Hi P.

Thank you for responding to EvolutionIsStupid.com. My desire is to keep the focus on evolution itself, so I'd rather not get into issues of God or creation. Just evolution. So, now, may I ask you how evolution created the earth, and where your proof lies?

Thanks,

John

Evolution didn`t create the earth. Evolution just works to change organic items so they have a better chance of surviving. So it is a pointless argument to say that you don`t believe evolution created the earth. No biologist believes that evolution created the earth. Well, no biologist that I`m aware of anyway. Kind Regards, --P. M. (Australia)

Hi P.,

Evolutionary cosmology begins with the big bang, without which there would be no earth on which biological evolution could occur.

Evolution does not "work" on anything. You are confusing "change" and "adaptation" both of which work with ALREADY EXISTING genetic information and physical capabilities, with classical evolution from "simple" to complex, which simply does not occur, and never has. Evolution of life from inorganic matter is impossible, no matter how much Time you add. Even if you begin with a gene (we'll take it for granted that it just magically appeared over time, and was able to reproduce itself), in order for classical evolution to occur, the genome must increase in information content, and that simply does not happen (mutations sometimes duplicate information (which, again, is ALREADY present), but mostly corrupt it). And even if it did, you still need a mechanism in place to express that information and put it to use. There is no such mechanism that could have started it all, and increased information and complexity without an intelligent source.

In other words, Chuck Darwinists tout things like mutations and natural selection, but both mutations and selection work with genetic material that ALREADY EXISTS, and do not create anything new. Nor do they explain where genetic information and genes themselves came from in the first place.

As far as "survival," if you think about it, there's a whole lot more to life than just "survival" and the whole survival of the fittest thing is a tautology. As I point out in my e-book, bacteria were surviving just fine, and there is absolutely no reason, apart from evolutionary mythology and story telling, that they ever had to change into anything else just to survive. There is CERTAINLY no reason they had to become more complex. It's just evolutionary story weaving. Obviously, if something is extinct, we're going to say right away that the reason is that it was not "fit." But that's just the evolution myth. There were actually many MORE living species - plants and animals - long ago than there are now. So really it's not that what's alive now was any more "fit" than they were, but rather that the great diversity of life that once existed is slowly disappearing. Within that great diversity was also genetic diversity, hence animals and plants could diversify, spread out and occupy ecological niches. But as they did so, they actually became LESS able to survive OUTSIDE OF those niches, and that's why they became extinct. So, what really happened was not that plants and animals, thanks to evolution, were BETTER able to survive. Rather, because of adaptation and genetic DETERIORATION, they became LESS able to survive except under special conditions. For example, you start with an original bear. That bear contains the genetic information to diversify into various kinds of bears, which lose some of the genetic information the original bear carried, thus rendering them able only to survive in special conditions, such as polar bears, which survive best in arctic conditions.

Antibiotic resistance is another "example" Chuckie Dees like to tout, but it has NOTHING to do with evolution. Resistant bacteria already exist, and the antibiotic kills off the hardy bacteria, leaving only resistant ones, which thrive in the presence of the antibiotic. Thus, they are LESS able to survive, because if you remove the antibiotic, the resistant strain dies off again, and the hardy strain takes over once again, because it does not need the presence of the antibiotic to survive.

By the way, I also mentioned that I have a degree in Biology, so I'm pretty familiar with what biologists believe.

In any event, I hope you did not miss the point of my book, which is that evolution's explanation for how life arose and increased in complexity is totally bankrupt and devoid of real science. It is a religious, faith belief, and nothing more.

Thanks for writing again,

John

Just so I can get my bearings and know exactly where we are going, are you a young earth creationist? If so, there is plenty of things that science currently, is unable to answer. That doesn`t mean that we should immeditely assign the reason we are here to magic. Because shorn of all it`s glitter, that is what people who believe in a "god" of creation believe. One minute we weren`t here and then "bang", you are here or adam, at least, was here. You are talking creation according to "genesis", aren`t you? Kind Regards, P. M. (Australia)

Hello P.,

Thanks for responding.

What I am is irrelevant to the discussion, which is about the merits of evolution. You see, the first thing people want to do is move the discussion away from evolution and on to other things (which from my perspective is a form of fanaticism and unwillingness to face the facts), and I am not going to allow that to happen.

Where we are going is, hopefully, in the direction of abandoning evolution, because it is not only silly, but also irrelevant to anything having to do with real science.

Yes, I realize there are many things that science is currently unable to answer. However, once again I must point out that that is the faith of the evolutionist in action. Despite the fact that evolutionary cosmology continues to raise far more questions than it is able to, or ever will be able to, answer, people refuse to let it go, preferring to believe, IN FAITH, that one day their religion of evolutionary "science" will provide the answers they're looking for. It won't do any such thing. Ever.

So please let us keep the focus on evolution, and just how, to paraphrase you, "Bang!" - and the entire universe was formed, including all living things, and man, who can contemplate it all. If that is what you believe, then yes, you believe in magic. You believe in something that has never been seen, and never will. It is a modern religious myth, and nothing more.

Sincerely, John

Thanks for writing, C. As you can see, I have opened up a feedback page, and hope for some lively discussion. I also do hope to publish this in actual book form in the near future, but there's still a lot to say, and I'll be adding to what I've written as time permits.

Thanks you for your input, R.!

Well, JD, all in fun, but I sure hope we see some more evidence of human intelligence in future posts. ;-) --JV

Please do write more when you have a chance, M. H. If you're at work, though, you'd better watch behind your back, because if someone sees you don't believe in evolution, they might report you to the thought police.

Please, produce one scintilla of evidence that the Universe was created by magic and I will happily concede the field. --P. M. (Australia)

"Please, produce one scintilla of evidence that the Universe was created by magic and I will happily concede the field."

Thank you for ending your letter with that sentence. It makes my job simpler. I am telling you, that I am not going to engage anyone in a debate about whether creationism or any other ism is right or not. My focus is on evolution, and evolution alone. And evolution has NOTHING to do with finding a cure for cancer, or any other scientific or medical discipline. If a cure is found, it will be because intelligent people worked with their intelligent minds to find one, using real science and medicine, and not because of some blarney explanation of how everything came about. There is simply, plainly, no scientific or other discipline that needs the theory of evolution in order to advance. None.

Now, I ask you, please produce one iota of evidence that evolution is true, and I will concede the field. Show me one reason why molecules to man evolution is "has more going for it" than any other theory of origins. It's nothing but a fabricated myth backed by just-so stories that have no basis in reality nor scientific evidence. Evolution does NOT work, and never has, and that is my point, and that is what I am working to drive home. Whatever you wish to search for as an alternative is up to you. I am just saying that evolution is NOT one of them.

As for redshift, I am an amateur astronomer. What you are not told in the average astronomy text is that there are a few other JUST AS VALID explanations for redshift besides that the universe is expanding from a big bang. Among them are tangential motion, gravitation, and a simple loss of energy over time and distance. I find it unimaginable that a beam of light could travel for billions of years from its source, and still have the same energy that it had when it left the source.

Further, as with my example of the bicycle trip somehow proving that bears evolved in Alaska (a non sequitur), your argument is the same. Whether the universe is expanding or not is immaterial to the fact that life could not have sprung into existence on its own, and become more complex, as the evolutionists would have us believe. It could not, and did not, happen, no matter how much Time you want to add to the equation. It is also not true that everything is moving away from everything else. The Andromeda galaxy is one example among many of what is called 'blue shift' and it is moving toward us, just as there are examples of galaxies that have collided, or are attached by spiral arms.

