EUGENICS

The full title of Darwin’s 1859 book was On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.  Old copies of Origin can still be checked out from your local library with the full title.  More modern copies do not contain the second part of the title.  Evolutionists developed a convenient collective amnesia to the full title.  And well they should.  Nazism, the biologist Fritz Lenz once said is nothing more than “applied biology.”  On the left, Marx wanted to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin.

 

Siddhartha Mukherjee is an assistant professor of medicine at Columbia University.  A Rhodes Scholar, he graduated from Stamford University, the University of Oxford, and Harvard Medical School.  He is a Pulitzer Prize winner and author of The Gene an Intimate History.  He opened my eyes to tell the story of Eugenics.

 

In 1883, one year after Charles Darwin’s death, Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton published Inquiries into Human Faculty and It’s Development.  Galton’s idea was simple; he would mimic the mechanism of natural selection.  The selective breeding of the strongest, smartest, “fittest” humans Galton imagined, could achieve, over just a few decades, what nature had been attempting for eons.

 

Galton needed a word for his strategy.  For Galton, the word eugenics was a good fit – the Greek prefix eu – “good” – with genesis: “good in stock, hereditarily endowed with noble qualities.”  In the Spring of 1904, Galton presented his argument for eugenics at a public lecture at the London School of Economics.  The liberal elite blew into the auditorium: George Bernard Shaw and H. G. Wells; Alice Drysdale-Vickery, the social reformer; the sociologist Benjamin Kidd; the psychiatrist Henry Maudsley and others.

 

Galton’s remarks lasted ten minutes.  Eugenics, he proposed, had to be “introduced into the national consciousness, like a new religion.”  It’s founding tenets were borrowed from Darwin – but they grafted the logic of natural selection onto human societies.   The purpose was to accelerate the selection of the well-fitted over the ill-fitted, and the healthy over the sick.  As Galton imagined it, a record of the best traits of the best families could be maintained by society – generating a human studbook.  Men and women would be selected from the “golden book” and bred to produce the best offspring.

 

Galton’s remarks were brief – but some in the crowd had grown restless.  Henry Maudsley, the psychiatrist, launched the first attack.  He said that normal fathers sometime produce schizophrenic sons.  Ordinary families sometimes generated extraordinary children.  The child of a barely known glove maker grew up to be the most prominent writer of the English language.  William Shakespeare had five brothers and none of the others distinguished themselves in any way.  The list of “defective geniuses” went on and on: Newton was a sickly, fragile child; John Calvin was severely asthmatic; Darwin suffered bouts of diarrhea and catatonic depression; Herbert Spencer, the great philosopher, spent much of his time bedridden.

 

But where Maudsley proposed caution, others urged speed.  H. G. Wells said selective inbreeding via marriage might produce weaker and duller generations.  The only solution was to consider the macabre alternative – the selective elimination of the weak.  “It is in the sterilization of failure that the possibility of an improvement of the human stock lies.”  Indeed, Wells had only said what many in Galton’s inner circle felt deeply but dared not utter – that eugenics would only work if the selective breeding of the strong was augmented with selective sterilization of the weak.

 

On July 24, 1912, one year after Galton’s death, the first International Conference on Eugenics opened at the Cecil Hotel in London.  The location was symbolic.  With nearly eight hundred rooms, the Cecil was Europe’s largest and grandest hotel.  Luminaries from twelve countries and diverse disciplines descended on the hotel to attend the conference: Winston Churchill; Lord Balfour; Alexander Graham Bell; Charles Eliot, the president of Harvard; William Osler, professor at Oxford; August Weismann, the embryologist.  Darwin’s son, Leonard Darwin, presided over the meeting.

 

Two presentations, among all, stood out in their chilling fervor.  The first was the enthusiastic and precise exhibit by the Germans endorsing “race hygiene” – a premonition of times to come.  The second presentation even larger in its scope and ambition – was presented by the American contingent.  If eugenics was becoming a cottage industry in Germany, it was already a full-fledged operation in America.  Bleecker Van Wagenen, the young president of the American Breeder’s Association, gave a rousing presentation. “Nearly ten percent of the total population are of inferior blood”, Van Wagenen suggested and “they are totally unfitted to become the parents of useful citizens… In eight of the states of the union, there are laws authorizing or requiring sterilization.  Many thousands of sterilization operations have been performed by surgeons in both private and institutional practice.”

 

In another experiment, Sir Francis Galton collaborated with the Wedgewood, Darwin, and Huxley families in an attempt at race improvement.  They would only reproduce with one another, selecting for a superior race.  But the result of this bold four-family experiment was that within just two generations, most of their offspring either perished during birth or were born seriously handicapped.

 

Keep in mind Karl Marx’s fondness for Darwin and communism’s grim harvest during the “Red Century” which approached 100 million deaths, according to The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression.  The authoritative study edited by French historian Stephane Courtois puts China atop the list with 65 million murdered.  Next comes the Soviet Union with 20 million (a conservative estimate).  North Korea and Cambodia tie for third at roughly 2 million each.  Courtois calculates that these and other Communist regimes are responsible for more deaths than any other ideology or movement – Nazism and Fascism very much included.  Is it any wonder that The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life is never talked about in polite society although this was the second part of the title of Darwin’s Origin throughout eugenics “golden age” during the first half of the twentieth century?

 

One will notice that eugenics is never mentioned when Darwinists bring up the Scopes trial and the Darwinist’s favorite movie, Inherit the Wind (Stanley Kramer, 1960).  As I noted in a previous paper, Edward Sisson started to investigate the Scopes Monkey Trial.  Sisson purchased a copy of the textbook from which Scopes taught, A Civic Biology, and a copy of the companion lab guide to that textbook.  A Civic Biology and the lab book both contain sections on eugenics introduced by the statement that “the science of being well born is called eugenics.”  Harvard law professor, Alan Dershowitz, notes that A Civic Biology divided humanity into five races and ranked them in terms of superiority, concluding with the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the “civilized” white inhabitants of Europe and America.  A Civic Biology taught school children that the failure to apply eugenics forced the state of New York to bear the cost of “over a hundred feeble-minded, alcoholic, immoral, or criminal persons.”  The lab book, at problem 160, asks students to use inheritance charts “to determine some means of bettering, physically and mentally, the human race; so that students can answer the concluding question: should feeble-minded persons be allowed to marry”?  One can imagine what would happen today if “receptive young students” were taught that the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America are superior.  The Ku Klux Klan based their racism on pure ignorance.  The scientific establishment of Scopes day based it on Darwinian biology.

 

Christians and other groups should not be held blameless because at times they were silent and would not stand up for the needy.  How easily one forgets that Jesus championed the poor, the unclean, and the outcasts of society.  Indiana was the first of 30 states to authorize sterilization laws for criminals, idiots, rapists, and imbeciles.  By 1941 60,000 individuals had been sterilized in the U.S.

 

Margaret Sanger used eugenics to popularize Planned Parenthood.  Because many women and their babies were dying in childbirth, her ideas on better sex hygiene and education were needed.  Her cry for healthier and better care for children and a “balance of power” in relation to sex was a breath of fresh air.  However, she promoted birth control as a way to a “better and purer race.”  As a speaker at a rally of the Ku Klux Klan she hoped to create “a race of thoroughbreds.”  In her book, The Pivot of Civilization, she calls immigrants and poor people “human weeds” and “reckless breeders.”   Alveda King, the niece of the great Dr. Martin Luther King, complains that Planned Parenthood still targets vulnerable communities, setting up their clinics in the inner city, targeting the African American community.

 

Just as the “facts” of eugenics should have been questioned years ago, some of the “facts” taught in modern high school biology text books have been shown to be false even by ultra-Darwinists.  In my fifth paper, Half-truths: Evolutions Recurring Themes, I concentrated on four classic examples of evolution presented in modern textbooks that don’t stand up under empirical scrutiny.  They are: the Fossil Horses; the Peppered Moths; Haeckel’s Embryos; and the Miller-Urey Experiment.

 

It turned out that the horse drawings were taken out of context and were assembled to conform to someone’s pre-determined idea of evolution.  Now, most scientists agree with ultra-Darwinist Stephen J. Gould’s words about the horse drawings as being an “incarnation of concepts masquerading as neutral descriptions of nature.”  Darwinist Stephen J. Gould wrote about Haeckel’s Embryos in the New York Times on August 13, 1999, “Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealization and omissions.  He also, in some cases – in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent – simply copied the same figure over and over again.”  Gould continued, “Tales of scientific fraud excite the imagination for good reason.  Getting away with this academic equivalent of murder and then being outed a century after your misdeeds makes even better copy.”

 

When University of Chicago professor Jerry Coyne learned of the flaws in the classical story about the Peppered Moths in 1998, he was well into his career as an evolutionary biologist.  Coyne was embarrassed when he finally learned the peppered moth story that he had been teaching as “fact” for years was a myth.  “My own reaction”, he wrote, “resembles the dismay attending my discovery at age six that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve.”

 

These are prominent Darwinian stories, that proved to be false, but the most important is the Miller-Urey experiment.  It is in all biology and biochemistry textbooks and Miller has received many medals and awards from Darwinists.  Some 250 scientists interested in the origin of life gathered in Mainz, Germany in July 1983 for the Seventh International Conference on the Origin of Life.  Stanley Miller was presented with the medal for the best contribution within the field.  In 1952, Nobel Prize winning chemist Harold Urey concluded that the early atmosphere consisted primarily of hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water vapor.  Urey’s graduate student at the University of Chicago, Stanley Miller, set out to test this hypothesis.  Miller assembled a closed glass apparatus in Urey’s biology laboratory, pumped out the air, and replaced it with hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water.  He then heated the water and circulated the gases past a high-voltage electric spark to simulate lightning.  “By the end of the week”, Miller reported that he had identified the two simplest amino acids glycine and alanine in very weak amounts.  The other eighteen amino acids needed for a protein that are bigger and more complex were beyond the limits of this experiment.

 

This was a nice experiment that tried to simulate the early earth’s atmosphere.  But this experiment was a “maiden of doubtful virtue.”  I have a nice figure of Miller’s apparatus in a science book and it contained a large sealed glass tube, a vacuum line, a high voltage spark electrode, a condenser with circulating cold water, a trap to prevent back-flow, and a flask of boiling water.  Did the early earth have the controlled conditions of this experiment?  Did it have a laboratory with biologists?  Did it have glass tubes to keep the gases confined?  Did it have a laboratory closet where one could find the pure gases?  I recently read a science paper that said there is almost no pure hydrogen in the atmosphere because it always is combined with other atoms.  One chemist that I talked to said that these controlled conditions helped the experiment succeed over chance by a factor of 1051 (one thousand trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion) and that is a conservative estimate because the experiment did not include free oxygen.  Since 1977 there is a near consensus among geochemists that Miller’s synthesis does not have geological relevance.  The March 1998 issue of National Geographic explains: “Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different from what Miller first supposed.”

 

So, the most awarded experiment in the history of Darwinian evolution not only did not represent the random gases in the early atmosphere, but kept the gases in closed glass tubes that kept them from very quickly expanding and drifting away in the atmosphere to be combined with other harsh chemicals.  An intelligently designed apparatus was needed to get the two smallest amino acids with yields of 2.1 percent for glycine and 1.7 percent for alanine which have zero function unless the other 18 more complex amino acids are there to form proteins.

Yet this Miller-Urey experiment is still lauded world-wide and still mesmerizes high school students as an exercise not in design but as a true simulation of the early earth.  One look at Stanley Miller’s large glass apparatus will tell you otherwise.

 

Because the founding tenets of eugenics was borrowed from the science of Darwinian biology, it is important to mention much of this “science” is in question even by leading Darwinists.  Even the most famous event of evolutionary science, the Miller-Urey experiment was an exercise in design.  Once young minds are programmed in biology classes with the Fossil Horses, Haeckel’s Embryos, the Peppered Moths, and the Miller-Urey experiment they tend to remember them into adulthood.  Dan Brown, the author of the “block-buster” The Da Vinci Code is an example of this. In his latest work of fiction, Origin (copyright 2017), he writes about the “legendary” Miller-Urey experiment that attempts to re-create the conditions of life’s creation using only “science.”  Unlike most people, Dan Brown does his research and writes that the experiment “did not succeed.”

 

At last there is the sad story of Madison Grant, American lawyer, conservationist, and eugenicist.  Sad because he should be most remembered as the conservationist most responsible for the creation of our National Parks.  But you probably won’t hear Grant’s name so much as whispered, because of his peculiar line of thinking that helped lay the groundwork for the death camps of Nazi Germany.  He wrote, The Passing of the Great Race : Or, the  Racial Basis of European History, a book of “scientific” racism that perhaps more than any other book created what we might call the “racialist moment” in American history.  Grant received a personal letter from Hitler, who wrote his book was his “Bible.”

