Search This Blog

Sunday, January 27, 2019

Fake Science in Natural Selection Claims

Way back in the thrilling days of yesteryear, I was convinced that knowledgeable evolutionary scientists and informed laypeople had discarded the concept of natural selection as relevant to evolution. After all, it looked like materialists had moved on to new and improved mythologies. The hands at the Darwin Ranch never got the telegram. Or mayhaps they prefer to keep it going, with some even going as far as saying, "Natural selection is evolution!"

Natural selection is not evolution, and forcing it into scientific research is actually harmful. Some scientists show that natural selection and evolution can be ignored, providing real science.
Credit: RGBstock / Wendy Cox
Edward Blyth, a Christian who originally postulated the concept of natural selection was bushwhacked by Papa Darwin, who gave it his own special meaning. Today, Darwinoids still use that meaning. What is worse is that they see natural selection even where it does not exist, which makes for bad science. They also make natural selection as a kind of pagan entity — a substitute for the real Creator. Here are links to three articles for your consideration.
Can anyone name any real, true thing that Darwin’s phrase “natural selection” has done to further understanding of nature?
Brace yourself. We’re going to say that natural selection is useless for science. Secular scientists will scream. Even some creationists will harrumph. But you need look no further than scientific journals and science news sites to see that it is true. Natural selection is a storytelling plot that contributes nothing to real, useful knowledge about nature. It’s like colorful frosting, but not the cake.  It’s like graffiti on a wall that does nothing to hold the building up. It’s like a gaudy pattern on a hot-air balloon, but not the heat engine that lifts it.
If scientists ditched the phrase natural selection entirely, science would go on just fine. In fact, it would go on better without all the distractions offered by this empty, useless phrase that Darwin invented. Here’s our challenge: can you name any one, true, real thing that “natural selection” has added to our understanding of the world? While we wait for a response, it’s time to back up our audacious claim with specific examples from the science news.
To finish reading this first one, click on "Natural Selection Is Useless in Science".

You may be reeling from the last one, but cowboy up for the next article.

Continuing our discussion of whether natural selection has any value in science, we present more cases in the media.
Natural selection is useless in science, we alleged last week (4 Jan 2019). Because many will consider this an outlandish claim that can arouse accusations that it is anti-science and against common sense, some clarifications are in order before we provide more evidence. The biological literature is full of natural selection (hereafter NS) lingo and its derivatives. Evolutionists speak of positive selection, negative selection, purifying selection, group selection, kin selection, selective pressure, selective bottlenecks, and a host of other concepts. Surely the abundance of words cannot be about nothing, can it? Even many creationists bow before NS theory as a fact of nature. Some creationist speakers adorn their lectures with intuitively-obvious examples of NS in dogs, horses, and even human racial traits. Some even arrogantly attack other creationists who deny NS. How can we possibly contradict the obvious? Well, prepare to think. Prepare to see.
To read the second of the three articles, click on "Natural Selection Is Useless, II: More Evidence".

Our final entry is a bit startling: real science can be done without any consideration of natural selection or evolution. Biblical creationists have been saying for a mighty long time that not only is evolutionary thinking irrelevant, but it actually impedes scientific progress — which is clearly seen in medical science. Take a look at reports of Darwin-free scientific research.

Excellent biological research that produces understanding and application can ignore natural selection completely.
If natural selection is useless in science, as we have argued recently [links provided above], then the flip side should also be true: scientists should be able to do useful work by ignoring natural selection entirely. They should be able to discover, analyze, explain, and apply biological discoveries without it. This contradicts Dobzhansky’s frequently quoted mythoid, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Here are some examples in the news.
To finish reading, click on "Good Biology Without Natural Selection". Also, the video below with Dr. Georgia Purdom explains why natural selection is different from evolution.

Monday, January 21, 2019

Races and Families

Centuries ago, I made a comment at the workplace that was something like, "Adoptive parents are important and should not be disparaged because they are not the natural parents. They care for the kids they adopt". Something like that. The manager was right there and stared at me for a moment. Then he said, "I'm glad to hear you say that because I'm adopted". Wow, I unintentionally said something encouraging! What about people who adopt children of other races?

Many people have the belief that if other look different, they belong to another race. Imagine adopting children of another ethnic background. Biblically, we are all of one race, which is opposite to the "scientific racism" of evolutionism.
Credit: OpenClipArt
In reality, there are no races. At least, not according to our Creator. The word race is often used as a convenience by people who mean ethnicities or people groups. I'll allow that the word racist is more convenient than calling someone an "ethnicitist" or something equally awkward and puzzling. Unfortunately, accusations of racism are being redefined by leftists as an emotive deflection, such as accusing someone who disagrees with a politician's remarks or policies as "racist" when ethnicity has nothing to do with said politician's dreadful beliefs. Such frequent claims of "racist" and "racism" cheapen genuine instances of those things.