As for people thinking the world was flat, that is an old canard, as the Greeks knew well that it was not true, the Hebrew Bible states that the world "hangs upon nothing" in the book of Job. And if people believed it was flat, Columbus would not have taken his journey, which followed countless journeys by ship before his time, by experienced mariners who no doubt were intelligent enough to realize that horizons don't just disappear for no reason. The flat idea comes in part from a semi-fictitious account of Columbus's life and voyages written by Washington Irving, and not from factual history.

Thanks again, John

Well, I'll certainly print part of it, as the rest has nothing to do with this website. And thanks for toning down your comments (at least some) so they can be printed. We wouldn't want people thinking that all those who defend evolution do it your way. Although this might be a good time to point out that the majority of (or perhaps all) people who believe in things like astrology, the paranormal, flying saucers, extraterrestrials, trance channeling, crystal powers, ghosts, reincarnation, and so on, without any scientific evidence to back them up, are also evolutionists. Carl Sagan, one of the biggest proponents of the non-scientific false myth of evolution, decried all the weird things people believe in his book The Demon Haunted World. A classic case of being able to clearly see the faults of others, while ignoring his own.

But you have not interacted at all with the material in this website. For one, I did not call anyone a queer, nor a fag. I simply pointed out that, from a strictly evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality does not make sense. Since you are of the opinion that many thinking people believe in evolution (and that's certainly true), then there must be some pretty good evidence to back it up, right? So, why don't we start there. Give me one shred of factual, testable, repeatable evidence for how particles popped into existence, and then turned into plants, pandas, and people, all on their own. You see, even thinking people need to believe something about origins, so they have chosen this particular myth, which has no basis in reality. I don't care what you think about Christians or any other -ian. Tell me why evolution is true and not STUPID, and why I should believe it. That's what this website is about.

Thanks, John

John

Hi John I am considering whether I should continue debating with you. I have a reply, half finished in my drafts that I don`t see the point of wasting the time to finish. You just knock Darwinian Evolution without saying what did happen. Thats not a debate. A debate is when you put forward a theory and defend it, you don`t just say that the other persons idea is rubbish because I say so.

It is like me saying there is no god because there`s no evidence, I don`t know that for a fact, it is just the way the lack evidence points. You maybe proved right in the end and evolution isn`t a fact. The thing is, until you can produce evidence to the contrary, the smoking gun lies at the feet of evolution.

Don`t get me wrong, you are more than entitled to your opinion and if you are happy with it, thats fine. I`m not upset about it, it just seems pointless to discuss it if you don`t have an open mind.

Yes, I`m aware of the fossil record not being complete, I`m aware for the reasons it is not complete. You say you are a biologist, fair enough, well having a scientific background, you should know how hard it is for a fossil to form. In actual fact, it is amazing that we have as many as we do.

I could ask you a question, like for instance, why do we have an appendix, what was it`s function and why does it have no discernible function now?

John, there is enough of a fossil record to show that evolution is more than likely the reason we are,as we are, today. If you don`t accept the evidence of eminent scientists, then nothing I say, a mere amateur with a keen interest, is going to convince you.

I have gleaned, that you are a creationist, what about the formation of varves? They caould not have been formed in the time frame of noah`s flood.

I`m happy to continue only if you tell me your opinion of what happened and produce some facts to support it. Theres plenty of holes in the theory of evolution, theres a hell of a lot more in any other theory though.

Kind Regards, P. (Australia)

Hello P., I never said anything about a debate. There is no debate, and your responses are really helping to demonstrate that, if you think about it. Let's see why.

First, 'I just knock Darwinian evolution without saying what did happen.' Again, the point of my argument (not debate) is that DARWINIAN EVOLUTION IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED. Can you bring yourself to admit that? Apparently not. Even though you have no factual, demonstrable evidence for your belief in Chuckism, you refuse to chuck it for no other reason than you 'have no better alternative.' I never asked you for a better alternative. I've only asked that you, and other honest people, admit that Darwinian evolution could not have happened, and did not happen. I do not need to 'put forward a theory' as that is not my purpose. I am putting forward a thesis: that Darwinian evolution is a mythological lie. You can either agree or disagree. If you disagree, then I'm simply asking you why, and to provide evidence to the contrary. As with most brainwashed evolutionists, rather than do that, you go off on rabbit trails and tangents, and just can't focus on the point, which is, once again, that the THEORY OF EVOLUTION is false. So, is it, or isn't it? If it is not, then why not?

Second, as for being 'entitled to [my] opinion,' my opinion is only a small part of what I wrote on the website. I gave plenty of evidence for why evolution is false: building blocks don't build themselves; mutations in already existing genetic material don't explain where that genetic material came from in the first place; information content does not arise on its own and then increase without intelligent input; natural selection works on what's already there, and does not improve survivability, but rather narrows it; life can not arise spontaneously - oh, excuse me - 'abiogenetically'; wings and things don't just magically appear on animals and magically function just right; there's no reason things had to get bigger or more complex; and on, and on, and on. The 'evidence' AGAINST evolution is so overwhelming as to render the theory laughable. And yes, I do think it's funny that any thinking person would even believe it. But I know the reasons for such beliefs.

And no, I have no more open mind than you do. Because I WAS an evolutionist at one time, but now I'm not. But when I was an evolutionist, I really didn't know why. But now that I'm NOT an evolutionist, I know EXACTLY why, and that is because there is not a shred of evidence in favor of it, and I believed it blindly, just as you do now. The 'You don't have an open mind' accusation is yet another smoke and mirrors ploy that evolutionists use to get out of having to defend their indefensible position. Please don't fall into that trap.

You have not researched the appendix very well. Nor other so-called 'vestigial' organs. Just because you are not aware of the function, or former function, of something, does not mean it does not, or did not, have a function. There were once well over 100 so-called 'vestigial' organs, most of which have since been clearly determined to have a function. And you see, once again, in your mind the reasoning goes: I don't know a function for the appendix, so that PROVES that particles turned into people all by themselves. You're using your non-knowledge of the function of an organ to justify your belief in the myth.

Third, now here we go with the appeal to 'eminent scientists.' You see, if the PRIESTS of evolution themselves believe it, it MUST be true, and WHO AM I to question it, even if none of it makes any sense, nor has any basis in scientific reality? I suppose you've never heard of any 'eminent' scientist who was wrong? Are they gods, that we should never question them, nor their motives, prejudices, and presuppositions? We are talking about what they teach happened millions and billions of years ago here. I suppose they're all in 100 percent agreement about it, too, because they were all there to watch it unfold, right? And I, and you, are not to question any of it, right? You'll question ME, because I question THEM, but you will NEVER question THEM, will you? They are your priests, and you are just to listen, and believe, and not ask too many questions, right?

So now, P, EXACTLY WHAT EVIDENCE DO THE EMINENT SCIENTISTS HAVE THAT THE UNIVERSE SPRANG INTO EXISTENCE AND EVERYTHING ELSE FOLLOWED, INCLUDING YOU? You have appealed to the gods, now show us their stuff. Where's the evidence? If you want to convince me, give me something convincing. Don't just tell me that you believe it because 'eminent scientists' say it's true. I want hard, scientific evidence. Show me where, in the lab, the whole evolutionary cosmology sequence has been tested and repeated, without any outside interference. In other words, I'm not going to be convinced until I can see everything making itself again with no scientist or anyone else involved. Can you do that for me?