 

What about Charles Darwin?  Darwin assumed that western, especially Anglo-Saxon cultures, were superior to the inferior peoples.  Darwin even opposed vaccination of the lower class.  The Descent of Man portrayed men as more intelligent than women.  Darwin said that the careless, squalid Irishman multiplies like rabbits; the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting Scot is stern in his morality.  Darwin’s son Major Leonard Darwin, who became president of the Eugenics Education Society, called for the control of the lower class.

 

Yet Darwin’s Origin of the Species seemed to have a moral obligation to fairness.  He presented both sides of the story.  Four of the fifteen chapters in Origin list countless objections to his own theory.  I hope that if Darwin would have lived longer he might have been able to moderate the “scientific” legitimacy of eugenics and strike out the second half of Origin’s title – The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.

 

 

Lee Kleinschmidt

2018

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Creations Scientific Comeback

Creation’s Scientific Comeback

British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle coined the expression the “big bang” as an attempt to ridicule the creation event, the up-and-coming challenger to his “steady state” hypothesis”. For whatever reasons perhaps because of its simplicity, the term stuck. The “bang” represents an extremely powerful, yet carefully planned and controlled release of matter, energy, space, and time with the strict confines of a very carefully designed and fine-tuned cosmos. The power and care of this explosion exceeds human potential for design by multiple orders of magnitude.

Before Einstein in the early 1900s, Darwin was being accepted by the scientific community at an ever increasing rate. Since then the battleship called macroevolution has been rocked by many scientific explosions below the water-line. “Today it can be said that no theory in physics has ever been tested in so many contexts and so rigorously as general relativity,” notes astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross.

Einstein’s equations clearly indicated that the universe had a beginning, but he flinched and introduced a “fudge factor”. At the time all physicists and astronomers thought the universe was infinitely in a steady state. Therefore, against his better judgement and to please his fellow physicists he introduced a cosmological constant into his equations to conform to the steady state model. Einstein admitted that the “fudge factor” was the biggest blunder of his career. Stephen Hawking says, “proof of the beginning of time may rank as the most theologically significant theorem of all time.

The fact that the universe had a finite beginning panicked the Darwinists. In the physical sciences evolution is typically defined as change taking place with respect to time. The dice of chance would have to be thrown an infinite number of times to explain the assembly of intelligent life. For Darwinists, finite time was the enemy of the plot.

Einstein’s Theory of Relativity revealed to science an extraordinary, and seemingly unnatural fact: the rate at which time passes is not the same at all places. Extraordinary to science but not to the book of Psalms: “A thousand years in your sight are as a day that passes, as a watch in the night.” (Ps.90:4). Changes in gravity and changes in velocity at which we travel actually change the rate at which time flows. During the past few decades, the relativity of time has been verified thousands of times. Huge changes in gravity (G) or velocity (V) are required to produce easily measurable changes in the flow of time and that is why it was never noticed before Einstein. Now that the atomic, cesium clocks can keep time to a precision better than one millionth of a second per year, these changes in the flow of time can be noticed and measured.

Only if we view events across a boundary, looking from one location to another location that has different (G) or (V), can we observe this effect. This means that the duration between ticks of a clock (and beats of a heart, and even the time to ripen an orange) in high-G (or high-V) environments is actually longer than the duration between ticks in low-G (or low-V) environments. These differences in time’s passage are known as time dilation.

If we were Moon people where gravity is lower than on Earth, our clocks would tick a bit faster than identical clocks on Earth. Our astronauts found this to be true. On the Sun watches would tick slower because gravity is higher. There are literally millions of locations in the cosmos (especially near the infinite gravity of a black hole) where a clock, if we could place one there, would tick so slowly that 14 billion Earth years would pass while it recorded only 6 twenty-four-hour days. So finding an equality between the six days of Genesis and the 14 billion Earth years is not a problem to peer reviewed physics and was never a problem with the Creator. Time dilation is in agreement with experiment and observation, but does any human being truly understand it? Maybe that is why Einstein was always so humble when faced with the mind of God.

The solar eclipse expedition led by Arthur Eddington in 1919 confirmed one aspect of Einstein’s theory – gravity bends light. At the time newspapers in England shouted that Einstein is right and the universe had a beginning – there is a God. Because Eddington was an English astronomer the New York Times sided with American scientists in razzing Einstein and Eddington as being naïve and gullible.

Dr. Hugh Ross is a modern astronomer who knows that Einstein was right. Dr. Ross capitalizes Chance, because he knows that Chance is Darwin’s God. Hugh Ross earned a B.S.C. in physics from the University of British Columbia and an M.S.C. and a Ph.D in astronomy from the University of Toronto. For several years he continued his research on Quasars and galaxies at the California Institute of Technology. Over the years Dr. Ross has given several hundred lectures, seminars, and courses on the wonders of the cosmos.

Dr. Ross has come into contact with many physicists and astronomers during his lecture tours and was not surprised at the number of astronomers who believe that science points toward a designed universe. Eddington and Einstein are no longer naïve and gullible. In fact, Dr. Ross says, “the discovery of the degree of design in the universe is having a profound theological impact on astronomers.” This is today, but what happened between 1915 and 1950?

Even though the Earth had a beginning as revealed in Einstein’s Theory of Relativity in 1915, the lure of Darwinism proved to be too strong. Although many scientists had a vague idea that a self duplicating cell such as a bacteria was too complex to organize itself by Chance, they were overwhelmed by the evolutionary thesis.

In the first half of the twentieth century, the many branches of biology did not communicate with each other. From the 1920s to the 1950s, leaders of the fields organized a series of interdisciplinary meetings to combine their views into a theory of evolution based on Darwinian principles. The result has been called “evolutionary synthesis”, and the theory called neo-Darwinism.

One branch of science was not invited to the meetings, and for good reason: it did not exist. The beginning of modern biochemistry came only after neo-Darwinism had officially launched. Thus, just as the infinite, steady state universe had to be reinterpreted after religious implications of an abrupt beginning of the cosmos, so too neo-Darwinism must be reconsidered in light of advances in biochemistry and microbiology. Up to this time, the scientific disciplines that were part of the evolutionary synthesis were all non-moleculars.

It was once expected, as Darwin did, that the basis of life would be exceedingly simple. Science has made enormous progress in our understanding of how the chemistry of life works, but the elegance and complexity of biological systems at the molecular level has paralyzed neo-Darwinism. The mathematics of statistics and probability show that Chance doesn’t have a chance.

Francis Crick used simple statistical combinatorials to calculate the odds of getting the exact sequence correct for a small protein with 200 amino acids as 1 chance in 10260. The number of atoms in the universe, 1080, is a very small bit compared to this number. When Yale physicist Harold Morowitz calculated the probability of assembling one bacteria by chance as 1 in 10100,000,000,000 all hope of Chance was lost in a finite Earth of limited chance. A penny is vanishingly close to zero on the monetary value scale compared to the world’s gross product. Likewise, 1051, the number of atoms in the Earth, is vanishingly close to zero as compared to Morowitz’s number of 10100,000,000,000.

At the time of Darwin, scientist Ernst Haeckel thought that a cell was a “homogeneous globule of protoplasm”. He was wrong; scientists have shown that cells are complex structures. But it is much, much more than complexity. A pile of sand is complex, in that one could never duplicate that pile grain for grain. However, if you kick the pile of sand and rearrange the grains it is still a perfectly good pile of sand. The molecular machines in the cell have specified complexity – rearranging the some trillion atoms in any way would kill the cell. This is also true for the parts of the cell: the hundred thousand protein, RNA, and DNA molecules and the cells “master factories”.

Just like a house has a kitchen, laundry room, bedroom, and bathroom, a cell has specialized areas partitioned off for discreet tasks. These factories include the nucleous (where DNA resides), the mitochondria (which produce the cell’s energy), the ribosomes (which produce proteins), the Golgi apparatus (a way station for proteins being transported elsewhere), the lysosome (the cell’s garbage disposal unit), and the peroxisome (which helps metabolize fats). Counting membranes and interior spaces, there are more than 20 different sections in a cell.

Detailing the master plan for just one of these factories of a cell would take a book. I will briefly note that a ribosome is a spherical body or factory within a living cell that is the site of protein synthesis. A ribosome is an extremely complex globular factory composed of an aggregate of some 70 proteins and three chains of RNA. I once asked a chemist how much paper it would take to draw up a detailed master plan for the construction of one ribosome. He said that I could not provide him with enough paper or man-power, because it requires the precise manufacture, fit, and integration of at least 73 protein and RNA molecules. The amino acid building blocks for the proteins and the nucleotide building blocks for the RNA molecules must be accounted for. These building blocks must be made, stored, and shipped to the proper site. The transportation system is very complicated and shipments of the building blocks would have to be sorted, pushed, pulled, hauled, and escorted by the chaperone molecules to their exact destinations. The ribosome is a factory with a complex assembly line that produces proteins. The 15,000 ribosomes in each cell produce an average of two thousand new proteins every second. These 70 proteins and RNA molecules in each ribosome must “talk” to each other so the operation runs smoothly. This takes information in the form of decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating automated assembly of parts, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control. A just-in-time delivery system of proteins is necessary for organisms survival and the exact details are almost endless.

The molecular data on some proteins indicate the protein hemoglobin has 574 amino acid building blocks, serum albumin 550 building blocks, and immunoglobulin G 1,320 building blocks. Probably near the upper limit of size is the protein apolipoprotein B, a cholesterol-tranport protein with 4,536 amino acid building blocks. Wow! All shapes, all sizes, all bonding and folding patterns produced by cell ribosomes in an endless chain of thousands of unique proteins. They simply will not work unless everything is just right – our every breath depends on it.

Perfection! Perfection! Perfection! Our space program looks rather mundane in comparison to protein synthesis. Some scientists claim that protein synthesis may be the most complex process in the world.

While there is not the remotest chance that natural conditions and the physical laws of lifeless atoms will spawn a ribosome or a whole cell that has many other complex factories (such as 2,500 mitochondria for energy production), there is also not the remotest chance that the natural conditions of the cosmos will spawn a planet capable of sustaining intelligent life. Say what! Didn’t Carl Sagan proclaim back in the 1970’s that there might be billions of planets capable of sustaining intelligent life. He did, but he was wrong. Since the 1970’s astrophysics has taken a dramatic about face. The fine-tuning involved for the support of life in the cosmos is well beyond the probabilistic resources of the cosmos itself. You should be skeptical! But listen to what the physicists and the astronomers are saying now. The following quotations will be given without editing.
Astronomer Hugh Ross writes: “The list of design characteristics for our solar system grows longer with every year of research. What were 2 parameters in 1966 grew to 8 by the end of the 1960’s, to 23 by the end of the 1970’s, to 30 by the end of the 1980’s, to the current list of 128”. These parameters must be fine-tuned for the support of physical life. Atheist astronomer Fred Hoyle reluctantly concludes that “ a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology”. British astrophysicist Paul Davies moved from promoting atheism to conceding that “the law of physics seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design”. Davies further testifies: “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all….It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the universe…. The impression of design is overwhelming”. Astronomer George Greenstein, in his book The Symbiotic Universe, expressed these thoughts: “As we survey all the evidence, the thought instantly arises that some supernatural agency – or rather Agency – must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being?”

Tony Rothman, a theoretical physicist, in a popular article on the anthropic principle (the idea that the universe possesses narrowly defined characteristics that permit the possibility of a habitat for humans) concluded his essay with these words: “The medieval theologian who gazed at the night sky through the eyes of Aristotle and saw angels moving the spheres in harmony has become the modern cosmologist who gazes at the same sky through the eyes of Einstein and sees the hand of God.” Physicist Freeman Dyson concluded, “The problem here is to try to formulate some statement of the ultimate purpose of the universe. In other words, the problem is to read the mind of God.” Vera Kista Kowsky, MIT physicist and past president of the Association of Women in Science, commented, “The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.” Arno Penzias, who shared the Nobel Prize for Physics, remarked: “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe that was created out of nothing. One with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying plan.”