When a husband and wife adopt one or more children from a different ethnic background, other people may wonder if they can deal with someone from "another race". After all, those kids look mighty different. But those genetic differences are fewer in number than you might imagine. We are all of the same race, all in the same human family. Notice that there are variations within ethnic groups. Hey, white guy! Hold up your hand against a sheet of printer paper or something. Not so white now, is it. And your black friend...not really black after all. There are variations within the same family bloodlines as well. Evolution has been used to justify "scientific racism", which fails in the light of biblical creation.
When I write or talk on the issue of race, it’s always a deeply personal experience for me. My husband, Chris, and I decided to adopt a child from China 13 years ago. We knew this was God’s will for us, but I was haunted by this question: Could I raise a child of another race? I never would have called myself a racist in those days, but in reality I was. My opinions and beliefs about those who looked different from me did not reflect the biblical truth that we are all one race.
To read the rest or download the audio version, click on "All in the Family".

Sunday, January 13, 2019

Definitions and Speciation

Getting the proper definition is important in many discussions, which seems to be even more important regarding origins. People can be using the same word but have entirely different meanings in mind, which can lead to a passel of confusion. Sometimes we need to reign in and clarify terms.

Confusion is caused by not only unclear definitions on words like species and speciation, but also by critters ignoring human rules.
Credit: Pixabay / succo
Proponents of universal common ancestor evolution tend to get a mite sneaky with evolution with variation, saying that some small change is evolution and equivocating with evolution in the Darwinian sense. Another area that causes confusion is the use of species and speciation. Sometimes scientists disagree on how to define species, and creationists agree that speciation happens. It doesn't help matters when critters don't pay attention to the rules and breed across the boundaries while still refusing to change overmuch. They were created by the Master Engineer to fill niches, you know.
When investigating true-vs.-false controversies, words are very important. Yet Christians sometimes unintentionally perpetuate false teachings by using misleading terms that accommodate evolutionary assumptions. This is what law courts call confusion of issues, a truth-interference problem so serious that trial judges, invoking Evidence Rule 403, ban such confusing terminology when admitting trial evidence.
For example, the origin of species is a confusing topic. What exactly is a species? How can we properly analyze and discuss our origins if the words we use mean different things to different people? Consider this approach by Wikipedia, the multi-anonymous online encyclopedia that institutionally assumes evolution is scientific:
To read the rest, click on "Norway's Redchat Defies Evolutionary Speciation".

Sunday, January 06, 2019

Explosion in the Cambrian

Universal common ancestor evolutionary conjectures require purposeless, gradual progressions from simple to complex life forms. Since this supposedly takes millions or billions of Darwin years, there should be a wagon-trainload of transitional fossils so y'all can trace the development of organisms. Not happening, old son.

The Cambrian Explosion is troubling to secular scientists because organisms are fully formed, not simple or transitional.
Branching archaeocyath fossil image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Killamator (CC by-SA 4.0)
One of the most troubling areas for secular geologists is a little thing called the Cambrian Explosion. Most of the major phyla appeared in this low layer, and they were fully formed. (One owlhoot tried to wave off the Cambrian Explosion as a bunch of simple aquatic lifeforms. The overwhelming majority of fossils are sea organisms, and they are not simple at all.) More than diversity of life forms, we see disparity. This is not predicted by evolution, but refutes it and supports special creation. Worse for uniformitarian deep time beliefs, the Cambrian Explosion supports the global Genesis Flood. (If some tinhorn tells you that the Flood is fiction, he's lying, and that's a natural fact.) Yippie ky yay, evolutionists!
Many have been told that the fossil record provided Darwin with overwhelming evidence for his theory of evolution. Nothing could be further from the truth! In his book, On the Origin of Species, he admitted that the absence of fossil transitional forms was a major problem, and one that was “undoubtedly of the gravest nature”.
Such was the overwhelming and conspicuous absence of transitional fossils, many leading 19th century naturalists had concluded that species were fixed in their form and couldn’t change. Darwin himself wrote that “all the most eminent palaeontologists [people who study fossils], namely Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz, Barrande, Falconer, E. Forbes, &c. … have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability [i.e. unchangeable nature or ‘fixity’] of species.”
To read the rest, click on "The Cambrian explosion — The fossils point to creation, not evolution".