothing at all to do with their research and in fact doesn't even make sense in the light of such research and the trickle of scientists walking away from Darwin will become a flood.   I hope the reader carefully considers the issue of information found everywhere in abundance with organisms, understand that information is not material in form and substance, and conclude that only supernatural intellect could have input all this information found everywhere in nature.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Just so you are aware that Darwinists are brainwashed liars...and they justify it by the very Darwnism they espouse!

There is such a thing as the Law of Biogenesis.  It has been tested repeatedly and falsifiable but every time it comes out the same - no life from non-life.   But what does a Darwinist say?

 "There is no law of Biogenesis"   Jon Woolf.

"I suppose you say the same about Gravity?"  Me

"No, because the Law of Gravitation has been observed to be true in every place and every time we've tried to measure it. Sound theoretical and mathematical arguments indicate that gravity should hold at all places and all times. No one has been able to produce similar evidence or theoretical/mathematical arguments about biogenesis. "  Jon Woolf.

Lie.   But Darwinists are used to lying:

"Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening." - Richard Dawkins

Well of course.   The Tooth Fairy is real, too.   Also, Darwinists believe that lying is perfectly fine in that it is part of the evolution of mankind!

Lying—a survival strategy?

Published: 26 October 2010(GMT+10)
Photo stock.xchng
In these heady post-modern days, it has become fashionable for Darwinian aficionados to ascribe human traits, both good and bad, to our alleged animal heritage. Of course, once God has been scrubbed from the picture of origins, everything is up for grabs—our aesthetic pleasures, highest aspirations, kindest gestures, and noblest actions are no more than a firing of neurons or the interactions of chemicals.1 This, claim the modernists, is a scientifically rational conclusion.

For instance, one recent undergraduate textbook purports to explain romantic love in this way: “It is true people choose their spouse because they loved him or her, but the likely reason that they have a propensity to fall in love … is because over thousands of generations, ancestors who had this emotional package left more offspring than those who did not.”2

Why be good?

But, evolutionary psychologists go much further than merely claiming to explain things like sexual attraction. Their ‘science’ can be pressed into service to explain not only the good, but also the bad and the ugly. In the aforementioned book, we read (emphasis added) that “The Darwinian world-view dislodges any divine scheme as an explanation of how we behave, and in its place puts the notion that we should perform such behaviours as maximized the reproductive success of our ancestors”.3 Notice the blatant rejection of God or Scripture, and the implied substitution of an historical Fall of man, with the naturalistic evolutionary scheme. To the discerning, this is a clear case of ‘experts’ fobbing off their readers with scientism, not science. Yet, how many readers of such things are sufficiently astute that they perceive what’s behind the claims? Referring to the inhabitants of ancient Nineveh, God told Jonah that this “great city” was populated by people “that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand.”4 Things are little different today.

We are all, in fact, ‘Born to sin’, though in the modernist’s mind, this has nothing to do with the biblical doctrine of ‘Original Sin’ and everything to do with our animal ancestry.

Increasingly, such theorising is becoming part of the mainstream, and neuroscientists are becoming ever bolder in their claims to understand why we think and behave as we do. It’s really a case of, ‘moral relativism meets neuroscience’. Accountability is out of the window because “All we can ever know are the guesses or interpretations our mind creates about what is going on. … no two people ever interpret anything in exactly the same way.”5
So, what’s right for you is not necessarily right for me—it’s classic post-modern thinking. Logically, once this rationale for human behaviour is taken on board, nothing is sacred, nothing is profane—all is amoral and finds its cause in our animal origins.

Born to sin
Born sin
We are all, in fact, “Born to sin”, though in the modernist’s mind, this has nothing to do with the biblical doctrine of ‘Original Sin’ and everything to do with our animal ancestry. According to that ‘fount of all knowledge’, the BBC—which would be more aptly named the Biased Broadcasting Company in view of its clear bias against biblical Christianity—the reason why you’re “Born to sin” is that “nature wants you to be bad”. They deemed this revelation important enough to plaster it across the front page of BBC Focus magazine earlier this year.6
The article to which this cover referred alleges to explain “The science of the seven deadly sins” and reaches the conclusion that our “darkest thoughts” are due to the way we were “wired for sin” during millions of years of evolution of humans from our animal ancestry.