Stephen Hawking himself concedes: “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.” Perhaps astrophysicist Robert Jastron, a self-proclaimed agnostic, best described what has happened to his colleagues as they have measured the cosmos: “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock; he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

Why this change of heart among astronomers during the last 40 years? They measured the universe and found the following parameters of the earth, its moon, its star, and its galaxy that must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for life of any kind to exist. They are: galaxy cluster type, galaxy size, galaxy type, galaxy location, parent star (sun) distance from center of galaxy, parent star distance from closest spiral arm, parent star birth date, parent star age, parent star mass, parent star metallicity, parent star color, earth’s surface gravity, earth’s distance from the parent star, inclination of orbit, orbit eccentricity, axial tilt, rate of change of axial tilt, rotation period, rate of change of rotation period, planet age, magnetic field, thickness of crust, oxygen to nitrogen ratio, carbon dioxide level, water vapor level, ozone level, oceans-to-continents ratio, soil mineralization, gravitational interaction with moon, Jupiter distance, atmospheric pressure, iron quantity, quantity of soil sulfur, gravitational force constant, expansion rate of the universe, velocity of light, total mass density of the universe, space energy density of the universe – on and on the list would go until we reach 128 parameters that must be fine-tuned for life. The chance that 10 of these parameters would come together at one place in the galaxy would be a miracle of Biblical proportions. The probability that all 128 parameters would be met would take unlimited miracles of Chance. Thus, according to physicists, there is less than 1 chance in 10144 (trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion) that even one such planet like the earth would occur anywhere in the universe. These are the minimum odds because new parameters are being found monthly by astronomers.

One might ask, what does Jupiter’s distance and the total mass density of the universe have to do with life? It turns out that if Jupiter’s distance is greater, too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth, because Jupiter’s big size and large gravity sucks in space junk before they can approach Earth. If Jupiter’s distance is a little bit less, Earth’s orbit would be too unstable to permit life. Furthermore, the total mass density of neutrons and protons of the universe, as large as it is, focuses on the needs of humans. The density translates into about a hundred-billion-trillion stars for our universe. If this density is a little too big it will cause the stars to burn much too quickly for any of them to support a planet with life. If the density is too small the heavier elements necessary for life (such as iron) will not form in the stars. “What this means is that the approximately hundred-billion-trillion stars in our universe – no more no less – are needed for life to be possible in the universe”, writes astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross. The Designer invested heavily in living creatures.

Just as the infinite steady state universe theory died a very slow death among physicists, so too Carl Sagan’s idea of billions of planets with life still attracts astronomers who ignore the new measurements. Just recently a newspaper headline noted a study: “8.8 billion earth-sized, just-right planets in our galaxy”. Of course, earth-sized planets are hundreds of light-years away and lost in the light of their parent stars and cannot be seen. Very large Jupiter sized planets can barely be seen and are much more likely to be noticed from a tiny reduction in the parent star’s brightness when the planet crosses it. A small, earth-sized planet’s effects on the parent star would be vanishingly small.

A skeptic would say that it would be nice to see some specific data in the form of observations, measurements, and experiments to support the claim for billions of just-right planets. The problem is that there are none! How can there be? They cannot be directly observed or measured, but there are 128 observations and experiments made by scientists to find just-right conditions for a planet that we can see. The findings also raise a blaring question, if we aren’t alone, why is there a deafening silence in our Milky Way Galaxy from other advanced civilizations? As for the millions of dollars spent by the U.S. government on the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, former Senator William Proxmire may have said it best, “We would be far wiser to have spent the money looking for intelligent life in Washington”.

The sun is some four hundred times farther from the Earth than the moon, but it is also four hundred times larger. As a result, both bodies appear the exact same size in the sky. Amazing! This fact allows for a total solar eclipse. Glorious! Astronomer Brunier says that the sight of a total eclipse is “so staggering, so ethereal, and so enchanting that tears come to everyone’s eyes”. It’s hard to exaggerate the significance of the scientific insights afforded by a total eclipse such as the discovery of the nature of the sun’s atmosphere, testing general relativity, and timing of the Earth’s rotation. Is there a system anywhere else in the universe so perfectly in unison?

The Designer created the Earth and its Moon to function as one system – double planet as it were. They are a perfect match. Even if the universe contains 10 billion trillion planets (1022), we would not expect one by Chance alone to end up with the perfect surface gravity, surface temperature, atmospheric composition, atmospheric pressure, crustal iron abundance, tectonics, volcanism, rotation rate, ratio of decline in rotation rate, and stable rotation axis tilt necessary for the support of life. The above wonders are the result of a miracle; the exact synchronization of the Earth and its Moon.

Physicist Lawrence Krauss points to the astonishing degree of fine-tuning at the exact moment of creation to obtain the stars and planets necessary for physical life. At the exact moment of creation the value of the mass density must be fine-tuned to better than one part in 1060 and the value of the space energy density to better than one part in 10120 (1080 equals the number of atoms in the Universe). This is the most profound design evidence uncovered in the cosmos by physicists.

The design in nature’s move toward life might be pure Chance. It would be something like winning a lottery for which a billion people had purchased tickets. A miracle? Not really – someone had to win and you were the lucky person. A bit of scrutiny reveals the shortcoming of this analogy. You see, if you win the lottery this week and then again next week, and then again the third week, chances are that before you collect your third weeks winnings, you will be on your way to jail for having rigged the results. The probability of winning three in a row, or three in a lifetime, is so small as to be negligible. Yet, this is child’s play compared to the lottery of the Universe.

With the Universe ready for life, 128 parameters must be fine-tuned to a precision that is beyond comprehension. As the parameters continue to increase, more and more astronomers are abandoning Chance in favor of Extreme Design.

Lee Kleinschmidt
March 2014

P.S.
Most of the scientific information in this paper was collected bit by bit from hundreds of books I have read. I am indebted to the biologists, chemists, physicists, astronomers, mathematicians and scientists that are responsible for the insights expressed here.

Posted in Evolution | Leave a comment

Origin of Life Experiments

Robert Shapiro is a professor of chemistry at New York University and an expert on DNA Research. In his elegant and thoughtful book Origins he writes;

“I decided to revisit one of the first origin-of-life displays that I had seen. The American Museum of Natural History in New York has carried an exhibition on this topic for the past twenty years. With the cases was a diagram of the
Millex-Urey apparatus, an account of the pre-biotic soup, and literature references for further reading. I remember the appearance of this display, fresh bright, and provocative shortly after its opening in the early 1960’s. It
occupied the same site decades later. The cases were filled with dust, however, and lighting was now so dim that the words could barely be made out. The sad fate of this display in a way represents the condition of the field itself.”

Robert Shapiro has no interest in religion and was hopeful that reasonable chemical experiments run to discover a probable origin for life would be successful. The fact that they have failed has made life difficult for the prebiotic chemist.

The prebiotic chemist operates under self-imposed constraints. He is attempting to simulate reactions that may have occurred on the early earth to find a plausible series of steps that may have led to the origin of life. A true prebiotic chemist, as much as possible, has to simulate the random environment of the early earth with its many different atoms repelling each other at very high speeds. The outer electron shells of atoms have negative charges which causes the atoms to oppose one another.

Prebiotic simulations of a cell would have to factor in the countless trillions of incorrect, chance sequences of atoms, the trillions of incorrect, chance bonds between atoms, the trillions of failed, chance folding patterns between atoms, and the trillions of failed attempts to obtain function with atoms.

All prebiotic chemists admit that a complete cell with its trillion atoms is beyond chance. So they start small with the various parts of the cell – the proteins, RNA, and DNA molecules. Each of these subunits are unique and contain a vast number of atoms that must act with exquisite perfection to perform their combined catalytic, regulatory, and hereditary functions in the cell.

One small protein with a sequence of 200 amino acids and 4000 atoms is beyond chance. Chance experiments would have to sift through trillions of failed sequences, bonding patterns, and folding patterns for this one small protein. Then chance must throw the dice (atoms) to obtain the other 100,000 unique proteins that are needed to do the work within a cell in order to keep it alive.

The watchmaker can select the conditions that serve his purpose and can use his intelligence to narrow choices. He can think ahead and keep account of the arrangement of parts that work and dismiss arrangements that don’t work. The watchmaker has an idea of the finished product and works toward a goal.

The random atoms in the primeval earth could not think ahead and were at the mercy of pure dumb luck. They have no notion of the finished product. Therefore, they cannot pick and save partial sequences that might lead to the functional, final product. If some kind of miracle of chance gets the first six amino acids to line up in the correct sequence it is not fit to function until all two hundred amino acids are sequenced, bonded, and folded correctly. Because there are twenty unique amino acids that can be used to build a protein, the odds are very great that the seventh amino acid needed to continue the sequence will not be found. The partial sequence has no protection and would find itself awash in the seas of the pre-biotic earth; its fate would be unkind. It would perish without further issue. For in this random sea, it would encounter only hosts of unrelated chemicals, and not the subunits it needs to reproduce itself.

The rules of evolution are very strict as Darwinists so often tell us. These rules work against random chance. One of the rules often mentioned by Darwinists is that evolution is blind and cannot anticipate future results. Another rule of evolution says that an organism must be functionally fit to survive. A partial protein has zero function and would perish according to the harsh rules of evolution.

Because Darwinists working with laboratory experiments have not come close in their attempt to find the reactions that might have led to life, they have championed computer programming as a way forward. After all, laboratory experiments are very difficult and very time consuming. Working in three-dimensional space with the three-dimensional atoms that might have been around during prebiotic times have gotten them only failure. Switching to the two-dimensional printouts of the computer is a lot less messy and leads to nice, neat answers that show up on the computer screen. Of course, two-dimensional computer printouts might lead to problems since proteins and the other molecules of life are incredibly compex thee-dimensional objects with layer upon layer of amino acids.

Furthermore, if there are thousands of unique proteins in a cell, each one has a different three-dimensional arrangement which is vital to its lock-and-key fit with the molecule it’s catalyzing. Darwinists have put this fact aside since the public reading their books might be impressed with the two-dimensional technology of the computer. At first I thought these many “science” authors were joking. No, they were serious. “Comic authority” is being imposed on innocent readers in the name of science as computers demonstrate “natural selection”.

David Berlinski received his Ph.D. from Princeton University and has taught mathematics at a number of universities in America, France and Austria. He has written many books and papers on systems analysis, logic, and mathematics. Professor Berlinski wrote, “it is Richard Dawkins grand intention in his book, The Blind Watchmaker, to demonstrate as one reviewer enthusiastically remarked, how natural selection allows biologists to dispense with such notions as purpose and design”.

This is done with the blind stabs of a monkey at a typewriter correctly typing a chosen Shakespearean target sentence – “Methinks it is like a weasel”. Naturally a computer is needed to eliminate the countless wrong “mutations” and save only the “mutations” that approach the target sentence. Dawkin’s target is a six-word sentence containing twenty-eight English letters (including the spaces). If there are twenty-six keys, the chance of getting “M” as the first letter is one in twenty-six. The odds against success rise to 1/26 x 1/26 or one in 676 for getting the first two letters “Me” in the correct order and 1/26 x 1/26 x 1/26 or one in 17,576 to get “Met”. The improbability explodes exponentially with each punch of the typewriter. The target occupies an isolated point in space of 10,000 million, million, million, million, million, million possibilities. Getting the six numbers in the national lottery on a weekly basis might seem easy compared to the combinatorial inflation leading to Dawkin’s target.

How does Dawkins get around this? Dawkins assumes the position of the “Head Monkey” or the computer which is “programmed” to survey what the monkey has typed in order to choose the result “which however slightly most resembles the target phrase”. The process under way is one in which stray successes are spotted and then saved. Successes are conserved and then conserved again. The estimable “Head Monkey” or computer program conserves certain alphabetical changes because he knows where the experiment is going. This is forbidden knowledge; the Darwinian Mechanism is blind, a point stressed by Darwinian theorists themselves.

What Dawkins shows is design. The computer programmer selects the target; the program then looks to the finished product and compares distances. Saving key letters and putting them aside is “inside information” that could lead to the arrest of a stock trader if he knows the results of a transaction ahead of time. The computer program is appealing to information that a biological system can not possess. Dawkins echoes the thoughts of other Darwinists when he writes, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifferences”. Of course, Dawkins shows the opposite of “pointless indifference” when he creates his computer program with a specific target in mind.
It was not Dawkins purpose to show that intelligent design is the only method that works for the design of a cell. However, he has managed to do just that when he became the omniscient originator of his complex computer programs.

When one wakes up in the morning one enters a field of design. Design that is very complex and very specified. Your bed is designed and so is your toothbrush, toothpaste, faucet, light switch, sink, shower, and even the house you live in. Not even a thimble would exist without design.