Ok, then, if you can't do that, show me this fossil record that has convinced you that evolution is the reason we're here today. I want to see a clear progression from particles right on up to people, not some imaginary tree that an artist invented. I want cold, hard fossils, and I don't want just bones and shells put next to each other in some imaginary progression. I want to see all the soft parts, too, and how they evolved. And I want to see all the failed evolutionary experiments. I don't know of a single fossil where evolutionary scientists have not applied some purpose to an appendage or organ. I want to see all the 'useless' intermediate stages, too. I'm a real doubting Thomas, and I won't be convinced until I see all the stages that led to the human nervous system, the human digestive system, the human excretory system, the circulatory and lymphatic systems, and on and on. I don't want some evolutionist's imagination. I want to see all the stages that led to these things. And more than that, I want to see how all those systems managed to come together in one creature, and function together so beautifully. Don't give me your evolutionary faith belief. I want FACTS and EVIDENCE, ok? Not just a few bones in an imaginary progression.

And oh, the varves. A fave of evolutionists, and I believe you have just been parroting some things you've heard from them. Varves prove nothing other than that sediment bearing water produces them. They can form rapidly, and do not need millions of years, as was demonstrated when layers of sediment were formed in a few hours in the Mt St Helens eruption here in the states. Varves don't need the right TIME to form (there's your goddess Time again), they need the right CONDITIONS, just like fossils. Further, here we go again with the typical evolutionist non sequiturs. How does the presence of varves prove that particles turned into plants, animals, and people, all by themselves? Back to my bike trip across America and how it proves that grizzly bears evolved in Alaska.

If you do not wish to continue, that's up to you. My purpose is to demonstrate that evolution is false and get people to finally admit it, who otherwise are too cowardly to do so. I believe you know full well that it is false, and so do many other evolutionists. You're just not going to give it up. You will keep on holding, and keep on hoping, that sooner or later the 'silver bullet' will be there that will finally prove that it all happened just like you hoped it would. But you're wrong, and you never will find that bullet. You believe by faith, and you are fanatical about it too, and that's why you cannot admit it might be wrong.

--John

Smoke and mirrors. Rabbit trails. Typical evolutionist diversionary tactic, P. Let's get John trying to defend himself and produce HIS research, and that will free me up from having to produce MY research which demonstrates how varves prove that the universe and all the diversity of life on earth evolved from nothing, all by itself. I won't fall for it. You show me YOUR research, and we'll get somewhere.

Sincerely, John

Do you know a fella named J P Holding. You apologists sing exactly from the same song sheet, I`d swear it is the same person talking.

What does that have to do with how blind chance, mechanistic evolution produced the universe and all the marvelous diversity of life on earth?

It just occured to me, why is your scientific research right and everyone elses is wrong? You say something, it is holy writ. I`m quite happy to cite my scientific sources, will you? You say that the way varve`s are laid down doesn`t prove anything, show me why it doesn``t prove anything.Also, you might answer what happened to all the water from noahs flood.If you could leave of the old apologist "Oh, don`t tell me you fell for that!" Cite the evidence why I shouldn`t have fallen for that!

Well, P, here we go again. More smoke and mirrors and diversionary tactics. You have yet to give me any scientific evidence for why YOUR blind belief in Darwinism is true, but now we're trying the tactic of questioning MY 'scientific research.' The next thing you'll do, which is also a common diversionary tactic of evolutionists, is to question the credentials of scientists who oppose the false myth of evolution, even though many of them, both present and past, are highly qualified - as much or more so than many evolutionary scientists.

So, I ask you, tell me why YOUR evolutionism is right, and anyone who disagrees with it is wrong. I really don't care what 'scientific' sources you quote. I can quote 'em too. I want to hear, from YOU, why you believe that particles popped into existence all by themselves, and then turned themselves into plants, animals, and people. Can you tell me why YOU believe that, and what 'scientific' evidence you have to prove it? Let's start by YOU showing ME how varves prove that particles turned into plants, animals and people all by themselves. How about that? And tell me what happened to all the water from the flood on Mars, which evolutionary scientists insist occurred. If Mars could have a flood, and all the water disappear, is there some reason it couldn't happen here too? I guess not, if you're an evolutionist! More diversionary tactics. Now let's get him arguing about Noah's flood, and that will take the burden off US to have to demonstrate how evolution is true. Keep trying, P! Sooner or later, you're going to have to look in the mirror and admit that you have no defense for the indefensible!

--John

Hi there! "A bit too evangelical" huh? That sounds like one of the many excuses I've heard over the years that gets you off the hook so you don't actually have to interact with the material and decide whether or not it's true. You've already decided it's not before you even read it, and don't want to be bored with the facts, right?

--John

Big A

Hello Big A,

Well, now, my guess would be that if you're like most people, you have insurance coverage (likely more than one type), and I certainly hope you're nice to the people who sell it to you. You also appear to be rather zealous about whatever it is you believe. So, why don't you provide some of your own 'facts' so that we can discuss them and see if they merit throwing my website away?

J. H.

Hello J, Could you please give an example of what you mean by "cumulative natural selection"? Exactly what evidence do you have that something "accumulated" apart from the fruits of someone's imagination? The fact is that natural selection produces absolutely nothing new. That is a KNOWN FACT. Natural selection works with what already exists, and usually results in a DECREASED ability to survive outside a specific environment or niche. For example, fish that live in caves can lose their eyesight, which may render them better able to survive as they turn to other senses to feel their way around. So this is touted as an example of natural selection and evolution in action. However, a LOSS of eyesight does not answer the question of where eyesight came from to begin with, which, by the way, requires not just eyes, but an ability to use light, transmit it to a brain, and the ability of the brain to interpret it. So, any imagined "sequence" of eye evolution has to take into account not just the structure of the eye, but musculature, a circulatory system to nourish it and keep it working, a brain to interpret and control it, and so on. Again, natural selection works with what ALREADY exists, and does not "create" anything new at all. Further, again assuming I understand what you mean by "cumulative natural selection," you have to REALLY stretch your faith to believe that this sort of "cumulative" mechanism resulted in EVERY KNOWN LIVING THING, when there is NO evidence for any such "ladder of life" in the fossil or any other record. There should be COUNTLESS FAILED "EXPERIMENTS" if what you're saying is true, and there simply are not. And there are numerous examples, such as the blood clotting mechanism, that could not possibly have resulted from numerous accumulations. Darwin said that if it could be demonstrated that something did not result from numerous accumulated minor changes, his theory would fail. It has failed time and again, but the fanatics are not about to give it up.

--John V.

T. J.

Dear T,

If you are really serious about this, would you mind writing again with a little more detail? If you'd like to have some private dialogue, we could do that, too.

Sincerely, John

T. T.

Dear T. T.,

Thank you for writing. Though I believe the Bible, which is no doubt obvious from what I've written, I decided to focus on evolution itself, and how silly its tenets are. People need to recognize that evolution is a religious myth, and its adherents are just as brainwashed and fanatical and exclusive as any cult. The priesthood of evolutionary scientists wants to keep people in the dark about the fact that evolution has no basis in reality, because that's how they maintain their positions in higher institutions of learning, and scientific disciplines. If they come out and admit evolution is stupid, they may just lose their jobs and status. Keep studying, and keep thinking!

F. P.

Dear F.,

Thank you very much for your comments. I would like to publish the book, but have not been able to do so yet. I also have much more to add to it, when I have the time. Right now I am busy with many things, including answering questions at a weekly seminar someone else is hosting, where we are discussing creation, evolution, and intelligent design.

Sincerely,

John

T. R.

Hi T,

You and anyone else who wishes have my permission to use anything from this website. I’d appreciate if you’d mention the site or give credit to it if you do, however.

John

Thanks!

P. M.

Hi P, I see you’re back! After over 30 years of dealing with this issue, I can assure you there’s nothing new that evolutionists have come up, so don’t worry, I have plenty of resources old and new. Now tell me what up-to-date, scientifically researched data you have that demonstrates that particles popped into existence and turned themselves into plants, pythons and people.