Measuring sin scientifically?

Just how did the scientists ‘establish’ these truths? Imagine that you want to understand the ‘sins’ of wrath and lust? It’s easy—just wire up your willing subjects to a brain scan and watch what happens: “So psychologists and neurologists have been hurling insults and showing pornography to their volunteers to get those sin neurons firing.”7 You have to keep in mind that this article was not written as a spoof—this was not April Fools Day—and while the tone was clearly tongue in cheek, it was purporting to teach science, albeit that it was also a deliberate attempt to subvert the doctrine of Sin as taught in the Bible.

What this BBC Focus article does reveal is that the word sin is still in people’s vocabulary, in spite of attempts to expunge the word from society, such as the removal of sin from the Oxford Junior Dictionary in 2009—see the box at the end of this article! The authors of the BBC magazine article describe those who indulge in sin (lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride) as “sinners” and “offenders”—but offensive to whom? And offending against what? It is obvious that the idea of sin being offensive to God, the Creator, and offending against His standards, is far from their thoughts.8

Why tell the truth?

In a similar vein, the author of an article in a recent issue of New Scientist purports to give us an explanation of lying. Remember, however, that the ‘divine scheme’ is now out of the window. Unsurprisingly, therefore, laws given by God to a sinful people are completely ignored—no mention here of “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”9 But if there are no absolutes—and lying is not a sinful act of rebellion against the explicit command of God—why do humans indulge in it? Answer: “ … we lie to ourselves … [b]ecause we fear that we do not have the strength and courage to face the truth of our situation. … We lie in our private and work lives, to friends and family and colleagues … because we need people to like us.”10 Do you see the self-serving nature of this ‘explanation’? Lying is something that helps us survive “the terror of being invalidated” and we do it to avoid facing the truth, and so that people will like us—and this, remember, is from one of the world’s most-read science magazines!

What is truth?

…once absolutes are denied, lies are merely aberrations of the mind that help us mitigate our most destructive tendencies. ‘Lying gives us the temporary delusion that our personal and social worlds are intact, that we are loved, that we are safe…’

But if there is no such thing as truth, in an absolute sense, on what basis can a lie be defined anyway? For the Darwinian neuroscientists who are investigating humanity’s propensity to lie, we can’t really know what the truth is. “Unlike lies, truths require evidence to support them. But no matter how much evidence we accumulate, our truths will always be approximations and absolute certainty will exist only in our fantasies.”11 Interestingly, opinions of this nature pose an intractable problem for theistic evolutionists who claim that we don’t have to choose between God and evolution.12 The attitude of mind exhibited by the author of the last quotation is something which the Apostle Paul deplored when he bemoaned people that were “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”13
However, once absolutes are denied, lies are merely aberrations of the mind that help us mitigate our most destructive tendencies. “Lying gives us the temporary delusion that our personal and social worlds are intact, that we are loved [whatever that really means!], that we are safe … ” And while the author of the New Scientist article acknowledges that lying to ourselves and others may actually be damaging our brains, she offers the following advice to her readers: “In our personal, professional and collective social lives it looks as if we may have no choice but to confront uncertainty [by lying] if we are to survive—and survive well. So we will need to be very careful in future about choosing the situations in which we lie. All lies have networks of consequences we did not expect or intend.”14 In other words, ‘don’t worry yourself about whether it’s wrong to lie (it isn’t) but be careful lest you damage yourself in the process’!

A moral compass?

Ironically, the last sentence of our last quotation is more profoundly apt than the author intended or realised. Put simply, a lie is a sin against the Lord God, so “be sure your sin will find you out.”15 Earlier, we saw that there was an acknowledgement that sin was offensive in some way. The Bible reveals that this is because men and women live in defiance of the laws and person of God—transgressions of thought, word and action are violations against our Creator, one who is supremely Holy and Righteous and who must and will judge all sins—His perfect justice demands this.

Without a moral compass, the maverick scientists who purport to ‘explain’ sin … are completely clueless. They’ve cast themselves adrift on an ocean of illogicality, without any landmarks by which they might get their bearings. … They and those who follow them are madly oblivious to the dangers and perils of such an attitude.