A cell has all the hallmarks of design: awesome complexity and specificity, along with mesmerizing functional integration. The functions of 100,000 proteins, 200,000 RNA molecules, 20,000 ribosomes, 30,000 genes, and many other components are all exactly coordinated into one living cell. We know of nothing else in the universe that even comes close to this unfathomable sophistication. (Except for the gathering of cells into organs and whole body plans).

“A cell is more complex than a galaxy, if the galaxy has no life in it”. This was written by Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger, an eminent French mathematician, who also says, “randomness is the enemy of order”. He also writes, “the cell’s cascading interactions with feedback loops, express and organizational complexity we do not know how to analyze”.

Whenever the biologist looks in a cell, there is specified complexity beyond specified complexity. It is here that the door of doubt begins to swing. Chance and complexity are countervailing forces; they work at cross-purposes.

Oxford University has given professor Richard Dawkins its trust in making him the holder of the newly endowed Charles Simonyi Chair of Public Understanding of Science. How does he show this trust? By writing that anyone who denies evolution is either, “ignorant, stupid or insane” and by saturating his books with designed computer programs that “dispense with the notion of purpose and design”. (Dawkins words). Of course, most scientists know that he is using purpose and design to form his programs. Oxford and Dawkins should be embarrassed for such lack of logic. Mathematician David Berlinski says that if computer simulations demonstrate anything, they subtly demonstrate the need for an intelligent agent to elect some options and exclude others.

Professor of Biochemistry Michael J. Behe writes; “The fact that a distinguished scientist (Dawkins) overlooks simple logical problems that are easily seen by a chemist suggests that a sabbatical visit to a biochemistry laboratory might be in order”. Dawkins visit to the laboratory would demonstrate that simulating reactions that may have occurred on the early earth with its many different atoms opposing each other at high speed is demanding work. Origin of life experiments don’t proceed very far until intelligence is factored in.

Am I being a little bit too hard on Professor Dawkins? Maybe. However, he is the leader of the pack in the rush to use computer simulations to demonstrate evolution. Many have followed his lead. However, science is based on observable evidence. Origin of life experiments have failed in the three-dimensional space of the prebiotic laboratory and are much more pathetic in the created two-dimensional space of the computer. Using created programs to disprove creation would be comical, if these simulations were not imposed on innocent readers.

Molecular biologist Michael Denton writes:

“It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate. The inference to design is a purely scientific induction based on a ruthlessly consistent application of the logic of analogy.”

Lee Kleinschmidt 2013

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Darwin’s Dark Side

Small scale evolution has always been accepted by everyone.  From animal husbandry to horticulture, breeders are creating new varieties among specific species.  Microevolution is like an ant jumping over a grain of sand, Macroevolution (forming completely new body forms and functions) is like an ant jumping over the Grand Canyon at its widest point.  As paleontologist Robert Carroll explains, the fossil record “emphasizes how wrong Darwin was in extrapolating the pattern of long-term evolution from that observed within populations and species.  As Darwin himself observed, new species appear fully formed, as though planted there, and remain unchanged.

The facts behind the dark side of Darwinism may not reflect the history naturalists wish to remember, but they do reveal a reality which is central to our understanding of Darwinism.  As I chronicle the shortcomings of Darwinism, I must not puff myself up with pride and fall into the very arrogance that is characteristic of Darwinism at its worst.  As scientist William A. Dembski writes:

“How can a scientist keep from descending into dogmatism?  There’s only one way, and that’s to look oneself squarely in the mirror and continually affirm:  I am a fallible human being…  I may be wrong…  I may be massively wrong and mean it.”

With this in mind, we all have a “dark side”, if we try to police the thoughts of reasonable people.  I am a reporter, presenting the facts from scientists.  Reasonable people will examine the ideas that I present and have a healthy skepticism and then do their own browsing through the scientific record.

Out of intellectual curiosity, Edward Sisson, a partner at a large WashingtonD.C. based international law firm, started to investigate the Scopes Monkey Trial.  He noticed that whenever evolution is challenged, Darwinists bring up the Scopes Trial and Darwinist’s favorite movie, Inherit the Wind (Stanley Kramer , 1960).   After all, if Darwinist’s ratify the evolutionary material in the textbook from which Scopes taught, nobody should object to the content in that book.  Sisson purchased a copy of the textbook from which Scopes taught, A Civic Biology, and a copy of the companion lab guide to that textbook.   As Sisson reviewed these source materials he found them very different from the biased picture presented by the movie, Inherit the Wind.

A Civic Biology and its companion lab book both contain sections on eugenics – introduced by the statement that “the science of being well born is called eugenics.”  Harvard law professor, Alan Dershowitz, notes that A Civic Biology divided humanity into five races and ranked them in terms of superiority, concluding with the highest type of all, the caucasians, represented by the “civilized” white inhabitants of Europe and America.   A Civic Biology taught school children that the failure to apply eugenics forced the State of New York to bear the cost of “over a hundred feeble-minded, alcoholic, immoral, or criminal persons.”

Ironically, the lab book contains little on evolution.  Apparently, the Darwinists who wrote the lab book, and the scientific establishment that applauded it, felt it was more important for the “receptive” young students to learn eugenics than evolution.  Edward Sisson writes that the lab book, at problem 160, asks students to use inheritance charts, “to determine some means of bettering, physically and mentally, the human race; so that students can answer the concluding question: should feeble minded persons be allowed to marry?”

Edward Sisson says the scientific establishment of today would denounce eugenics.  Thus, the very textbook from which Scopes taught – the very book that the scientific establishment of today proclaims Scopes ought to have been able to use in 1925 without interference from the State of Tennessee – included materials that today the scientific establishment rejects.

Would it have been wise at the time for students, teachers and parents to question the “facts” presented in A Civil Biology?  Scientific evidence to the contrary should always be welcomed in a debate about a theory that produces new knowledge.   Some of the “facts” about evolution presented and implied in modern high school biology text books that have been shown to be false even by Darwinists such as Richard Dawkins and Stephen J. Gould are still being published as true.  In my fifth paper, Half-truths; Evolutions Recurring Themes, I concentrated  on five classic examples of evolution presented in textbooks that don’t stand up under empirical scrutiny.  They are:  Darwin’s Warm Little Pond; The Fossil Horses; The Miller-Urey Experiment; Haeckel’s Embryo’s; and the Peppered Moths.

Always look for details, the more details the better – in the form of experiments, measurement, research and observation.  The details of eugenics were examined and rejected by scientists and detailed research has also brought into question many of the classic examples of evolution.

Darwinists often cry out, “Why can’t we be treated like physicists and other hard scientists?  Why are we lumped together with psychologists, economists and other pseudo-scientists?”  This might foster an inferiority complex which makes Darwinists extremely defensive and hostile to any form of criticism, even when the criticism is backed by empirical facts.  The fact that opinion polls always show that a large majority of the public do not believe Darwin’s central idea of macroevolution make them even more irrational.  Darwinist Richard Dawkins gets red with anger and shakes visibly when he is challenged during a debate.  This was also true for another ultra Darwinist, Stephen Jay Gould, when he debated Phillip Johnson.

Phillip E. Johnson, a graduate of Harvard and the University of Chicago Law School (placing first in his class), wrote the book Darwin on Trial after extensive scientific research.  David Raup, a renowned paleontologist, had distributed Johnson’s work to his students at the University of Chicago and agreed that Johnson’s scholarship was fully accurate in scientific detail and contained a clear understanding of macroevolutions anomalies and empirical gaps.  Colin Patterson, a renowned British paleontologist, helped critique Johnson’s early draft in London and found it sound.

The debate between Gould and Johnson took place at the CampionCenter on the west side of Boston.  Gould immediately seized the floor and “donned the mantle of Darwin.”  Gould was agitated and shaking bodily and started vehement criticism.  Johnson conveyed a sense of having done his homework and remained calm.

Compare Gould’s rage to the friendly arguments that Einstein had with the great Danish physicist Niels Bohr.  Their discussions were so intense that they would forget about everything else.  However, they remained friends and stayed in contact with each other throughout their long careers.  They respected one another and often sought advice on new ideas.

Ultra-Darwinist Richard Dawkins, who holds the chair of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, wrote, “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane.”  Dawkins also stated that, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifference.”

In his book, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, the Darwinist philosopher Dennett compares religious believers to “wild animals” who may have to be “caged” and says that parents should be prevented, presumably by coercion, from misinforming their children about the truth of Darwinian evolution, which is so evident to him.

Can you blame Dennett for going over the “edge” when his most formidable opponents are not clergy men, but fossil experts?  Darwin was so disillusioned by the fossil record that he said in The Origin, “I can give no satisfactory answer to the lack of intermediates.  Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the discovery of transitional forms.”   Would Dennett have “caged” Darwin for such doubts? It is ironic that Dennett is holding on to his religious faith in macroevolution without the empirical evidence of the rocks.

Richard Dawkins, Stephen J. Gould and Daniel C. Dennett have fashioned their reputations as defenders of a Darwinian orthodoxy.  Their words convey the impression of men who expect never to encounter criticism and are unprepared to deal with it rationally.  This is a deeply unhealthy state of affairs, especially when ordinary men and women are suspicious of Darwin’s theory.  Dennett, Dawkins, Gould, and many other Darwinists hardly go far in persuading them that their intellectual anxieties are misplaced.

There is no more disputed problem in biology than Darwin’s claim for macroevolution.  This is because the stubborn realities of nature keep coming up time after time: the Cambrian explosion; the sudden appearance and stasis of fossils; the absence of transitional forms; the cell’s breathtaking specified complexity; and the experimentally driven collapse of the confidence in the chemical soup scenarios for the origin of life.  Because Darwinists are left flying in the wind, without a firm anchor of empirical evidence, it might lead them to a type of complex that does not allow them to operate at “room temperature”.

Free-lance writer Nancy R. Pearcey notes that evolution is becoming a total worldview.  If you start with impersonal forces operating by chance, then over time you end up with naturalism in moral, social, and political philosophy.

Thus, in evolutionary psychology, new books keep appearing with titles such as; The Moral Animal and Evolutionary Origins of Morality, arguing that morality is a product of natural selection.  For politicians, there’s a book titled Darwinian Politics: The Evolutionary Origin of Freedom.  For economists there’s Economics as an Evolutionary Science.  For educators there’s Origins of Genius: Darwinian Perspectives on Creativity.  In medicine, a slew of new books have appeared with titles such as Evolutionary Medicine, and Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine.  The next time you go to your physician, ask if he/she practices Darwinian medicine.  Knowing the Darwinian ideas on eugenics; if the answer is “yes”, run for your life, especially if you are elderly and sometimes forget your car keys.

The dark side of this evolutionary fundamentalism is that these books are said to be scientific without any actual evidence.  “The ugly fact”, says evolutionary geneticist H. Allen Orr, “is that we haven’t a shred of evidence that morality did or did not evolve by natural selection.”

In a book called The Natural History of Rape, the authors made the disturbing claim that rape is not a pathology, but rather is an evolutionary adaption.  In fact, the rape thesis has reappeared in a book by Steven Pinker of MIT titled: The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature.  Some years ago Pinker published an article in the New York Times applying evolutionary psychology to the topic of infanticide.  Pinker wrote that a capacity for neonaticide is built into the biological design of our parental emotions.

PrincetonUniversity professor Peter Singer published and article defending bestiality.  Singer insists; evolution teaches that “we are animals and the result is that sex across the species barrier…ceases to be an offense to our dignity as human beings.”

There are scientific problems with all of these books, beginning with the fact that there is no evidence that any of these traits have been selected by evolution.  “Where are the twin studies, chromosome locations, and DNA sequences supporting such a claim?” geneticist H. Allen Orr demands.  “The answer is we don’t have any.  What we do have is a story – there is undeniable Darwinian logic underlying the murder of newborns.”  Darwin himself was taken in by evolutionary logic when in the Descent of Man he argued that “the murder of infants has prevailed on the larger scale throughout the world and has met no reproach.”

Evolution proves to be so elastic that it can explain anything.  Evolution is said to account for mothers who kill their newborn babies.  But, of course, if you were to ask why most mothers do not kill their babies, evolution accounts for that, too.  A theory that explains any phenomenon and its opposite, too, in reality explains nothing.  The shame is that many of these books are being written at scientific research universities such as; MIT and Princeton without carefully controlled experiments as documentation.  To remain silent is the most useful service these “science“ writers can render to the public good.

Darwin’s idea of the survival of the fittest has been a dictator’s dream, because it has given them scientific cover for dark political theories.  Science writer Mark Ridley notes:

“Natural selection is, I agree, politically and morally unattractive.  Natural selection contains a selfish, competitive element that has inspired some nasty political theories, including, historically speaking, the social Darwinism of the eugenics movement, the robber barons of early capitalism and Hitler’s Third Reich.”