P. M.

P, you are picky. Face it. Also perhaps a pickle shy of a barrel full, but we want to try to be nice here. I’m not getting into what God did. I want to focus on what evolutionists say that goddess Nature and miracle worker Time did, which is made everything by random, materialistic, undirected processes.

P. M.

I am sure you have enough resources in Australia to look up something about phlogiston.

P. M.

You’re persistent. But so am I. I’m not getting tangled in discussions about God and the Bible here. That is an evolutionist diversionary tactic. I want YOU to tell ME how YOUR goddess Nature and miracle worker Time made everything out of nothing, and why you believe it’s true, and what evidence you have to back it up.

P. M.

First you have to recognize that science is not infallible. It is not “god.” There are many questions in life that science cannot answer nor will ever be able to answer. One of them is where we came from. Another is why we’re here. Another is where we’re going. As to the first question, there have been many attempts, both religious and scientific, to answer it, evolution being the latest. Yes, I do have a “theory” about it, but again, that’s not my focus here, and I’m not going to let you divert us off topic. The topic is evolution. The focus is evolution. The question is whether evolution is a valid theory, and what evidence there is to back it up. And that’s where I’m going to stay, not stray.

P. M.

P, I think you’re finally catching on! Yes, it appears there is a moratorium on ape evolution, as I have not seen, nor has anyone else, any apes showing the least desire to become humans. I have, however, seen a number of humans regressing some toward apehood, but of course Mother evolution would never allow that to happen now, would she? As for the “something crawling out of water,” let’s go back to the question of why they’d ever have done that to begin with. You are once again attributing some mysterious (shall we say “metaphysical?”) force to matter that urges it to become more complex. There is no reason in creation why it should do so without some outside impetus, and there is no impetus unless you believe in some imaginary evoluitonary “force” that moves things toward higher complexity. That is the reason the “anthropomorphic principle” was invented, in fact. So, it is preposterous to believe that fish moved onto land and turned into flamingoes, felines, and Freddie. They had no reason to do so. They still have no reason to do so, which is why we don’t see that happening. I have, however, seen a number of humans regressing toward fishhood. The evidence can be found on beaches all over the world in summertime.

-- J.

L. K.

Thanks for writing, L. I’ll respond point by point.

Yes, evolution is a theory. A bad one. And the fact that it is a theory does NOT mean it has been validated. If it is validated, it then becomes a fact. Evolution has never been validated. Everything from mutations to natural selection has been demonstrated to NOT support the theory of evolution from “simple” to complex. That is the whole point of my website. There is NO validation for the theory and it should be abandoned.

I discussed the “molecules that ‘could’ [as you say] have been in the atmosphere a long time ago” in my treatise. That is the Miller-Urey experiment which has been INVALIDATED on the following premises: First, no one can prove what any “original atmosphere” was made of. It’s all guesswork. And the alleged atmosphere that Miller used has now been challenged by new information. He and Urey proposed a reducing atmosphere, and now scientists (as often happens) have taken an about face and said it was probably oxidizing. Second, putting molecules in a flask requires a creator and designer, who creates and designs the experiment, sets all the parameters so that he gets the outcome he’s hoping for, starts the experiment, and ends it. The experiment did not create and run itself. It was created and run by an outside intelligence. That alone negates it as any sort of “proof” of evolution. And I make that clear in my book. If Miller had not ended the experiment when he was satisfied that he had some results, whatever was in the flask would have eventually been destroyed. Finally, the fact that a few amino acids were CREATED by an experimenter means absolutely nothing. Hence my diatribe against the whole “building blocks” scenario, which is meaningless if there’s no intelligence to do something with the “blocks.” Hence, another invalidation of Darwinism.

On your next point, I have no idea what you mean by “important” pieces of DNA. And let’s go over this again: The fact that something happens to DNA has NOTHING TO DO WITH EXPLAINING WHERE IT CAME FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE! Sorry for yelling, but I tried so hard to get that point across in my book. Evolutionists point to mutations in DNA, copies of DNA, substitution of DNA and proudly trumpet their “proofs” for how evolution took place because of changes in DNA. They conveniently avoid telling us HOW DNA EVOLVED in the first place. DNA has incredible amounts of information stored in its molecules, and here we are saying that all came about on its own. Well, it is a well-known SCIENTIFIC FACT that information does not arise on its own. It has to have a source. It has to have a code. It has to have a mode of transmission, a mode of reception, a mode of translation, and apparati in place to utilize it. This does not happen on its own. Thus, yet another invalidation of Chuckism.

As to your statement about the non-answers to my question about where the Big Burp “period” (or singularity if you want to get fancy) came from, you “think that logic is flawed”? That is a typical evolutionist response. I happen to think YOUR logic is flawed. Because there is no logic in the universe that allows us to believe that everything in creation began as a “something” the size of a period or smaller. It’s blackboard mythology, can never be proved because no one was there, and nobody that I know of is making new universes using it. And to allege that just because we don’t have answers to it now doesn’t mean we won’t in the future is nothing more than evolutionary fanatic faith in action. You want to believe it because you don’t know what else to believe.

The “evidence” IS inconsistent with evolution. That’s why more and more scientists are beginning to admit it. Have you heard of the document “A Dissent from Darwinism” which has been signed by hundreds of top scientists, and still more every month? And the numerous books like Evolution : A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton, which is just one of the good books BY EVOLUTIONISTS that question the validity of Chuckie Deeism? I fully recognize that scientific method is to replace theories with new ones that better fit the facts. The fact is that evolution does not fit ANY of the facts. You speak of quantum and classical mechanics. Those are testable and observable (to a degree). Evolution is not. No one has ever seen an information-increasing mutation, which would be absolutely necessary for the theory of evolution to be validated, nor have they proposed any mechanism whereby the information contained in DNA and the DNA molecule itself could have arisen on their own, begun reproducing, and made every living thing in existence. That is STUPID, L. K., and I hope you come to recognize it.

Sincerely, John

L. K.

Hi L, Is there some reason you cannot reply without my having to provide you documentation, which is abundantly available if you look for it? I replied to your statements without demanding such from you. You can find any number of articles online that take issue with Miller-Urey. And you can read Jonathan Wells’ book Icons of Evolution and find out why the experiment does nothing to demonstrate evolution from particles to plants, pythons and people. Check this article out, for just one: http://www.facingthechallenge.org/urey3.htm.

As for information never arising on its own without a source, that is both common sense, and a fact of information science. If you can demonstrate otherwise, I’m game. Information must have a source, and to be utilized it must have a code, mode of transmission, mode of reception, mode of interpretation, and mode of application. Information simply does not arise on its own. For example, if I say “paint it red,” my brain is the source of the information and encoding of the letters (as I already have an understanding of what I wish to convey), my voice the mode of transmission, your ears the receptors, your brain the instrument of interpretation, and then you can apply it by using your hands and arms and a paintbrush. If I say those same words to someone who does not speak English, they are meaningless. So you see, for DNA to arise on its own until it contained the billions of bits of information necessary to make a living thing, and to transmit them, translate them, and make something out of them, with NO direction whatsoever, is a miraculous act far beyond anything anyone could ever imagine, and is science fiction, not fact.

John

No, that is the name of a religious system.

Great! Thanks! Hope you’ll pass the word on.

Exactly, and thanks for your comments. Wait till you see the letter following yours.

There are thousands of scientists who don’t believe in evolution. They’re just not as vocal or powerful a force (yet) as the evolutionary religionists. But the façade is crumbling as more and more people are recognizing that evolution has no basis in reality.

--John

Hi D. T.,

Very enlightening letter. You certainly demonstrate the fact that evolutionists are fanatics just like any other. For some reason many of you can’t defend your faith without resorting to foul language and ad hominems to “make your point,” whatever it is. Let’s take a look…

Of course, as a fanatic you do not want people “obsessing” over how evolution “might be” disproved. They might actually find out it has been.