Without a moral compass, the maverick scientists who purport to ‘explain’ sin, and those who have written about their work, are completely clueless. They’ve cast themselves adrift on an ocean of illogicality, without any landmarks by which they might get their bearings. Not only do they flatly refuse to acknowledge the port from which they set sail (i.e. their true origins), they have no idea where they are heading (heaven or hell), neither do they seem to care! They and those who follow them are madly oblivious to the dangers and perils of such an attitude.

Concluding thoughts

But for those who will acknowledge their personal sin against God and turn from it (repentance), the prospects couldn’t be brighter. “If we confess our sins, [God] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”16 Sin is serious and lying to ourselves about this is foolish—lies will not help you survive! Rather, Jesus Himself said, “you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”17 This is good news and it is based on the certain promise of God, not the whims of fickle human beings. If God sets a person free, they’re free indeed! Do you, dear reader, know Christ as your Saviour? Have you confessed your sins to God and gratefully thanked Him for sending the Lord Jesus Christ to pay the price for those sins, thus reconciling you to Himself? If not, I exhort you to read more about the problem with you and me and God’s rescue plan.

Related articles

Further reading


  1. See, for example, Statham, D., Are we nothing more than a bag of chemicals? Return to text.
  2. Chapter 16, Darwin in the Mind, in: 99% Ape: How evolution adds up, Silvertown, J. (ed.), The [British] Natural History Museum in association with the Open University, 2008, p. 174. Return to text.
  3. Chapter 17, Why be good?, in: 99% Ape: How evolution adds up, Silvertown, J. (ed.), The [British] Natural History Museum in association with the Open University, 2008, p. 184. Return to text.
  4. Jonah 4:11, King James version. Return to text.
  5. Rowe, D., Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies … , New Scientist 206(2765), 19 June 2010, p. 28. Return to text.
  6. ‘Born to sin: Why nature wants you to be bad’ is the prominent cover—together with an apple with a bite taken out of it (an obvious allusion to Genesis 3)—of BBC Focus magazine, issue 212, February 2010. Return to text.
  7. Ref. 7, p. 28. Return to text.
  8. The wicked in his proud countenance does not seek God; God is in none of his thoughtsPsalm 10:4, NKJV. Return to text.
  9. Exodus 20:16 KJV; also Deut. 5:20. Return to text.
  10. Ref. 6. Return to text.
  11. Ref. 6. Return to text.
  12. See Anderson, D., Viva la evolution? A response to Dennis Alexander. Return to text.
  13. 2 Timothy 3:7, KJV. Return to text.
  14. Ref. 6. Return to text.
  15. Numbers 32:23, KJV. Return to text.
  16. 1 John 1:9, KJV. Return to text.
  17. John 8:32, NKJV. Return to text.

The information on this site can change lives—former atheists tell us so. Why? Because it’s information people haven’t heard before. So keep it coming by supporting the researchers and writers at CMI.



Saturday, October 23, 2010

Darwinism and Eugenics - A marriage of evil and stupidity!

Evolution has produced classes of people who are in various stages of development from ape to man?

Darwin believed it.  From the Descent of Man (1874) :  "At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla."

Galton believed it.  Hitler believed it. They must therefore take their place in the roll call of the most evil men in human history.   Do not be easily led into following in their footsteps!

Eugenics … death of the defenceless

The legacy of Darwin’s cousin Galton

Few ideas have done more harm to the human race in the last 120 years than those of Sir Francis Galton. He founded the evolutionary pseudo-science of eugenics. Today, ethnic cleansing, the use of abortion to eliminate ‘defective’ unborn babies, infanticide, euthanasia, and the harvesting of unborn babies for research purposes all have a common foundation in the survival-of-the-fittest theory of eugenics. So who was Galton, what is eugenics, and how has it harmed humanity?

Francis Galton

Photos Darwin by TFE Graphics, Hitler and Galton by
Backdrop: two first cousins: charles Darwin (left) and 
Francis Galton; Foreground: Adolf Hitler
Francis Galton (featured on right in photo montage, right) was born into a Quaker family in Birmingham, England, in 1822. A grandson of Erasmus Darwin on his mother’s side and so a cousin of Charles Darwin (pictured above left), he shared the Darwinian agnosticism and antagonism to Christianity for most of his adult life.