Darwinism, for 150 years, has been the weapon of choice of all those, both left and right, who wanted to undermine and annihilate the great tradition of religious humanism that has formed the foundations of Western Civilization.  On the left, Marx wanted to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin.  On the right, the use of Darwin to promote military nationalism and racism, is also well known.  In reading Darwin’s Blind Spot: Evolution Beyond Natural Selection by science writer Frank Ryan, I found how society put into action some of Darwin’s ideas.  Ryan writes:

“Contemporary Darwinism was in perfect harmony with British Imperialism which was seen as the national expression of the evolutionary process.  Darwin’s evolutionary theory was being applied to the fields of education, law, philosophy, behavioral psychology, and politics.  Survival of the fittest, struggle, competition, and fitness became hallmarks of British society.  Some of Darwin’s contemporaries thought that unfit individuals should be eliminated.  Darwin assumed that western, especially Anglo-Saxon cultures, was superior to the inferior peoples.  Darwin even opposed vaccination of the lower class.  The Descent of Man portrayed men as more intelligent than women.  Darwin said that the careless, squalid Irishman multiplies like rabbits; the frugal, fore-seeing, self-respecting Scot is stern in his morality.”

Darwin’s son, Major Leonard Darwin, who became president of the Eugenics Education Society, called for the control of the lower class.  In Britain, the pauper class was perceived as the greatest threat to civilizations.  In the United States, social Darwinism became more firmly entrenched under Theodore Roosevelt and helped to support a militaristic foreign policy.  Darwinian-inspired American eugenicists considered the Nordic white race superior before the Nazis did.

Social Darwinism took a far greater potential for evil when it was adapted as policy in Germany.  Adolf Hitler said it is the struggle for existence that produces the selection of the fittest.

Christians and other groups should not be held blameless, because at times they were silent and would not stand up to the imperialist’s claims.  How easily one forgets that Jesus championed the poor, the unclean, and the outcasts of society.  The fact that Darwinists based their claims on scientific “facts” is even more unfathomable.

You must be a creationist!  Why else would you oppose macroevolution?  Being a creationist is essentially the only unforgiveable sin among Darwinists.  Sir Isaac Newton wrote in his Principa, “the most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”

Eugenie Scott, an anthropologist who heads the NationalCenter for Science Education, has distinguished herself as an ardent critic of the scientific legitimacy of intelligent design, and tours high schools to “enforce” this view.  At a hearing of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, one of the commissioners asked Dr. Scott that given Newton’s views on intelligent design in physics, whether Newtonian physics would qualify as scientific in our present Darwinian educational climate.  Scott responded by saying that Newton did not take intelligent design seriously as a scientific argument.  Astrophysicist Neil de Grasse Tyson, Director of the Haydon Planetarium, wrote in a recent book, Death by Blackhole that intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance and also said that Newton did not take intelligent design seriously.

In a letter that I quickly posted to Dr. Tyson, I reminded him that this is simply incorrect.  If one opens the General Scholium, the introduction to Principa, arguably the greatest book of science ever written, one finds an exquisite design argument by Newton in which he makes clear that the arrangement of the planets can only be explained by the contrivance of a most wise artificer.  He is very explicit about this!

How dare Dr. Tyson say that intelligent design is a “philosophy of  ignorance!”   Has any scientist gone farther to conquer ignorance than Newton did in 1666, when he holed up in his mother’s house, he developed calculus, an analysis of the light spectrum, and the laws of gravity?  Newton was Einstein’s foremost role model and he always kept Newton’s portrait tacked to the wall near his desk.  Einstein summarized the history of physics: “In the beginning God created Newton’s laws of motion together with the necessary masses and forces.”   As a man of God, did Newton ever imply that he would rather remain ignorant, than search for the truth?

I was re-reading Walter Isaacson’s Einstein when I came upon these quotes.  Einstein said, “I’m not an atheist… We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.”  “The fanatical atheists,” he explained, “are like slaves who still feel the weight of their chains.”

Belief in the intelligent design hypothesis can be found in most of the leading scientists of western civilization: Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Maxwell, Ray, Linnaeus, Carvier, Agassiz, Boyle, Kelvin, Faraday, Rutherford – on and on the list would go.  Name just one who embraced ignorance over truth.

To say that Darwin would have changed their minds is pure speculation, because many of these scientists lived after Darwin.  The distinguished British cosmologist, Sir Fred Hoyle, an atheist, said, “Belief in the chemical evolution of the first cell from life-less atoms is equivalent to believing that a tornado could sweep through a junk yard and form a Boeing 747.”  Yet, Darwinists would accept Hoyle into their fold because he was an outspoken atheist; if they suspected otherwise he would be banished.  Much the same can be said about Lynn Margulis, a distinguished professor of Biology at the University of Massachusetts who was chairperson of the Planetary Biology   and Chemical Evolution Committee of the Natural Academy of Science.  Lynn Margulis has written many books and papers and is not someone to trifle with.  Lynn Margulis said that “history will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as a minor twentieth century religious Sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology.”  At one of her talks she asks Darwin biologists in the audience to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations.  Her challenge goes unmet.  Nevertheless, Margulis is accepted into the Darwinian club because she has no interest in organized religion as such, whether or not that religion is the Church of Darwin or some other Church.

Nicolaus Copernicus, Sir Isaac Newton, and Albert Einstein are the three greatest physicists of all time and each of them had a working relationship with the designer.  Copernicus, as a working Catholic priest, dedicated his work, De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestrium, to the Pope at that time; Newton, as the role model for Einstein, made a design argument in the Principa; and it was Einstein who said “when I am judging a theory, I ask myself whether, if I were God, I would have arranged the world in such a way.”

Einstein never felt the urge to denigrate those who believed in design; instead he distanced himself from outspoken atheists.  “What separates me from the so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos.”  All people who love science, myself included, should embrace this spirit of humility.

If Socrates taught us anything, it’s that we always know a lot less than we think we know.  Dogmatism deceives us into thinking we have attained ultimate mastery and that divergence of opinions is futile.

Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett are over-the-top in their enthusiasm for Darwinism and show animus to anyone who doesn’t share their opinion.  But what about the American Civil Liberties Union, when it threatens to sue school boards and teachers for allowing criticism of Darwinian evolution to be taught?  I’m not talking about an alternative to Darwin, like the theory of Intelligent Design.  I’m talking about teaching criticisms of the theory as they appear in peer-reviewed literature by recognized evolutionary biologists, such as the late Stephen J. Gould.  We now face a Darwinian thought police that, save for employing physical violence, is as insidious as any secret police at ensuring conformity and rooting out dissent.  To question Darwinism is dangerous to all professional scholars, but especially for biologists.  As professor of Biological Sciences Michael J. Behe points out in an interview with the Harvard Political Review, “There’s good reason to be afraid.  Even if you are not fired from your job, you will be passed over for promotions.  I would strongly advise graduate students who are skeptical of Darwinism not to make their views known.”

As I pointed out before, this is a deeply unhealthy state of affairs for science and tells of a deep and acute sense of personal inferiority among Darwinists that result in overcompensation, exaggeration, and aggressiveness.

Eshel Ben Jacob, Maguy-Glass Chair in Physics of Complex Systems at TelAvivUniversity writes, “Darwin, a free thinker who dared make far-reaching conclusions based on observation, would have been dismayed to see the petrified doctrine his brain-child has become.”  Darwin’s Origin of the Species has four chapters devoted to difficulties to his theory and most of these have only gotten worse in light of sudden appearance and stasis in the fossil record and the intricate structure of the cell that is found to be more breathtakingly complex on a daily basis.  Darwin would have welcomed critical observations of his theory based on scientific findings that have been observed and measured.  The dark side of Darwin will not allow this to happen.

Healthy and respectful skepticism and transparency helps science move forward.  There has always been a conflict of interest between scientists who command the dominant view and scientists who think they are misguided.  These tensions are good as long as both sides “operate at room temperature” and allow reasonable debate.  Galileo was severely censored by the church by expressing scientific views that proved to be empirically correct.  Is the church of Darwin now censoring the views of professional scholars in a similar way?

The simplest solution to the closing of the mind in favor of Darwinism or any other idea is to provide people with information; information that is gathered empirically.  Transparency is crucial.  Our institutions of higher learning must permit a culture of free speech that is motivated to question the status quo in light of sound science.

It is clear to me, that it’s acceptable and good to have a system of religious principles and beliefs that are based on faith.  It is not acceptable to pass this faith off as “science” and then police public teachers and schools who cast doubt on this “science” by presenting empirical facts based on direct observation of the fossil record and many other anomalies.  Darwinism should not be treated as a “sacred relic” that is closed to open investigation, especially in public institutions that are supported by everyone’s tax money.  The separation of church and state should also apply to the church of Darwin.

I have religious beliefs that are largely based on faith.  Darwinists should be absolutely free to have their religious principles as long as they also admit that much of macroevolutions’ claims stand largely on faith.  Then, the dark side of Darwinism would vanish and the light would pour in.

Lee Kleinschmidt

 

 

 
 

Posted in Evolution | Leave a comment

The Odds: Egg, Caterpillar, Cocoon, Butterfly

In the complete metamorphosis of a butterfly, a larva (caterpillar) hatches from an egg and goes through several molts before becoming a pupa (cocoon in moths), which develops into an adult butterfly.  Neither the larva nor the pupa resemble the adult.

To say that gradual evolution’s explanation for complete metamorphosis has never been provided is an understatement.  One type of fully functional organism is broken down into what amounts to a nutrient broth from which an utterly different type of organism emerges. Not even the vaguest attempts have been made to provide hypothetical scenarios explaining how such an astonishing sequence of transformations could have come about gradually as a result of a succession of small, beneficial mutations.  As I pointed out in my last paper, geneticists using saturation mutagenesis have not turned up a single mutation that would benefit organisms in the wild.

It is common for evolutionary biologists to depreciate the tendency to discuss the inadequacies of natural selection working on random mutations with reference to special cases such as metamorphosis.  As ultra Darwinist Julian Huxley complained, “It is perhaps unfortunate that the study of adaptions has been so closely associated with highly specialized and striking cases of the “wonder of nature” type.”

However, these “highly specialized” cases take place in bees, wasps, ants, mosquitoes, flies, gnats, butterflies, moths, Dobson flies, lacewings, ant lions, fleas, and many other organisms.  Moreover, botany offers hundreds of examples of complex adaptions which have never been explained convincingly in gradualistic terms.  The adaptions by which certain carnivorous plants, such as the Venus fly trap or the pitcher plant, first lure, then trap and digest their insect prey have never been explained.

A classic example from botany is the pollination mechanism of the orchid coryanthes described by Darwin as being: “effected in a manner that perhaps have been inferred from their structure, but would have appeared utterly incredible had it not been repeatedly observed by a careful observer.”  The pollination method of the coryanthes is too involved to be explained in full detail here, since it involves a special bucket, fluids secreted by more than one gland, and the capture and release of a bee that is forced to brush against its stigma and then against the viscid discs of pollen.  As scientist C. W. Wardlaw confesses:

“Special adaptive features such as those exemplified by the plants of special habitats, climbing plants, insectivorous plants, the numerous cunning floral arrangements that ensure cross-pollination, seem to the writer to be difficult to account for adequately in terms of a sequence of small random variations, and natural selection.   …It is an inescapable fact that there are indeed very large numbers of these special cases both in the Plant and Animal Kingdoms which are not satisfactorily accommodated in the omnibus of evolutionary doctrine.”

In the complete metamorphosis of the monarch butterfly, a wormlike larva, commonly called a caterpillar, hatches from the egg.  The caterpillar has three pairs of jointed legs on the thorax and several pairs of nonsegmented  legs on the abdomen.  The caterpillar eats almost constantly, growing large and thus it is the caterpillar (larval) stage of most insects that causes the most damage to plants.

The monarch larva molts several times as it grows.  In the last larval stage, it develops bands of black, white, and yellow and looks quite attractive as a caterpillar.  It finds a sheltered spot and hangs upside down.  Its exoskeleton splits down the side and falls off, revealing a green pupa (cocoon).  Inside the pupa, the larval tissue breaks down, and groups of cells called imaginal disks develop into the wings and other tissues of the adult.  When metamorphosis is complete, the pupa molts into a sexually mature, winged butterfly.  Ultra Darwinist Richard Dawkins confesses in his book The Ancestor’s Tale, “I don’t know what embryologic hurdles would need to be surmounted in order to persuade a butterfly to metamorphose into a caterpillar.  No doubt is would be very difficult.”