I am not sure what a BSBS is (perhaps a bit of symbolism there), but if that’s intended to impress somebody, it didn’t work. I don’t care how many degrees you have. Evolution is false, and your letter does nothing to prove otherwise. It’s typical smoke and mirrors type stuff, with lots of expletives, and no substance. If you know science, show science. You apparently don’t even know that the phrase regarding embryology is “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” even though you spent “a few years” studying it. And any honest evolutionary scientist will inform you that that theory was debunked almost from the time Haeckel invented it. No reputable biologist believes that in our day, despite the fact that it’s still promulgated as true in many textbooks. And you could not begin to demonstrate WHY it should be true either, apart from your imagination, or HOW it could possibly have come about. To say that the development of two germ cells into a human being “recapitulates” the evolution of the human species you’d better be prepared to demonstrate how the enormous amount of information contained in those germ cells came into existence, how it organized itself to be able to form a human being, how the sperm and egg “evolved” independently yet work together to make a human being, and how the entire birth mechanism evolved just right to be able to allow the entire process of gestation, and so on and so on. Your oversimplification of the actual facts is a common evolutionist ploy to make everything “work” for your system. You should also be able to demonstrate the MILLIONS of “failed” experiments on the way to the human germ cell and birth mechanism in the fossil record.

I loved your statement “at the moment, Humans are the most evolved.” Prove it. If everything has supposedly evolved just right to fill a particular niche, then why are we filling ours any better than any other evolved life form? Your next one is even better: Some day some species will develop further. I’m sure glad we have the likes of you to predict the evolutionary future with such accuracy!

Even more I like what you say after that, and then follow with “Evolution makes sense of the world.” Your religion? No thanks. “Evolution is obvious fact”? Typical “just-so” statements with absolutely no substance behind them. I guess you do a lot of crying. And maybe drive a Pacer? Too bad you were cut off at the end there, but that might be symbolic too.

--J

Seems you and I are on different sides of the coin. I studied myself out of special creation when I was faced with some very strong evidence with respect to evolution and the realization that what I was taught at seminary was both outdated and wrong. I have been a minister for 8 years and now a doctoral student in biological sciences for the past 3 years so think I have a pretty good handle on the subject. I have read propaganda like yours plenty of times, but because a good friend recommended reading your webpage (I am sure in hopes of saving my wayward soul) I figured Id indulge myself once more. The problem has become all the more evident; you and yours prey on the ignorance of humankind and their desire to latch on to something meaningful in their meaningless existence. The fact that you do not know what you are speaking of should be clear to anyone who has cracked the pages of a biology text book (high school student and college undergrads alike); yet, I am sure because you are religious, people will believe you; you lie, either intentionally or in ignorance. Either way, it is really sad. Okto the pointa few comments on the first chapter just becausewell, just because it is the first one. Kissing bacteria? Sex was invented by bacteria and that bacteria changed into humans? Who believes that? My friend, there are now recognized six domains of life with two major splits between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Yes, prokaryotes (e.g., bacteria) can reproduce sexually and asexually, but it is a far cry from how eukaryotes reproduce. No one believes eukaryotic sex evolved from prokaryotic sex. My challenge for you is to find a single bit of research that suggests this is the case. Eukaryotic sex evolved long after there was a divergence from prokaryotes. We even know the developmental and genetic mechanisms for which sex is determined. And bird flight? Have you even read a book or a research article on the theories of the development of flight? I think maybe the movies you saw were not in the Smithsonian but at the local cinemaDisney maybe? Nobody believes that one day a lizard grew wings so it could fly. Natural selection is a tinkerer, and it is thought, over many millions of years, small changes occur and sometimes are co-opted for reasons other than they originally were selected. It is very clear you do not understand the basic tenets of natural selectionmaybe it is not what is stupid. Try reading a little of what Stephen J. Gould wrote on exaptation, maybe the Spandrels of San Marco would be a good starting place. Let me also suggest some Richard Dawkins, maybe The Blind Watchmaker. Dont worry it is not too scientific. He wrote for the scientific illiterate. Might I also suggest you familiarize yourself with Apologetics Press and ICR, who can at least provide you with somewhat relevant talking points so that anyone who knows anything might take you a little more seriously. It still surprises me (though it shouldnt by now) that your kind seems to have expertise in so many different fields. You write about zoology, evolution, cosmology, paleontology, geology and physics just to name a few subject areas. Knowing so much about so many fields indeed is remarkableor maybe just suspect. Honestly, my friend, you should be ashamed of yourself. Beware of false teachers, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits.... D. McE (North Dakota, USA)

Dear D,

Well that is a long, involved letter. My responses are in bold, interpolated within your letter, following the "John:"

Hi John, Seems you and I are on different sides of the coin. I studied myself out of special creation when I was faced with some very strong evidence with respect to evolution and the realization that what I was taught at seminary was both outdated and wrong.

John: Yes, I would call that opposite sides of the coin, for sure. My university Biology textbooks were what really convinced me that evolution was baloney, and then I went on to seminary to get a Master's degree in Theology, and the truth of what I was taught there has been reinforced over the years. I guess it's your predisposition when you go into it that determines what you'll get out of it. Perhaps you did not go to seminary actually wanting a seminary education, but rather looking for chinks in the armor? Or maybe you didn't go to a very good seminary. I know guys who went to liberal seminaries and came out for the worse at the other end. Sounds like your case.

I have been a minister for 8 years and now a doctoral student in biological sciences for the past 3 years so think I have a pretty good handle on the subject.

John: I have been in ministry over 30 years and have a B. S. in Biology, with experience in that field, metallurgical engineering, and astronomy. I've also been heavily involved in the realm of creation/evolution for most of those 30 years. So I think I too have a pretty good handle on the subject from both a scientific and theological perspective, and they're not mutually exclusive at all.

I have read propaganda like yours plenty of times, but because a good friend recommended reading your webpage (I am sure in hopes of saving my wayward soul) I figured Id indulge myself once more.

John: Well, as you can imagine, I've had my fill of evolutionary propaganda over the past 30 years, too. I'm in a pretty revealing discussion right now elsewhere with people who are trying to deny that Hitler was influenced by darwinian concepts, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

The problem has become all the more evident; you and yours prey on the ignorance of humankind and their desire to latch on to something meaningful in their meaningless existence.

John: Apparently you have not latched onto anything meaningful, and misery loves company. Funny, but of course I believe it is YOU and YOURS who are preying on ignorance. Evoloution is religious mythology, with no basis in reality, as will be further demonstrated shortly. And apparently you have missed the fact that evolutionists too seek to impart some meaning to life. Recently an evolutionist who is certain (though I know not how) that there is no life after death told me that my primary raison d'etre should be, like his, to enjoy my wife and kids, and find things that make me happy. Yes, of course. Then I die. Very meaningful.

The fact that you do not know what you are speaking of should be clear to anyone who has cracked the pages of a biology text book (high school student and college undergrads alike);

John: That is a typical evolutionist smoke and mirrors statement, which will shortly be demolished. I'll pit my 30 years' experience against your eight any day.

yet, I am sure because you are religious, people will believe you; you lie, either intentionally or in ignorance.

John: I'm not sure I understand that statement, but I guess you meant "your lie". No, my friend, you are the one who believes a lie. There is not one shred of evidence to back up the myth you believe in. And let me point out right now that YOU have a vested interest in defending evolution. I don't. You're a doctoral student in biology, right? So if you don't defend the myth that you are required to believe unquestioningly by the priests who are teaching you their religion, you'll be booted out. I don't have to be concerned about that. If I say evolution is a pile of doo doo, I won't lose my job or be refused my degree. You will. Because you're part of a religious system that expects unquestioning obedience and allegiance.