As a child, he had learned the alphabet by 18 months, was reading by age 2½, memorizing poetry by five, and discussing the Iliad at six.1 In 1840, he began studies at Cambridge University in medicine and then in mathematics, but, due to a nervous breakdown, succeeded in gaining only a modest B.A. degree, in January 1844.2 When his father died that same year, he inherited such a fortune that he never again needed to work for a living.

This gave the wealthy young Galton free time not only for ‘amusement’, but also to dabble in a number of fields, including exploration of large areas of South West Africa, his reports of which gained him membership of the Royal Geographic Society in 1853, and three years later of the Royal Society. In that year, Galton married Louisa Butler, whose father had been Headmaster at Harrow School.

As an amateur scientist of boundless curiosity and energy, he went on to write some 14 books and over 200 papers.3 His inventions included the ‘silent’ dog whistle, a teletype printer; and various instruments and techniques for measuring human intelligence and body parts; and he invented the weather map and discovered the existence of anticyclones.

Interaction with Charles Darwin

The publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859 was undoubtedly a turning point in Galton’s life. In 1869 he wrote to Darwin, ‘[T]he appearance of your Origin of Species formed a real crisis in my life; your book drove away the constraint of my old superstition [i.e. religious arguments based on design] as if it had been a nightmare and was the first to give me freedom of thought.’4

From Nott, J.C. and Gliddon, G.R., Indigenous Races of the Earth, J.B. Libbincott, Philadelphia, USA, 1868.
Alleged evolution from blacks to whites
Pseudoscientific illustration of alleged evolution of human ‘races’.
An allegedly ‘scientific’ illustration from 1868 showing that blacks were less evolved than whites by suggesting similarities with a chimpanzee.
Even the famous evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould commented that the chimpanzee skull is falsely enlarged and the ‘negro’ jaw falsely extended to suggest that ‘negros’ rank even lower than apes. This demonstration was not from racist or ‘fringe’ literature but from one of the leading scientific textbooks of its time. Today’s militant evolutionists like to conveniently evade the social implications of their ideas, but history demonstrates otherwise.
Galton ‘was among the first to recognize the implications for mankind of Darwin’s theory of evolution.’5 He believed that talent, character, intellect, etc. were all inherited from one’s ancestors, as was also any lack of these qualities. Thus the poor were not hapless victims of their circumstances, but were paupers because they were biologically inferior. This was contrary to the prevailing scientific view that all such qualities were due to environment, i.e. how and where a person was brought up.6 Galton believed that humans, like animals, could and should be selectively bred. In 1883, he coined the term ‘eugenics’ [Greek: εύ (eu) meaning ‘well’ and γένος (genos) meaning ‘kind’ or ‘offspring’] for the study of ways of improving the physical and mental characteristics of the human race.

Galton’s views left no room for the existence of a human soul, the grace of God in the human heart, human freedom to choose to be different, or even for the dignity of the individual. In his first published article on this subject, in 1865,7 ‘He denied … that man’s rational faculties are a gift to him from God; he denied that mankind has been cursed with sinfulness since the day of Adam and Eve’; and he viewed religious sentiments as ‘nothing more than evolutionary devices to insure the survival of the human species.’8

Concerning the sense of original sin, he wrote that ‘[this] would show, according to my theory, not that man was fallen from a high estate, but that he was rapidly rising from a low one … and that after myriads of years of barbarism, our race has but very recently grown to be civilized and religious.’9

In Hereditary Genius (1869), Galton enlarged on all these ideas and proposed that a system of arranged marriages between men of distinction and women of wealth would eventually produce a gifted race. When Charles Darwin read this book, he wrote to Galton, ‘You have made a convert of an opponent in one sense for I have always maintained that, excepting fools, men did not differ much in intellect, only in zeal and hard work … .’5 Galton’s ideas undoubtedly helped him extend his evolution theory to man. Darwin did not mention Galton in his Origin, but referred to him no less than 11 times in his Descent of Man (1871).