A honey bee colony consists of three types of individuals: worker bees, queen bee, and drones.  Worker bees are sterile females that make up the vast majority of the hive population, which may reach more than 80,000 bees.  The workers perform all the duties of the hive except reproduction.  The queen bee is the only fertile female in the hive, and her only function is to reproduce.  Drones are males that develop from unfertilized eggs.  Their sole function is to deliver sperm to the queen and are killed by the workers when the honey supply begins to run low.

Bees also undergo complete metamorphosis.  The queen bee develops from an egg and pupa that look identical to those of the workers.  The difference between the queen and the workers results from a continuous diet of royal jelly that the queen is fed through the larval development.  Charles Darwin was amazed by the exquisite structure of the honey bee comb in which each cell was an exact hexagonal prism.  Darwin writes in chapter 8 of The Origin of the Species;

“We hear from mathematicians that bees have practically solved a recondrite problem, and have made their cells of the proper shape to hold the greatest possible amount of honey, with the least possible consumption of precious wax in their construction … it seems at first quite inconceivable how they make all the necessary angles and planes, or even perceive when they are correctly made … each cell, as it is well known, is a hexagonal prism, with the basal edges of its six sides beveled so as to join an inverted pyramid.”

Superorganisms – colonies of individuals tightly knit by altruistic cooperation, complex communication, and division of labor, find their highest expression in the insect world.  This is especially true of ants who in the tropical rain forest collectively weigh more than all the mammals and other land vertebrates.

Especially memorable are the leaf cutter ants, Earth’s “ultimated superorganism”, who possess sophisticated communication systems, a most elaborate caste system, air conditioned nest architecture, and a population in the millions.

The annual cycle of metamorphosis in a mature ant colony is even more complex than found in bee colonies because it may involve two different life cycles – a fast brood life cycle and a slow brood life cycle.  The mother queen continues to lay eggs through the spring and summer.  Many of the larvae may form into pupae and then hatch early in the season to be able to complete development by the end of the summer and become workers (fast brood).  Others persist as larvae and pupae through the winter and become workers or queens the following spring (slow brood).  The full development of fast brood requires about three months, that of slow brood requires almost a year.

Darwin was amazed by the Eciton ant species with its physical subcasts that comprise combinations of minor workers, majors (also called solders), and super majors (also called super soldiers).  As a rule, the soldiers are specialized for defense or other restricted functions.  Darwin writes in chapter 8 of The Origin of the Species:

“But we have not as yet touched on the acme of the difficulty; namely, the fact that neuters of several ants differ, not only from fertile females and males, but from each other, sometimes to an almost incredible degree, and are thus divided into two and even three castes.  The castes, moreover, do not commonly graduate into each other, but are perfectly well defined; being as distinct from each other as are any two species of the same genus … there are working and soldier neuters with jaws and instincts remarkably different … yet they are absolutely sterile.”

Darwin continues in chapter 8 of The Origin of the Species:

“It will indeed be thought that I have an overweening confidence in the principle of natural selection, when I do not admit that such wonderful and well-established facts once annihilate the theory.”

At this point one may wonder about hybridization.  After all, the mule is the product of the horse and the donkey.  Isn’t this natural selection?  This is anything but natural and is a product of human breeding.  It is a dead end for evolution because the female mule is sterile.  Hybrids between different animal species are usually sterile, as is the liger, a cross between two big cats – the lion and the tiger.  The liger is larger and slower than the lion or the tiger and could not exist in the wild because it is too ponderous.  Darwinian evolution requires that one population diverge in a branching fashion; the opposite (hybridization) would be for the two closely related species to merge into one.  Unchecked hybridization could produce the opposite of speciation.  Since all paleontologists have always observed the abrupt appearance of species and then stasis in the rocks, the question of speciation becomes moot.

Speciation by metamorphosis is a nightmare for Darwinists.  Darwin wrote in chapter 8 of The Origin of the Species that “no complex instinct can possibly be produced through natural selection, except by slow and gradual accumulation of numerous slight, yet profitable, variations.”  Yet metamorphosis is an integrated circuit of irreducible complexity.  In his book, Darwin’s Black Box, Michael J. Behe, a professor of biochemistry, explains a system that is irreducibly complex.

“By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively stop functioning.”

Thus within the butterfly; the egg, the larva (caterpillar), the pupa (cocoon), and the butterfly must all arise in one fell swoop.  One stage cannot exist without the other three stages.  Since natural selection can only choose organisms that are fit to survive and already working, how can it gradually select individual stages that cannot work without their precursors?

A novice looking at a caterpillar might have no idea that it would turn into a cocoon and then become a butterfly which produces the egg.  Each of these stages must make a living.  They must be fully fit to survive – one crawling like a caterpillar, the second hanging from a branch, and the third flying to select nectar and produce eggs.  These different stages would require different body parts, different muscular systems, different circulatory systems, different respiratory systems, different defense and immune systems,different digestive systems, different urinary systems, different central nervous systems, different peripheral nervous systems, different sensory systems, and different endocrine systems.  Because just about all insect have different sexes, the very complex male and female reproductive systems must also be addressed.  Each one of those systems is infinitely complex and far from being understated and yet each must be different at each stage of metamorphosis.

This constitutes a really baffling circle: a vicious circle it seems, for any attempt to form a model, or a theory, of the genesis of metamorphosis.  If the butterfly is needed to make the egg, and the egg is needed to make the larva (caterpillar), and the larva is needed to make the pupa (cocoon), and the pupa is needed to make the butterfly, how did the whole thing get started?  The butterfly, the end result of butterfly synthesis, is required before it can begin.

Three key features of metamorphosis are not addressed by Darwinists.  First, they must explain the origin of the system for storing and encoding all the information for each fully functional stage to break down into a nutrient broth from which an utterly different type of organism emerges.  Second, they must explain the origin of the master plan that allows each stage, in turn, to transform into the next stage at just the right time and place.

Thirdly, they must explain how this master plan, which must be in place to provide all the information for all four stages, could have developed gradually by natural selection working on random mutations.  Remember, that Darwinists claim that natural selection can only select organisms that are fit and functional.  However, it is obvious in metamorphosis that one stage cannot be fit and functional unless made by its predecessor.  One stage cannot gradually form unless the other three stages are there at the beginning.

Details, details, details – science is worthless without them.  Belief in natural selection becomes a theology.  A scientific scenario explaining the astonishing sequence of transformation in metamorphosis is not attempted by Darwinists.  Trillions of cells in each of these stages must change their function along with the countless proteins, RNA molecules, and DNA molecules that reside in each cell.  The integrated complexity of this processing system would make the space shuttle, the most complex machine ever made by man, look like child’s play.  The trillions of biological components of each stage of metamorphosis must shuffle to exactly the right place as each stage progresses in the journey of life.  As with the space shuttle, there is no room for error in that every atom must be in exactly the right place at the appointed time.

It would take a small library of blueprints to detail all the components of the space shuttle.  Constructing such a model for the monarch butterfly would take a much larger library and would be incomplete because many of the unique functions of the elegant control systems regulating the assembly of parts at each stage are not fully understood.

When doing a statistical analysis of the possibility of metamorphosis happening by chance, it would be wise to start with proteins.  Scientists today know that protein molecules perform most of the critical functions in the cell.  Proteins build cellular machines and structures; they carry and deliver cellular materials; and they catalyze chemical reactions that the cell needs to stay alive.  Proteins also process genetic information found in DNA.  To accomplish this work, a typical cell uses one hundred thousand different kinds of proteins.  And each protein has a distinct three dimensional shape related to its function, just as the different tools in the carpenter’s tool box have different shapes related to their functions.

Proteins also display specificity of arrangement.  Proteins are built from amino acid building blocks and their various functions depend crucially on the specific arrangement of those building blocks.  Therefore, a cascade of proteins working inside trillions of cells are able to change the entire structure and habits of the monarch butterfly as it proceeds from one stage to another stage.

Yet, making one small protein by chance is beyond the probabilistic resources of the universe.  As I noted in my second paper, Francis Crick was the co-discoverer of the double helicle structure of DNA and a Nobel Prize winner.  As with most Darwinists, who actually do a statistical analysis of the probability of getting the first-in-time primitive proto-cell by chance, he approached an intellectual crisis.  Crick knew that twenty unique amino acids are used in the sequence of all proteins in the cell of every plant and animal.

I will quote directly from Crick’s book, Life Itself in which he mathematically visualizes forming a small protein containing a chain of 200 amino acids by blind chance.  Crick writes:

“To produce this miracle of molecular construction all the cell needs to do is to string together the amino acids.  This is an easy exercise in combinatorials.  Suppose the chain is 200 acids long; this is, if anything, rather less than the average length of proteins of all types.  Since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself, some 200 times.  This is conveniently written as 20200 and is approximately equal to 10260, that is a 1 followed by 260 zero’s!  This number is quite beyond comprehension.  For comparison, consider the number of fundamental particles (atoms) in the entire visible universe, not just our own galaxy with 1011 stars, but in all the billions of galaxies, out to the limits of observable space.  This number which is estimated to be 1080, is quite paltry by comparison to 10260.”

If 1080 is the number of atoms in the universe, then 1081 would be the number of atoms in 10 universes (remember, that when 1 is added to an exponent of base 10, the value is increased 10 times).  1092 would then be the number of atoms in a trillion universes.  10260 would then be the number of atoms in a trillion, trillion, trillion universes.  Given such odds, the time and space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all.

At this point it is wise to ask the following questions.  If there is “1” chance in 10260 to form one protein, can luck prevail?  If luck prevails for one protein, can luck prevail to form the thousands of even larger proteins needed to make the first life in the form of a cell?  Can luck prevail to form the billions of cells needed to form one organ?  Can luck prevail to make the large number of organs to make one butterfly?  Can luck prevail to form the astonishing sequence of transformations needed for metamorphosis?  If one thinks that luck could form a Beethoven sonata or the space shuttle, one’s answer to these questions might be yes.

When a friend tells you that the primordial ooze, or the pre-biotic soup could have formed life by chance, take that friend by the hand and then ask him what this primordial ooze consists of.   If he gives a vague answer such as brimstone or hot mud, kindly explain to him that this is just matter.  Matter is anything that has mass and volume.  Matter is composed of atoms.  Scientists tell us that atoms are the same everywhere in the universe and that they are the same atoms that Francis Crick had to deal with in his experiment.  These atoms are dancing around and bouncing into each other at high speed, especially when warm.  These atoms cannot and will not form the large molecules of life (proteins, RNA, DNA) by chance alone.  Scientists report that DNA and RNA molecules contain more atoms and are more complicated than their very complex protein counterparts.

Biologist Dr. Carl Werner sums up the problem, when he writes:

“Living organisms are structurally different from inert chemical compounds in at least three ways.  All living beings are made up of DNA proteins, and have a cell membrane.  Chemical compounds do not, will not, could not coalesce into DNA naturally, under any conditions, because the property of atoms prevent this.  Even if you change the conditions such as temperature, the PH, the barometric pressure, the ratio of chemicals, add electricity, remove oxygen, condense the solution, etc., DNA never forms.  The second problem is the protein problem.  Chemical compounds do not form into proteins naturally under any conditions.  The third problem is the cell membrane problem.  Within the cell membrane are thousands of complex protein gates which do not form naturally.”

As I wrote in a previous paper, atheist Fred Hoyle is considered by some as the greatest British scientist since Newton.  When Hoyle calculated the odds of getting the set of proteins to sustain the first primal cell as 1 in 1040000 he said, “Belief in chemical evolution of the cell from lifeless atoms is equivalent to believing that a tornado could sweep through a junkyard and form a Boeing 747.”

Finally, the state of analysis of the possibility of metamorphosis happening by chance can be summed up by Stephen Jay Gould who is viewed as the greatest American Darwinist and Richard Dawkins who is viewed as the greatest British Darwinist.

Stephen Jay Gould’s book, Structure of Evolutionary Theory, is his masterpiece and runs over 1300 pages.  In this book, the Harvard professor says nothing about metamorphosis, even though a majority of animal species manage their life stories through some type of structural transformations.  The silence is deafening.