Either way, it is really sad. Okto the pointa few comments on the first chapter just becausewell, just because it is the first one. Kissing bacteria?

John: Yep, that is exactly what the movie showed. Then they turned into other creatures that could have sex.

Sex was invented by bacteria and that bacteria changed into humans? Who believes that?

John: Evolutionists. Apparently it has been lost on you that according to evolution, the universe generated itself from nothing and nowhere to become everything and everywhere, and then particles magically appeared and began to accrete and become molecules which got together and formed chains, which began to replicate and then magically came to life, and then they magically became prokaryotes, which then magically became eukaryotes, which eventually magically turned into plants, animals and humans. If that's not the story of evolution in a "nut" shell, then what is ("nut" is in quotes intentionally)? So, sex had to creep in there somewhere, right? Well, according to a Public Broadcasting System special on evolution not long ago, exactly what I said happened in the movie I saw, happened in their documentary too. Kissing bacteria turned into cavorting humans, with NO explanation whatsoever as to how that could possibly have happened, no matter how many millions of years you add. And keep in mind, lengthy Time periods are the miracle workers of the religion of evolution.

My friend, there are now recognized six domains of life with two major splits between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.

John: Well, that's just wonderful. Six domains of life. In other words, life just keeps on gettin' more complex, doesn't it? Now tell me where life came from. Recognizing life and explaining its origin and HOW inanimate material became prokaryotes and eukaryotes are two quite different ball games.

Yes, prokaryotes (e.g., bacteria) can reproduce sexually and asexually, but it is a far cry from how eukaryotes reproduce.

John: So what? I want you to tell me how reproducing organisms "evolved" in the first place, not about what capabilities they have. So far you haven't done much to undermine my thesis.

No one believes eukaryotic sex evolved from prokaryotic sex.

John: I don't believe EITHER of them evolved, so that's no problem for me! The question is, "Where did sex come from?" And so far all you are telling me is where it did NOT come from.

My challenge for you is to find a single bit of research that suggests this is the case.

John: Prokaryotic cells preceded eukaryotic ones, correct? Well, it took google a split second to find this, just ONE of many articles apparently demonstrating that you did not do your homework:

Biologists are almost certain that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes because:

1. Both use RNA and DNA are the genetic material
2. Both use the same 20 amino acids
3. Both have ribosomes and DNA and RNA
4. Both have a lipid bilayer cell membrane.
5. Both use L amino acids and D sugars

John: Now, that may not be referring specifically to the manner in which pros and eus reproduce, but if one evolved from the other, is it not logical to presume that the later reproductive system incorporated mechanisms of the former? In other words, one "evolved" into the other. But it's a moot point, because NEITHER of them evolved from anything. What you are doing is taking two organisms that ALREADY exist, and two systems of reproduction that ALREADY exist, and drawing an IMAGINARY line extrapolating backwards, and saying "this is where it evolved from." That is IMAGINATION. It is NOT science. NOT testable. NOT repeatable. It's already done, and you're just building your creation mythology on it.

Eukaryotic sex evolved long after there was a divergence from prokaryotes. We even know the developmental and genetic mechanisms for which sex is determined.

John: Again, you have provided NOTHING that refutes my thesis. You're taking what ALREADY exists, i.e., developmental and genetic MECHANISMS which are ALREADY IN PLACE and using your evolution-tainted mythology to draw some imaginary scenario depicting the origin of those MECHANISMS which are ALREADY in place.

And bird flight? Have you even read a book or a research article on the theories of the development of flight?

John: If by "theories" you are referring to evolutionary mythological stories about how flight developed, yes, I have. They are a bunch of baloney. Have you ever read an article or book that explains ALL the physiological changes - neuro-muscular, skeletal, respiratory, structural, etc., that would be necessary ALL AT ONCE for flight to have magically evolved like your myth tries to propound? Nor can you begin to answer WHY flight "evolved." Was there some reason creatures had to fly when they were surviving just fine without it? Well, of course, the mythologizers will invent some explanation about having to escape from predators. Any half genius can see the stupidity and illogic of that argument, but evolutionists who have nothing else to hold onto will grasp at it with eager hands (that might turn to wings in a few million years).

I think maybe the movies you saw were not in the Smithsonian but at the local cinemaDisney maybe?

John: I told you where I saw them: The Museum of Natural History (aka one of evolution's cathedrals) in London.

Nobody believes that one day a lizard grew wings so it could fly.

John: You're right about that! Couldn't possibly have happened in a day like the video showed. So let's throw in the evolution religion's miracle worker: Time! Let's add a few million years, and VOILA'! We have flight! Well, you can add all the years you want. For any creature to have "evolved" flight is a plain and simple impossibility, for the reasons I have outlined. It's not just a matter of flapping arms turning to wings. You have to have massive changes in physiology, and all that has to be wired to a brain that knows what changes have taken place and how to utilize them. Any budding rocket scientist can see something like that did not evolve. But that's not the end of the story. You're not just saying flight evolved, but EVERY OTHER METABOLIC AND PHYSIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTIC AND PROCESS IN EVERY OTHER LIVING THING DID TOO. You're saying that ALL THE ASTOUNDING COMPLEXITY OF ALL LIVING THINGS ALL PUT TOGETHER MAGICALLY CAME ABOUT BY ITSELF just because you added millions of years. Well, Dan, you're going to have to show me some evidence that the Time goddess created everything. I've seen time destroying lots of things around me. That's thermodynamics in action. Haven't seen it create anything new all by itself yet, though.

Natural selection is a tinkerer,

John: I always love it when evolutionists anthropomorphize. Can't avoid it, can you? As if Natural Selection has some ability to know what it's doing. That's why words like "tinker" and "create" and "made" are used so often in evolutionspeak. The fallacy of your statement should be patently clear to any thinking person, as it was even to Darwin. If what you say is true, then that "tinkerer" should have left BILLIONS and BILLIONS of FAILED and JUNKED experiments laying around in the fossil record. Is that what we find? Not even a chance. What we find are well-defined structures to which clear functions can be attributed, not a bunch of half-formed pieces that your "Natural Selection tinkerer" discarded.

and it is thought, over many millions of years, small changes occur and sometimes are co-opted for reasons other than they originally were selected.

John: Well "it is thought" wrongly. Millions of years are your Savior. They are your Miracle Worker. Without them your myth falls apart. Because you KNOW that if you say something happened one, two or three million years ago (and who cares about accuracy - heck, throw in a plus or minus 500,000 if you want!), you KNOW nobody can say they were there and actually saw it, so you can't lose, right?

John: And "small changes" in what? IN WHAT? Let me answer: in what ALREADY EXISTS. Do you understand that? You need to tell me where the material in which those "small changes" are taking place came from IN THE FIRST PLACE. Then tell me what evidence you have that those "small changes" turned into large ones with time. NONE. They didn't. It's nothing but your imagination, and there is no mechanism known by which genetic information could have arisen on its own from base, inanimate material with no outside input, and then that information increased to make more and more complex organisms. INFORMATION JUST DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. I discussed that in my book, so no need to rehash it here. Further, you then have to come up with some mythical explanation as to WHY THINGS GOT MORE COMPLEX. Is there some magical law at work that forces things to go from simple to complex? No, there is not. However, GOOD SCIENCE tells us that everything is tending toward entropy, or toward less complexity. And don't give me the line about crystal formation proving matter can organize itself into more complex things, or life itself going contrary to thermodynamics. The NET result is always a gain in entropy.

It is very clear you do not understand the basic tenets of natural selectionmaybe it is not what is stupid.