Three International Eugenics Congresses were held in 1912, 1921 and 1932, with eugenics activists attending from Britain, the USA, Germany, France, Australia, Canada, India, Japan, Mauritius, Kenya and South Africa. Notables who supported the ideas pre–World War II included Winston Churchill, economist John Maynard Keynes, science fiction writer H.G. Wells10 and US Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge. Galton received the Huxley Medal from the Anthropological Institute in 1901, the Darwin Medal from the Royal Society in 1902, the Darwin–Wallace Medal from the Linnaean Society in 1908, and honorary degrees from Cambridge and Oxford Universities; he was knighted in 1909. Despite these ‘honours’, in life Galton was not his own best advocate for his theories. He had many long-lasting bouts of illness, and notwithstanding his and his wife’s good intellectual pedigrees, they produced no children of their own to carry on his name and heritage. After his death in 1911, his will provided for the funding of a Chair of Eugenics and the Galton Eugenics Laboratory at the University of London.

Eugenics in action

Eugenics congress logo
Eugenics congress logo.
Click here for larger view

The concept of improving the physical and mental characteristics of the human race may seem admirable at first glance. However, historically the method of achieving it has involved not just increasing the birthrate of the ‘fit’ by selected parenthood (‘positive eugenics’), but also reducing the birthrate of those people thought to impair such improvement, the ‘unfit’ (‘negative eugenics’).11

For example, by 1913, one-third (and from the 1920s on, more than half)12 of the US States had laws allowing for the compulsory sterilization of those held in custody who were deemed to be ‘unfit’. This resulted in the forced sterilization of some 70,000 victims, including criminals, the mentally retarded, drug addicts, paupers, the blind, the deaf, and people with epilepsy, TB or syphilis. Over 8,000 procedures were done at the one city of Lynchburg, Virginia,13 and isolated instances continued into the 1970s.14,15

About 60,000 Swedish citizens were similarly treated between 1935 and 1976, and there were similar practices in Norway and Canada.16

In Germany in 1933, Hitler’s government ordered the compulsory sterilization of all German citizens with ‘undesirable’ handicaps, not just those held in custody or in institutions. This was to prevent ‘contamination’ of Hitler’s ‘superior German race’ through intermarriage.

Then from 1938 to 1945, this surgical treatment of such ‘useless eaters’ was superseded by a more comprehensive solution—the eager genocide, by Hitler’s Nazis, of over 11 million people considered to be subhuman or unworthy of life, as is authenticated and documented by the Nuremberg Trials records. Those killed included Jews, evangelical Christians,17 blacks, gypsies, communists, homosexuals, amputees and mental patients.

This was nothing other than rampant Darwinism—the elimination of millions of human beings branded ‘unfit/inferior’ by, and for the benefit of, those who regarded themselves as being ‘fit/superior’.
The core idea of Darwinism is selection.18 The Nazis believed that they must direct the process of selection to advance the German race.19 Galton’s naïve vision of a ‘eugenics utopia’ had mutated into the Nazi nightmare of murderous ethnic cleansing.

Sadly, ideas of racial superiority and eugenics did not die with Hitler’s regime. David Duke, America’s infamous anti-black and anti-Jew racist, developed his views from reading the eugenicist writings of Galton, H.G. Wells, Sir Arthur Keith and others, as well as the early writings of modern sociobiologists such as Harvard’s E.O. Wilson.20

Eugenics in the 21st century.

Following World War II, eugenics became a ‘dirty word’. Eugenicists now called themselves ‘population scientists’, ‘human geneticists’, ‘family politicians’, etc. Journals were renamed. Annals of Eugenics became Annals of Human Genetics, and Eugenics Quarterly became the Journal of Social Biology.21 However today, some 60 years after the Holocaust, the murderous concept that Galton’s eugenics spawned is once again alive and flourishing, and wearing a lab-coat of medical respectability.

Doctors now routinely destroy humans, who were created in God’s image (Genesis 1:26), by abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, as well as in fetal/embryonic stem-cell research.