Richard Dawkins is honest and admits his complete ignorance as to the cause of metamorphosis.  As I reported previously in this paper, Dawkins says, “I don’t know what embryological hurdles would need to be surmounted to persuade a butterfly to metamorphose.”  Later on in the same book Dawkins writes;

“Tadpoles are larvae of frogs or salamander.  Aquatic tadpoles change radically, in the process called metamorphosis, into terrestrial adult frogs or salamanders.  A tadpole makes it’s living as a small fish, swimming with its tail, breathing underwater with gills, and eating vegetable matter.  A frog makes its living on land, hopping rather than swimming, breathing air rather than water and hunting prey.”

I must give Gould and Dawkins credit for not trying to devise a phony statistical analysis.  Gould ignores the subject and Dawkins expresses his wonder.

Francis Crick, Fred Hoyle, Harold Morowitz and other scientists were deeply skeptical about the chance hypothesis.  When these scientists performed their own calculations they lost their own Darwinian virginity.  They found that the exquisite fire of life cannot ignite from matter by chance. An atom is an atom is an atom.  Each atom is the same as any other, and there is no way to track any one atom as they careen around near the speed of light.

One tiny protein, containing 200 amino acids and 4000 atoms, can only be seen with the most powerful microscope.  On the microscopic scale, this miracle of biological construction is more powerful than any computer chip.  Forming this protein by chance is well beyond the probabilistic resources of the earth with its 1051 lifeless atoms.  When one expands the probabilistic resources to the whole universe, one again falls far short.  10260 (Cricks number) dwarfs the total number of atoms in the universe and makes the odds of getting one protein by chance, hopeless.  Yet we need at least a thousand proteins to keep the smallest cell functioning and alive.  If getting one cell with its large number of proteins is hopeless by chance, how can we expect tissues and organs and whole plants and animals to form by chance?  They contain trillions of cells that all must be in exactly the right place at to function properly.

The odds for the egg, the caterpillar, the cocoon, and the butterfly to form and then change their structures and habits from lifeless atoms by chance are even more hopeless.  It then becomes reasonable to assume, as with the formation of a harmonious sonata, that something other than chance has been at work.

 

Posted in Evolution | Leave a comment

Take My Missing Link, Please!!

HennyYoungman, the comedian, was the master of the one-liners.  All of his jokes started with the word “take”.  Youngman might start his stand-up act with, “Take the man who’s wife wanted to go somewhere that she’s never been before, so he took her into the kitchen”.  Then after telling twenty five one-liners in rapid fire fashion, he would always end up with, “Take my wife, please”.

Evolutionists can also be a source of amusement.  Through the years the unsuspecting public has been asked to take an ancient fossil as the long sought after missing link.  It might be the link between chimpanzees and humans or between reptiles and birds or between fish and amphibians or between other diverse groups of organisms.

This brings publicity through the print and broadcast media as they report some scientist’s plea to “take my missing link, please”.  To take a single missing link and then to jump across millions of years of geological formations that show no other transitions and then to pronounce it as the missing link to some much later animal isn’t science.  This isn’t even myth.  This is comic relief.  Darwinmight smile and think that a single mysterious link doesn’t hold much empirical weight.  Science must be measured against some hypothesis; an explanation that accounts for a set of facts that can be tested by observation or measurement.  Darwinhad a precise hypothesis that he kept within narrow and specific limits.  Darwinwrote in Origin:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ exists , which could not be formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Later on in the Origin,Darwin says:

“So the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great, if my theory be true”.

The number of missing links between species must be so large that they are “incapable of being comprehended or fully grasped” (Webster’s definition of inconceivable).  Would this unbelievably large number of links be in the millions or must it be larger as one can conceive of a million?  Certainly, the missing transitions must be much greater than the standard, well defined species as we know them.

Darwinwas born before the great breakthroughs that gave biologists a picture of the staggering complexity of the cell.  But his intuition that large jumps could not take place in organisms has been born out by modern biochemistry and genetics.  The vast majority of mutations are harmful.  It is very difficult to find a single mutation that leads to greater replicative ability.  Mutant bacteria that survive an antibiotic due to positive changes in a few proteins also have negative changes in other proteins that make it less likely to survive when the antibiotic is removed and they are forced to compete with their native, wild cousins.  The wild, hearty species wipe out the mutants.

In the case of humans, taking a few aspirin may positively affect a few proteins to give one relief from a headache, but overall, too much aspirin is going to have a negative effect on one’s body.  Large scale mutations caused by chemicals or radiation often are deadly.

German geneticists Christiane Nusslein-Volhard and Eric Wieshaus using a technique called mutagenesis, searched for every possible mutation involved in fruit fly development.  They discovered dozens of mutations that produce a variety of malformations.  Their herculean efforts earned them the Nobel Prize, but they did not turn up a single mutation that would benefit a fly in the wild.

A famous meeting took place at the Wistar Institute inPhiladelphiabetween mathematicians and Darwinists.  The mathematicians argued that their calculations showed that the eye could not have evolved by the accumulation of small mutations.  It is difficult to find one beneficial mutation.  The millions of point mutations that must proceed in an unbroken, beneficial cascade to form the eye with it’s complex parts was beyond the probabilistic resources of all time and space.

This inability to form new organisms by beneficial mutations has shown itself in the rocks.  Fossils are real – one can see them, feel them, smell them, and assemble them.  The fossils have not submitted to the hopes of Darwin and his followers.  Darwinlaments in Origin, “ …the abrupt and sudden appearance of whole groups of species has been urged by paleontologists Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedwick as a fatal objection to my theory”.

Stephen Jay Gould was the Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology and Professor of Geology at HarvardUniversity.  In his book, Structure of Evolutionary Theory, he writes:

“Darwinknew perfectly well, as all paleontologists always have, that stasis and abrupt appearance represent a norm for the observed history of most species.   …Paleontologists therefore came to view stasis as just another failure to document evolution.”

Because evolution has not been documented, it would be interesting to examine some examples of how susceptible researchers have been manipulated in their desperate search for missing links.

The Piltdown “caper” would have been funny if it was only designed to amuse, but unfortunately this fraud was accepted as evidence for evolution by scientists and the unsuspecting public for forty years.  Biologist Jonathan Wells reminds us in his book, Icons of Evolution, that amateur paleontologist Charles Dawson found pieces of human skull and part of an ape-like jaw in a gravel pit in PiltdownEngland.  The pieces were reconstructed into an entire skull by Arthur Smith Woodward at theBritishMuseum and then reported to the Geological Society of London in December 1912. Smith Woodward’s reconstruction was at first disputed, but then was widely accepted for four decades as the missing link between the great apes and humans.

In 1953, Joseph Weiner, Keith Oakley, and Wilfred Le Gros Clark proved that the Piltdown skull though perhaps thousands of years old, belonged to a modern human, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan.  The jaw had been chemically treated to make it look like a fossil, and its teeth had been deliberately filed down to make them look human.  Piltdown Man was exposed as a fraud.

Biologist Jonathan Wells again notes what historian of biology Jane Maienschein wrote, “Piltdown shows us how easily susceptible researchers can be manipulated into believing that they actually found just what they had been looking for.”  Even if the fossil had been genuine, one fossil making a sudden jump across vast stretches of space and time should leave a good scientist wondering about the absence of many other links leading up to it.

Henry Gee, Chief Science Writer for Nature, says, “The intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent”.

What about the dinosaurs?  Many honest, soundly trained paleontologists, hardworking scholars who weren’t religious bigots at all, saw in the rocks abundant evidence to suggest that species were fixed and largely unchanging.  The same was true of the dinosaurs.  The conclusion seems inescapable: species of dinosaurs were fixed units that did not change through time and across space.

Robert T. Baker began his studies at Yale and continued at Harvard.  In his book, Dinosaur Heresies, he writes:

“Horned dinosaurs confronted science with an evolutionary puzzle.  These dinosaurs were so highly evolved that paleontologists were at a loss  as to how such creatures could have descended from any other kind of dinosaur.  It was as though the horned dinosaurs had sprung directly from the mind of the creator”

As Baker also admits:

“My final notes contained a record of the Brontosaurus through hundreds of thousands of breeding generations, spanning many major environmental shifts and climate changes.  Therein was contained absolutely no evidence of continuous evolutionary changes.  Brontosaurus had remained fixed in its adoption through a million years.  …Reconstructing the ancestry of a clan like the pterodactyls remains an especially difficult challenge.  Flying dragons burst into the world like Athena from the mind of Zeus, fully formed”.

This doesn’t stop evolutionists from selecting a much smaller, isolated dinosaur fossil that is separated by huge intervals of time and space as a possible ancestor.  Selecting such a long lost missing link as an ancestor is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested and carries the same validity as a bedtime story – amusing perhaps, but not scientific.

The coelacanth, an early lobe-finned fish, was once confidently considered, through close examination of fossil remains, to be a direct ancestor to amphibians who invaded land.  The coelacanth was thought to be extinct for nearly one hundred million years until a fisherman caught a living specimen off the coast of EastAfricain 1938.  Since then other coelacanth have been caught in very deep waters in the same area.  For nearly a century these ancient lobe-finned fish have been generally considered to be the ideal amphibian ancestor and have been classed as intermediate between fish and terrestrial vertebrates.  It was assumed that their soft biology would also be transitional between that of a typical fish and amphibian.

But examination of the living coelacanth proved very disappointing.  Much of it’s soft anatomy, particularly that of the heart, intestine, and brain, was not what was expected of an amphibian ancestor.  As scientist Barbara Stahl writes in her book, Vertebrate History, “The modern coelacanth shows no evidence of having internal organs preadapted to use in terrestrial environment”.

If the case of the coelacanth illustrates anything, it shows how difficult it is to draw conclusions about the overall biology of organisms from their skeletal remains alone, because the soft biology tells the most about an animal.

The duck billed platypus is a unique animal that shows some reptilian and some mammalian characteristics in its anatomical systems.  Molecular biologist, Michael Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, writes:

“Where platypuses are reptilian in, for example, the reproductive systems and in the structure of their eggs, they are almost fully reptilian, while where they are mammalian, as for example in the construction of their middle ear, or in the possession of hair, they are fully mammalian.  Instead of finding character traits which are obviously transitional we find them to be either basically reptilian or basically mammalian, so that although the platypuses are a puzzle in terms of typology they afford little evidence for believing that any of the basic character traits of mammals were achieved gradually in the way evolution envisions”.

Denton’s words would be expected by a scientist who believes in design, because the platypuses’ systems are fixed in time.  Evolutionists would wonder why the reptilian systems are not gradually moving toward the less primitive mammalian systems.

The platypus has a wondrous apparatus for hunting crustaceans, insect larvae and other small creatures in the mud at the bottom of streams.  Platypuses have about 40,000 electrical sensors distributed in both surfaces of the bill.  In addition to the 40,000 sensors, there are 60,000 mechanical sensors called push rods scattered over the surface of the bill.  Various fish use electrical sensors, but the platypus might be the only animal that has the type of nervous system that is able to process the information from both electrical and mechanical sensors.  The male platypus has a sting in its tail claws.  It is not deadly but it is extremely painful and unresponsive to morphine.  As Darwinist Richard Dawkins states in is book, Ancestor’s Tale, “Among mammals, the male platypus is in a class of its own, and it may be in a class of its own among venomous animals, too”.

The fact that the platypus’ amazing bill, which is a reconnaissance device, an AWACS organ, seems to have appeared independently should not surprise scientists.  Thomas Woodward, in one of his books, list one of Dawkin’s key quotes about the fossil record, “It is as though they were planted there, without any evolutionary history”.

All paleontologists ofDarwin’s time knew perfectly well that stasis and abrupt appearance represented the norm for the observed history of species.  SoDarwinacknowledged that his theory was in trouble. Darwinreceived new hope, when in 1861 Herman von Meyer described a fossil that appeared to be intermediate between reptiles and birds.  The fossil had wings and feathers; but it also had teeth (unlike any modern bird),  a long lizard-like tail, and claws on it’s wings.  Meyer named the newly discovered animal Archaeopteryx (meaning ancient wing).

Biologist Jonathan Wells writes, “Yet the role of the Archaeopteryx as a link between reptiles and birds is very much in dispute.  Paleontologists now agree that Archaeopteryx is not the ancestor of modern birds, and its own ancestors are the subject of one of the most heated controversies in modern science.  The missing link, it seems, is still missing”.  If Archaeopteryx is a single missing link in an “inconceivably great chain” (Darwin’s words), where are the other links?  There are too many structural differences between Archaeopteryx and modern birds for these links to be found.

In 1985,UniversityofKansaspaleontologist Larry Martin wrote, “Archaeopteryx is not ancestral of any group of modern birds.  Instead, it is the earliest known member of a totally extinct group of birds.”  Furthermore in 1996 paleontologist Mark Norell, of theAmericanMuseumof Natural History inNew York, called Archaeopteryx “a very important fossil” but added that most paleontologists now believe it is not a direct ancestor of modern birds.