John: I understand them very well. You don't understand why they have NOTHING to do with evolution. Natural selection works with WHAT ALREADY EXISTS. It does NOT create anything new at all. If you can demonstrate otherwise, go for it. And if you can demonstrate that any mutation has ever INCREASED the amount of information contained in a genome, go for that too. If you want to see a revealing interview, get a copy of the DVD or video "From a Frog to a Prince." In that Richard Dawkins is asked if he can indicate one example of an information-producing mutation, such as would be absolutely necessary for evolution to have proceeded from simple to complex. The question is met with silence. Dawkins had egg on his face and went on a campaign of misinformation and trying to clean up after that interview.

Try reading a little of what Stephen J. Gould wrote on exaptation, maybe the Spandrels of San Marco would be a good starting place.

John: Ahh, Gould said it. I believe it. That does it. One of my favorite twists on a popular bumper sticker. I've read plenty of evolutionary High Priest Gould's works. I actually like the way he writes, but too bad he was blinded by the mythology. Of course, if he ever admitted that evolution was bunk, that would have ended a career of popularity, fame and fortune, now wouldn't it have?

Let me also suggest some Richard Dawkins, maybe The Blind Watchmaker.

John: D,let me suggest you re-read Dawkins and Gould, and instead of taking what they say at face value because you respect them as the high priests of your religion, with all the insights into the secrets of life and the universe that the peon public is too dumb to know about, you ask a lot of HOW COULD THAT POSSIBLY BE? questions. And then maybe the same thing will happen to you that happened to me.

Dont worry it is not too scientific. He wrote for the scientific illiterate.

John: Perhaps you should be the one worrying. If you're getting a doctorate in biology and can't see that the astounding complexity of life could not possibly have evolved, and are suckered into believing what Gould and Dawkins tell you, then I consider you to be scientifically illiterate. Try reading Michael Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" for a change of scenery.

Might I also suggest you familiarize yourself with Apologetics Press and ICR, who can at least provide you with somewhat relevant talking points so that anyone who knows anything might take you a little more seriously.

John: I'm more familiar with them than you might think. But I don't want to get heavily into a creation and evolution thing here. As I said, my purpose is more to show simply that evolution is stupid, and has duped an unwitting public into believing what amounts to the modern creation myth.

It still surprises me (though it shouldnt by now) that your kind seems to have expertise in so many different fields.

John: Well thank you! You see, because the evolution myth has crept into everything from psychology to why people are overweight, if we want to be able to show people why they've been blindsided we have to know a little about what we're talking about, and that covers a lot of subjects. Because evolution is a religious worldview, it has insinuated itself into everything in our day.

You write about zoology, evolution, cosmology, paleontology, geology and physics just to name a few subject areas. Knowing so much about so many fields indeed is remarkableor maybe just suspect. Honestly, my friend, you should be ashamed of yourself. Beware of false teachers, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits....

John: Of course, you wouldn't be referring to Darwin, Dawkins and Gould, now would you?

Hello again, D,

A somewhat disingenuous letter, I have to say. I answered whatever questions you posed to me, as can be plainly seen by reading my responses to you. The only thing you bring up that I supposedly did not answer is the eukaryote-prokaryote issue, and if you will READ my response, you will see that I never accused you of having said that eukaryotes did not evolve from prokaryotes. So much for straw men.

Sorry that I have a poor understanding of evolutionary theory. But at least you call it a theory and not a fact or law of science, which it clearly is not. “Ashamed” of myself? Why’s that? If I’m only a bunch of random molecules with no meaning to my existence other than that which I invent to try to give meaning to it, what is “shame” that I should be “ashamed?” I’m only trying to explain my existence according to what my evolved brain molecules make of it, right? So, why is my explanation any more “shameful” than yours?

The old blarney about evolution not having a “mind” isn’t going to work here. Perhaps you’ve heard the well-known quote from evolutionist pope Richard Dawkins, wherein he affirms that things have the “appearance of having been designed” but in reality they have no design nor purpose? Well, besides evoking the question that, if that is true, why should we even bother listening to what he has to say, the fact is that evolutionists can’t get around marveling at the “appearance” of design and purpose they see in everything, hence they can’t avoid words like “design” or “created” or “purpose” or “reason.” It’s just that they have an a priori commitment to denying it whatever the cost. So much for scientists seeking “truth.” Many are avoiding it, but there are some brave souls ( in one case, over 600 have signed the “Dissent from Darwinism” so far) who are stepping out and calling a fake a fake.

No, I do not think that everyone who believes evolution is stupid. They are deceived. Or else willingly in denial. Or they don’t know any better and are trusting those who think they do. Or they’re afraid of losing their status or jobs, being ostracized and criticized, which is part of the evolution religion’s way of keeping the brainwashed in fear. Or they just don’t care.

As for the “Christian love” bit, I told you I’m not getting into that here because it has nothing to do with the facts and is just one more diversionary tactic that evolutionists use. But I will say that one aspect of Christian love is telling the truth, and that’s usually not easy, and you certainly are not practicing it, if you’re setting yourself up as a “good” “Christian evolutionist,” in judgment of me.

Hello D,

You know, it really frightens me to think that you are a PhD candidate and cannot see the fallacies in what you say.

First of all, let’s go over this once again: It’s not about Christianity, God, theism, etc. You apparently are unaware of the fact that there are, for example, Muslims who don’t believe in evolution, including a very vocal one named Harun Yahyah. And there are also those like David Berlinski, Jonathan Wells, Michael Denton, and the 600 plus who have signed the “Dissent from Darwinism” who do not necessarily have anything to do with Christian creationism, but are adamant that Darwinism is a theory which should be abandoned.

However, we are talking about the religion of evolution here, and why it is a religion, and why it is wrong. And your letter is just one more piece of evidence that evolution IS a religion.

You “see” design in nature, yet you BELIEVE that nature “created” things by random processes. So you are echoing evolutionary high priest Richard Dawkins, who said that things give the “appearance” of having been designed, but they’re not. The foolishness of such a statement can only be discerned by someone who takes a few minutes to THINK about it. How many things do you know that are the product of random processes that “appear to be designed?” They may appear to be DESTROYED, but certainly not designed.

Now, as to the “brilliance” of Darwin’s work, you have chosen, because of your evolutionary religious faith, to deny all the scientific discoveries of the past 150 years that prove Darwin false. The discoveries in molecular biology alone are enough to prove his theory false. According to pope Darwin himself, if anything could be demonstrated to NOT have come about by numerous tiny modifications over time, it would prove his theory false. Well, Michael Behe is just one of many modern scientists who have demonstrated that biological processes like the coagulation cascade of blood could not have come about by numerous tiny modifications. Any living thing “evolving” blood coagulation would be dead. And dead things don’t evolve.

Sorry you did not pick up on the sarcasm in my statement about having a poor understanding of evolutionary theory. I’ll just leave it at that.

I particularly like your ending, though. “Who is to say?” That is MY point exactly: Who are YOU to tell ME that I am wrong? Why should we listen to Mr PhD candidate, or any other PhD? Does that make YOU God? I think so! You’re saying, “LISTEN TO ME!!! LISTEN TO ME!!!!” and then asking the question, “Who is to say?” Apparently you believe YOU are to say, no??!! If what you believe is true, viz., that there is no design in nature, and that the only purpose in anything is what our evolved chemicals which we call a brain assign to it, then who are YOU to say that what you believe is the “right” thing, and what I believe is “wrong”? You don’t even seem to be able to comprehend your own illogic! WHY should anything that evolved be “moral?” WHAT is “morality” if, by evolution, it’s nothing more than the product of a bunch of random molecular processes? You have NO BASIS for morality, other than what YOU decide it is. And if I decide differently, then that’s too bad for you. My evolved molecules just think differently from yours.