A. Abortion

According to the UK’s Daily Mail, ‘women are increasingly eliminating their unborn children because of non life-threatening deformities such as deformed feet or cleft lips and palates’, and ‘more Down’s Syndrome babies are now killed than are allowed to be born.’22 Dr Jacqueline Laing of London’s Metropolitan University commented, ‘These figures are symptomatic of a eugenic trend of the consumerist society hell-bent on obliterating deformity.’ ‘This is straightforward eugenics,’ said UK’s Life Trustee, Nuala Scarisbrick. ‘The message is being sent out to disabled people that they should not have been born. It is appalling and abhorrent.’22
Globally, there are an estimated 50 million abortions each year. That’s one abortion for every three live births, so any child in the womb, on average, worldwide, has a one in four chance of being deliberately killed.23

B. Infanticide

China is famous for its coercive one-child-per-family policy. In practice, most families want a boy, so if a girl is born, she can be at risk. Sometimes the same grisly principle is followed, but before birth. In India, it’s common to find out the sex of the baby, and a vast majority of abortions are of girl babies. It makes the feminist support of abortion distressingly ironic.
And disabled babies are at risk as well. ‘Ethicist’ Peter Singer has advocated legalization of infanticide to a certain age. He writes: ‘[K]illing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.’24

C. Euthanasia

In May 2001, Holland became the first country to legalize euthanasia, with the law coming into effect from January 2002. Euthanasia was tolerated in Belgium until May 2002, when it was legalized. It is tolerated in Switzerland, Norway and Columbia.23

Eugenics and the Scopes Monkey Trial1

Photo Bryan College
Pic Description
Clarence Darrow (left) and William Jennings Bryan

The textbook from which Scopes taught evolution, A Civic Biology by George Hunter,2 and its companion lab book3 were blatantly eugenic and offensively racist. Hunter divided humanity into five races and ranked them according to how high each had reached on the evolutionary scale, from ‘the Ethiopian or negro type’ to ‘the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America’.4 A Civic Biology asserted that crime and immorality are inherited and run in families, and said that ‘these families have become parasitic on society. … If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race.’4

Inherently Wind (DVD)This is the book that Darwinists of the day insisted that Scopes had a right to teach!

All this is documented by Dr David Menton in the DVD Inherently Wind: a Hollywood History of the Scopes Trial (right).

References and notes

  1. The 1925 trial in Dayton, Tennessee, USA, of high-school teacher John T. Scopes, charged with violating state law by teaching the theory of evolution.
  2. Hunter, G., A Civic Biology Presented in Problems, American Book Co., New York, USA, pp. 195–196, 1914.
  3. Hunter, G., Laboratory Problems in Civic Biology, American Book Co., New York, USA, 1916.
  4. Ref. 2, pp. 261–265.

First Nuremberg trialJudgment at Nuremberg

Perhaps the most frequently asked question concerning the eugenics-inspired genocide of the Holocaust is: ‘How could it have happened?’ In the 1961 MGM film Judgment at Nuremberg, about the trial of four Nazi war criminals, judges who had enforced Nazi decrees,1 one of the defendants (Judge Ernst Janning, played by Burt Lancaster) cries out to Chief Judge Dan Haywood (played by Spencer Tracy): ‘Those people—those millions of people—I never knew it would come to that. You must believe it!’ Haywood’s response was eloquent: ‘It came to that the first time you sentenced a man to death you knew to be innocent.’

Likewise today, eugenic killing of innocent preborn babies because they are thought to be less than perfect began the first time a doctor consented to kill a handicapped child in the womb. The rest is history.
  1. Based on the third Nuremberg Trial (1947), also called the ‘Judges’ Trial’ because it tried Nazi judges and prosecutors for imposing the Nazi ‘racial purity’ programme through the eugenic and racial laws. There were a total of 13 Nuremberg Trials.

    The photograph (above right) comes from the first Nuremberg Trial (1945–6), the most famous and significant of them because it tried the main German leaders.

  2. Front row (left-to-right): Hermann Göring, Rudolf Hess, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Wilhelm Keitel;
    Back row: Karl Dönitz, Erich Raeder, Baldur von Schirach, Fritz Sauckel. (Courtesy Wikipedia)

The "progressive" end of the anthropological crowd believes it.  They believe that people of color are not as evolved and that native culture should not be disturbed or altered.   How many boneheads have fought against the modernization of tribal peoples to "save their culture", as if they were exhibits in a zoo?


a. A member of the indigenous or earliest known population of a region; a native.
b. often Aborigine A member of any of the indigenous peoples of Australia. See Usage Note at native.
2. aborigines The flora and fauna native to a geographic area.