Ultra Darwinist Richard Dawkins proclaimed in his recent book The Greatest Show on Earth, “Evolutionists often respond to challenges of others by throwing them the bones of Archaeopteryx, the famous intermediate between reptiles and birds.  This is a mistake.  To put up a single famous fossil like Archaeopteryx panders to a fallacy”.

Biologist Jonathan Wells writes:

“In 1999 amateur dinosaur enthusiast Steven Czerkas and the National Geographic Society announced that a fossil purchased for $80,000 at an Arizonamineral show was the missing link between terrestrial dinosaurs and birds that could actually fly.  The fossil, which was apparently smuggled out of China, had the forelimbs of a primitive bird and the tail of a dinosaur.  Czenkas named it Archaeoraptor (not to be confused with the above mentioned Archaeopteryx).  In November 1999 National Geographic magazine featured Archaeoraptor in an article entitled “Feathers for T.Rex”.  Christopher Slone, the article’s author, claimed that “we can now say that birds are dinosaurs just as confidently as we can say that humans are mammals, and that feathered dinosaurs proceeded the first bird”.

It so happened that a clever forger fabricated features to give evolutionists what they were looking for.  Chinese paleontologist Xu Xing discovered the fabrication and proved that the specimen consisted of a dinosaur tail glued to the body of a primitive bird.

Peter Raven, secretary of the National Geographic Society, received and angry letter from Stuart Olsen, curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution.  Olsen said the “society was allying itself with a cadre of zealous scientists who have been outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith that birds evolved from dinosaurs.  Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program”.

Although National Geographic posted a retraction, the February 2000 Nature said that the “Society naively and hastily published an article that was sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism”.

The failure of the fossil record to show gradualism from species to species has moved Darwinists, in desperation, to look toward advances in complex machines as symbols of evolution.  Biologist Tim Berra compared the fossil record to a series of automobile models, “If you compared a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious.  This is what paleontologists do with fossils, and the evidence is so solid and comprehensive that it cannot be denied by reasonable people”.

This has been dubbed as “Berra’s Blunder”, because we all know that automobiles are manufactured according to plans drawn up by engineers. Even a small modification in a component in next year’s Corvette might require extensive re-engineering of other components that work in tandem with the modification.  The search for improved function in the Corvette was always intelligently guided.

Scientist Jukes, in a letter to Nature, drew an analogy between the evolution of the Boeing 747 , from Berliot’s 1909 monoplane through the Boeing Clippers in the 1930’s to the first Boeing airliner in 1959, and biological evolution.  Unfortunately, the analogy is false.  At no stage during the history of the aviation industry was the design of any flying machine achieved by chance, but only by the most rigorous application of all the rules which govern function in the field of aerodynamics.  An engineer “rolling the dice” to determine the next component of an airliner should be shipped out to Wall Street.

Throughout this paper, I have been looking at examples of how susceptible the media and the public are to the idea that a long lost missing link has been found.  The fraudulent Piltdown Man was taken as the missing link between the great apes and man for forty years.  The fossil remains of the coelacanth were assumed to be from an extinct species and taken to be a transitional stage between that of a fish and amphibian until the soft biology of a living coelacanth showed otherwise.  The duck billed platypus, once thought to be transitional between reptiles and mammals, appeared suddenly in nature and is fixed in time.  Furthermore, the platypuses’ amazing bill, one of the most advanced reconnaissance devices ever found, appeared independently without gradual build-up in nature.  The archaeopteryx, a well preserved fossil that was proclaimed as the long lost intermediate between reptiles and birds is now out of fashion with most paleontologists.  In addition, one intermediate fossil between reptiles and birds is indefensible in light ofDarwin’s “inconceivable many transitions”.  Archaeoraptor, loudly proclaimed by National Geographic as certainly the link between dinosaurs and birds only proved enriching to the perpetrators of the fabrication to the tune of $80,000.

Dinosaurs provide Darwin and his followers with almost no hope in their quest for gradualism.  It is because some dinosaurs are so huge that they make our largest present day land animals appear small in comparison.  It has always beenDarwin’s argument the transitional ancestors were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after.  The fact that gargantuan dinosaurs such as Brontosaurus and T. Rex make their first appearance in the fossil record fully formed and raring to go, leave no hope for Darwin’s hypothesis.  Millions of dinosaur bones have been found but no bones have been found of close ancestors that should have been almost as gargantuan.  Large bones have the best chance of weathering the perils of environmental change, yet bones of ancestors never show up.

Please ask the following questions when a scientist says, “take my missing link, please”.  First of all, is the fossil genuine (fabrications are financially rewarding)?  Secondly, how far removed is it in time and space from the target species (usually the intervals are vast)?  Thirdly, how has the skeletal fossil been “enhanced” by an artist (the soft biology is often applied to represent the fossil hunter’s point of view)?  Fourthly, how many other paleontologists dispute the claim that it is a missing link (usually there are many)?  Fifthly, does the fossil have the company of many very similar transitions leading up to the target species?  If the answer to this all important question is no, as it almost always is, then no attempt has been made to abide byDarwin’s hypothesis.

If  Charles Darwin’s hypothesis, as stated in chapter 10 of the Origin of the Species says, “So the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great, if my theory be true” (emphasis added!), and then all paleontologists find sudden appearance and stasis as the norm for the entire fossil record, how does  Darwinism keep up the appearance as a valid science?  Maybe it is because the Darwinists control the science departments of universities and play the media to their satisfaction.  If the public would only study and readDarwin and other naturalists, Darwinists might not be able to “white wash” the truth.  One will get some idea of how they shelter the facts by considering the following admissions.

Ultra-Darwinist Stephen Jay Gould writes in Structure of Evolutionary Theory:

“Darwinknew perfectly well, as all paleontologists always have, that stasis and abrupt appearance represent a norm for the observed history of most species.  Paleontologists, therefore, came to view stasis as just another failure to document evolution.  But this primary signal of the fossil record, defined as the absence of data for evolution, only highlighted our frustration  and certainly did not represent anything worth publishing.  As a consequence, most non-paleontologists never learned about the predominance of stasis.” (emphasis added)

Neils Eldredge is the best known American paleontologist.  He is curator of the AmericanMuseumof Natural History and author of many books.  Eldredge started his career as an ardent Darwinist, but as empirical evidence mounted against Darwin’s views, he retreated to a more cautious position.  Eldredge writes in his book, Fossils:

“It turns out that Darwin’s contemporaries in the paleological world knew full well that once a species puts in an appearance in the fossil record, it tends not to exhibit much change throughout its stay up to its actual disappearance.  All paleontologists who wrote reviews of The Origin of the Species commented that Darwin seemed to be ignoring this salient fact of the fossil record.  For over a century the phenomenon of stasis was virtually swept under the rug.” (emphasis added)

Why would these two Darwinists make statements in direct opposition toDarwin’s hypothesis?  It may be because they are comfortable in their tenure and wealthy from book royalties.  However, it is more likely that once a community of Darwinists has elevated a theory into a self-evident truth, its defense becomes irrelevant and there is no longer any point in having to establish its validity by reference to empirical facts.

The above words written by Gould and Eldredge let us know about how the facts can be hidden – don’t “publish” the facts and “sweep them under the rug”.  Darwinists play their cards to perfection.  Their bluff has caused the media and the public to fold their hand.  Darwinists rake in all the chips without showing their hand.

Darwinists conquer the field without much effort because the media has not made an effort to find the facts.  It would be difficult to find one person in 100,000 who has actually read The Origin of the Species.

Forget trying to find a person who has stayed current by reading and studying evolution, paleontology, geology, zoology, biology, biochemistry, genetics, etcetera.  Most people get their “facts” about evolution from the media or from the latest pronouncement from a professor at Harvard.  Well, Gould was a Harvard professor and his upbeat public words about evolution do not match his negative written comments about Darwinism as quoted above.  It’s all there in the words, sentences, and paragraphs written by Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, Neils Eldredge, Alexander Agazzi, George Gaylord Simpson – on and on the list would go until one names all the prominent scientists who studied fossils.  They all say that the primary signal of the entire fossil record is one of sudden appearance and stasis, defined as the absence of data for evolution.

The British newspaper The Guardian Weekly published the following excerpt from an article entitled, “Missing Believed Nonexistent”, written by a reporter summarizing remarks made by Dr. Eldredge to a group of science writers:

“If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after.  But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures.  This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expect to fill when the rock strata of the proper age had been found.  In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them.”

Darwinism has been pictured as an impregnable battleship with academic wine and cheese parties on the deck.  Because Darwinist’s reputation and livelihood rested on the solidarity of the paradigm, no dissent was tolerated.  However, Darwinism is implicitly theological and grounded on evidence that is not empirical. Darwin’s most formidable opponents are not clergymen, but fossil experts who found sudden appearance and stasis in the rocks. Darwinwrote, “I can give no satisfactory answer to the lack of intermediates.  Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional forms”.

In his book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, molecular biologist Michael Denton writes:

“Considering its historical significance and the social and moral transformation caused in western thought, one might have hoped that Darwinian theory was capable of a complete, comprehensive and entirely plausible explanation for all biological phenomena from the origin of life on through all its diverse manifestations up to, and including, the intellect of man.  That it is neither plausible, nor comprehensive, is deeply troubling.  One might have expected that a theory of such cardinal importance, a theory that literally changed the world, would have been something more than metaphysics, something more than a myth.”

Lee Kleinschmidt

Posted in Evolution | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Peppered Moths should be The Pasted Moths! Fabrications again.

The Peppered Moths

Most peppered moths in England were light-colored in the early part of the nineteenth century, but during the industrial revolution in Britain the moth population became “melanic”, or dark-colored.  Bernard Kettlewell performed experiments on these moths that became the classic textbook examples of natural selection in action.  Kettlewell’s experiments suggested that predatory birds ate light-colored moths when they became more conspicuous on pollution-darkened tree trunks.

 

Most introductory biology textbooks illustrate the classical story of natural selection with photographs of the varieties of peppered moths resting on light and dark colored tree trunks.  Most biologists have known for decades that the classical story has serious flaws.  Peppered moths in the wild don’t even rest on tree trunks.  In actuality, the photographs have been staged.

 

Finnish zoologist Kauri Mikkola reported in an experiment that the normal resting place of the peppered moth is beneath small, horizontal branches, high in the canopies.  In twenty-five years of field work, Cyril Clarke and his colleagues found only one peppered moth naturally perched on a tree trunk.  Scientists Tony Liebert and Paul Blakefield observed that the species rest predominately underneath or on the side of branches.

 

Pictures of peppered moths on tree trunks must be staged.  Some are made using dead specimens that are glued onto the trunk, while other live specimens are manually placed in position.  They remain there because they are lethargic during daylight hours-peppered moths are night fliers.

 

University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent told a Washington Times reporter in 1999 that he once glued some dead specimens on a tree trunk for a TV documentary about peppered moths.  A Canadian textbook writer who knew that the peppered moths pictures were staged used them anyway.  Bob Ritter was quoted as saying in the April 5, 1999 Alberta Report News magazine, “You have to look at the audience.  How convoluted do you want to make it for a first-time learner?”  Ritter explained, “We want to get across the idea of selected adaptation.  Later on, they can look at the work critically.”

 

“Later on” can be much later.  When University of Chicago professor Jerry Coyne learned of the flaws in the classical story in 1998, he was well into his career as an evolutionary biologist.  Coyne was embarrassed when he finally learned that the peppered moth story that he had been teaching for years was a myth.  “My own reaction” he wrote, “resembles the dismay attending my discovery at age six that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve.”

 

There has been talk in the National Academy of Sciences that America’s universities should deny students admission if they have not been satisfactorily exposed to evolution.  You have got to be kidding!  The need to enforce Darwinian orthodoxy justifies the academic equivalent of holding children hostage.

 

The truth is that a surprising number of biologists quietly doubt or reject some of the grander claims of Darwinian evolution.  But – at least in America – they must keep their mouths shut or risk condemnation.

 

It’s vitally important to remember that science is not the enemy.  I love science in the form of fossils, experiments, measurements, research, and observation.  In fact, most major disciplines in modern biology – including embryology, anatomy, physiology, paleontology and genetics – were pioneered by scientists who never heard of Darwinian evolution.  Today’s students, who are exposed to half-truths and deliberate frauds of evolutionary biology, might turn away from science in disgust.  I hope that this does not happen.

 

Posted in Evolution | Leave a comment