[From Latin aborgins, original inhabitants (folk etymology of a pre-Roman tribal name) : ab-, from; see ab-1 + orgine, ablative of org, beginning; see origin.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

aborigine [ˌæbəˈrɪdʒɪnɪ]
(Social Science / Anthropology & Ethnology) (Social Science / Peoples) an original inhabitant of a country or region who has been there from the earliest known times

[back formation from aborigines, from Latin: inhabitants of Latium in pre-Roman times, probably representing some tribal name but associated in folk etymology with ab origine from the beginning]

Aborigine [ˌæbəˈrɪdʒɪnɪ]
1. (Social Science / Peoples) Also called native Australian Aboriginal (Austral.) native (Austral.) Black a member of a dark-skinned hunting and gathering people who were living in Australia when European settlers arrived
2. (Linguistics / Languages) any of the languages of this people See also Australian [3]

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003


Legend:  Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun1.aborigineaborigine - an indigenous person who was born in a particular place; "the art of the natives of the northwest coast"; "the Canadian government scrapped plans to tax the grants to aboriginal college students"
individual, mortal, person, somebody, someone, soul - a human being; "there was too much for one person to do"
Levantine - (formerly) a native or inhabitant of the Levant
Mauritian - a native or inhabitant of Mauritius
Filipino - a native or inhabitant of the Philippines
Russian - a native or inhabitant of Russia
Seychellois - a native or inhabitant of Seychelles

2.aborigineAborigine - a dark-skinned member of a race of people living in Australia when Europeans arrived
ethnic group, ethnos - people of the same race or nationality who share a distinctive culture
Aussie, Australian - a native or inhabitant of Australia

Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2008 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.

Darwin and Galton were so wrong in so many ways. The rather simplistic method of ranking people to an extent based upon color is ridiculously wrong, because we are all colored people and in fact:

"Surprisingly, all humans, regardless of the shade (“color”) of their skin, have approximately the same number of melanocytes per square inch of skin. "

Melanin—Umbrellas of Our Skin

The sun would kill every one of us if we had no protection. Sunscreen and parasols are not enough. Thankfully, God provided our skin with millions of miniature umbrellas, filled with melanin, to guard our bodies from the sun’s most deadly ultraviolet rays.

Umbrellas are not just for rain; they can also shade us from the sun. As Jonah sat sulking over God’s mercy toward Nineveh, God prepared a large plant—like a big umbrella—to shade him from the beating sun (Jonah 4:6). Just as our merciful God protected Jonah, He has provided our skin with millions of tiny umbrellas to protect us from the sun’s damaging rays.

Dangerous Ultraviolet Rays

In addition to visible light, the sun produces invisible light called ultraviolet (UV), which has a greater effect on our skin. Depending on the amount of exposure, UV light can be either beneficial or damaging. With moderate exposure, UV promotes the production of vitamin D in our skin, an essential for building strong bones and teeth. In larger doses, however (and especially at a certain wavelength), UV light can damage our skin, producing burns, premature skin aging, wrinkling, mutations, and skin cancer.

Melanin to the Rescue

Like all good sunshades, the umbrellas in our skin are darkly colored. The dark pigment in our skin, called melanin, is typically black or brown. This protein is produced by special cells, called melanocytes, which are located in the lowest level of our epidermis (the surface layer of our skin, Figure 1).
Melanin: Figure 1
MANUFACTURING MELANIN (Figure 1): Melanin is the pigment primarily responsible for our skin color. Melanin is produced in special cells, called melanocytes, located in the lower layer of our epidermis (the surface layer of our skin).

Melanocytes themselves are not the umbrellas of our skin. They merely produce the melanin for our skin, in the form of tiny granules called melanosomes.
Our skin contains millions of tiny umbrellas containing melanin. These “umbrellas of the skin” protect us from burns, skin aging, wrinkling, mutations, and skin cancer.
Then they transfer the granules to certain epidermal cells in the lowest layer of our epidermis, where they block the damaging UV that penetrates our skin. In other words, melanocytes are like pigment factories that ship pigments (melanosomes) to other cells where the pigment is needed.

The mechanism to transfer the granules is itself amazing. The melanocyte is a highly branched cell with long, slender projections, or processes (Figure 2). The melanocyte makes the melanosomes which then move out to the tips of the cell processes. The epidermal cells then “bite off” the tips of these processes, bringing the granules inside their cell.

Once inside, the melanosomes are moved and arranged to form a dark “cap” over the epidermal cell’s nucleus. This pigmented cap serves as a tiny umbrella for the nucleus, specifically blocking the most damaging wavelength of the UV light (Figure 2).
Melanin: Figure 2
DISTRIBUTING MELANIN (Figure 2): Once melanin is manufactured, it is packaged into tiny granules, called melanosomes, ready for shipment to nearby cells in the epidermis (epidermal cells). The granules first are shipped to tips of long, slender projections, which branch out from the melanocyte like tentacles on an octopus (A).

The epidermal cells then “bite off” the tips of these projections (B). Once inside the epidermal cells, the precious melanosomes are moved and arranged into dark “caps,” or umbrellas, over the cell’s nucleus (C). These caps protect the nuclei from harmful ultraviolet light, especially when the cells divide.
UV radiation is most damaging when the epidermal cells are dividing to produce new cells. At this critical time, UV can damage the DNA (genetic information) in the nucleus, resulting in mutations and skin cancer.
The only cells that face this danger are the stem cells, the only cells in the epidermis capable of dividing. These cells reside in the deepest layer of the epidermis. And amazingly, only these vulnerable stem cells get the precious melanosomes.

There Are No “White” People

Human skin is normally never truly white, though some people have less melanin in their skin than others. Surprisingly, all humans, regardless of the shade (“color”) of their skin, have approximately the same number of melanocytes per square inch of skin.

Even albinos have melanocytes, but they produce colorless, rather than pigmented, melanosomes. The granules are colorless because the enzyme necessary for producing melanin is either missing or defective.
Interestingly, these colorless melanosomes are still taken into the epidermal stem cells, where they form an umbrella just as in normal skin. The result, however, is something like a clear plastic umbrella—not very good for warding off the sun.

Some people have darker skin than others, not because they have more melanocytes but because they retain a greater amount of melanin after the cells are no longer able to divide. People with lighter shades of skin break down most of their melanosomes.

While DNA is less vulnerable to UV when the cells no longer divide, retaining more pigment is still advantageous. People with darker skin are more resistant to sunburns and skin cancer. Yet people with very dark skin face another problem—they may not be able to produce enough vitamin D.

Like the miraculous plant that God provided to shade Jonah, each umbrella in our skin is a miracle for which we “have not labored, nor made it grow” (Jonah 4:10). We are no more deserving of this merciful, God-given shade than Jonah was.

Let us then give thanks for all the undeserved provisions that God has given us through Christ, who protects and sustains both our body and soul from all that might harm us. Truly, “He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:27–28).

Dr. David Menton holds his PhD in cell biology from Brown University and is a well-respected author and teacher. He is Professor Emeritus at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. Dr. Menton has many published works and is one of the most popular speakers for Answers in Genesis–USA.

Even my good friend Bob R, who is an albino, has the cells that color our skin.   His melanosomes are not pigmented.   But that is okay, he is a lot of fun and tells good jokes.   Bob is taller than most people and paler as well.   Does that make him a superior human?   Of course not.   Scientific Darwinism is completely wrong and does great harm.   Social Darwinism is completely wrong and does great harm.  

Differences in skin color should not divide us.  Differences in economic condition should not divide us.  Challenges in physical or mental conditions should not divide us or define us.  Every human life should be seen as equally valuable.  

Man is greatly mistaken when he begins to see himself as being capable of assigning differing values to different lives.   When man does this, he is not merely denying God but also has the temerity to take God's place!  Such presumption has led to the death of hundreds of millions of lives since one Charles Darwin came back home from a sea voyage and spearheaded the liberal atheistic assault on human dignity that is Darwinism and Eugenics.