So, if we’re going to talk religion here, we need to address YOUR religion of evolution, not anyone else’s faith beliefs. That is what this website is all about.

--John

-- C------, Proud Member of the "CDC"

Hi C------,

It's calibEr, not calibUr. There goes another penguin! But don't worry, they need to die to evolve!

Thanks for writing,
John

Hi J,

Well, I'm finally getting around to responding to you and the others to follow. Thanks for your patience. We just moved residences, had to get new Internet service, and we have an online business among many other activities and work responsibilities, so this had to be put on the back burner for a bit.

I have only written a little booklet, but have written lots of magazine articles, editorial items, and other such endeavors. I'd like to write a full-fledged book one of these days, but that day doesn't look like it will arrive too soon. Thank you for your kind remarks. I've tried to write something that was more challenging and different from your average 'I don't believe evolution so nyah nyah nyah.' Had a little fun with it too!

I have done lots of speaking on this issue, including outside the USA, and have been taped on occasion, but I do not have any videos. There are lots of good ones out there, though.

Your story about Dr. K--- reflects my own experience, and demonstrates the reason I abandoned evolution in college. You get bombarded with just-so stories about how this and that happened and came into existence. And everybody just drinks it all in unquestioningly. Well, I questioned, and that's why I abandoned. The arrogance of these people astounds me! Try asking the good professor why we should buy his story. Was he there to observe all he said happened? Did anyone else observe it? Can it be repeated, and is it being repeated anywhere? No, it's not. The pictures we're shown (Hubble images of, for example, the Eagle Nebula) that supposedly show zones of star birth, really show nothing of the sort, and what we're being fed is someone's evolution-tainted imagination and nothing more.

Yes, J, keep the professors thinking! A friend of mine was a dental instructor at a large university, and after a few of his students challenged his thinking about evolution, he abandoned it, and is perhaps even more rabidly against it than I am. And he has written some books and done some videos, too. His name is Dr Jobe Martin. Look him up! And keep using your brain! Don't let 'em wash it!

John

-- S. P. Wyoming, USA

Hi S,

You have hit the nail on the head. No, they can't let go, and it's obvious to anyone who analyzes what's going on here that the evolutionists are rabid fundamentalists who believe what they believe despite all the evidence to the contrary. And they're going to hold onto it for dear life because they know the ramifications of giving it up. It takes a strong individual to stand against the tide, and one who is willing to endure the attacks and criticism that he or she will face by doing so.

I agree fully with what you say, but would like to challenge you on one point. Everyone has faith in something. It's just that often it's faith without substance. The evolutionist is a person of tremendous faith! How can one say they believe in so many things that no one has ever seen without having faith? The big bang? FAITH! Transitions from particles to plants, pandas and people? FAITH! Planets forming from exploded star balls? FAITH!! Brains to contemplate it all evolving on their own with no direction? You got it: FAITH!! That's why a couple of guys wrote a book entitled, 'I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be An Atheist'! Because the atheist has perhaps the most faith of all!

I love your 'meaninglessness followed by despair.' If that is not the evolutionist's plight, then what is? That's another thing that absolutely amazes me about the evolutionist. His only hope is to return to the dirt and become fodder for future evolution, but he'll fight you to the death if you try to convince him that there's something more to life than his stupid theory. And if you try to convict him of the stupidity of it all by pointing out that if he's consistent then he has to admit that whatever he believes is nothing more than the outcome of some evolved chemical reactions and therefore meaningless, he'll do all he can to convince you that his belief has more meaning than yours! It's utter insanity!

Yes, the agnostic who does not accept evolution is in a predicament. And so, frankly, is the one who believes in Intelligent Design while refusing to name a Designer! The bottom line is, there are only two possibilities: a Creator did it, or blind chance Evolution did it. Both are faith beliefs, but believing something by faith does not have to mean believing it blindly. I believe when I sit in my chair it's not going to collapse. That's faith, but it's based on observable realities. And some day it might collapse, but that does not then negate my faith that the chair should not collapse when I sit in it. There's just another explanation for why it collapsed that explains it just fine.

When it comes to evolution, there is neither logical, reasonable, nor scientific data to support any of it, so my faith belief is nothing short of blind fanaticism. I WANT to believe it, so that's why I do. Just like flying saucers, planet-forming stardust, astrology, and all the other kooky things we choose to believe with no rational reason for doing so.

Thanks for writing,
John

-- T. C.

Hi T,

Thanks for writing, and again an apology for taking so long to respond.

I'm glad there are people out there who never believed in evolution. Unfortunately I'm not one of them. But perhaps that's one reason I'm so strongly against it now, because I know what a deception it is, and I think many people who teach and profess it know full well that it's a deception, and they just don't care.

As for your question about Creation Science, you'd do well to just google that. I do know many Creation Science organizations, but again that's not the purpose of this website/book. My main focus here is getting evolutionists to admit that Darwinism is dead. Once we get there, we can continue our journey.

Sincerely,
John

Your letter is long, so I've copied and pasted it, and will interpolate my responses.

I haven't written for a while because I was put off by your broad generalization that you imposed upon me.

J: I haven't written back for a while because I was too busy. So touche'! On the other hand, I've been 'put off' quite a bit in over 30 years of responding to evolutionists, but it still hasn't stopped me from responding.

I merely asked for some sources of your information.

J: 'Sources' are not going to matter much. I've got plenty of 'em. If you're going to choose to believe in evolution, my 'sources' aren't going to change a thing. Let me explain. You see, if I quoted a secular source, you'd say I misquoted or misunderstood it. If I quote, say a 'religious scientist' you'd say he wasn't a 'real' scientist. If I cite a particular book in my defense, you'll just cite another in yours. Bottom line: We've both made a choice, and you're going to defend yours, and I'm going to defend mine. It remains for the observer to decide which side he'll take, once the facts have been presented and the logic and reason defended.

You have no idea what sources I ask for from people I have learned from. In fact, the few scientific facts I stated to you were shown to me with sources which I later looked up and found the experimental methods they used. Now as to your assertion that I believe Urey and Miller knew EXACTLY what the atmosphere was composed of, I never said that.

J: That's good to know. I don't recall having ever said you did, nor would I. The plain fact is that Miller and Urey do not, could not, and never will know what any so-called primitive atmosphere was really made of, for the simple reason that neither they nor anyone else was there, so the best they can do is use their imagination, and that's what they did.

In addition, Urey and Miller made the assumption that the atmosphere was composed of certain chemicals,

J: And you know what happens when we ASSUME, don't you? Suppose I tell you I ASSUME Miller and Urey were wrong (as many others have, in fact, to this point). Is there some reason you wouldn't take sides with ME?

and then showed that if the assumption were true some important biological molecules could form.

J: So what? It's the PHILOSOPHICAL CONCLUSION they and others drew (and continue to draw) from it that's at issue here. Any scientist can spark a bunch of chemicals and make more complex ones from them. But to then say VOILA'! HERE'S WHERE LIFE CAME FROM! is nothing short of arrogant imagination.

I looked at your online article, and I think it's ridiculous that when someone finds that a single assumption made in the process of collecting facts is faulty that a whole body of scientific theory is faulty.

J: Sorry, we're not talking 'single' issues here. Miller and Urey are just one of COUNTLESS (and I mean that literally) ASSUMPTIONS (wrong ones, cough cough) that are made in 'support' of the theory of evolution.

As to your reply about the online articles, I think we should generally discourage the public from just searching the net for articles as there main source of information. You and I both know that you can post whatever you want on the internet, and that you can always find usually always find someone that agrees with you on the internet.

J: Evolutionists are very adept at that, in fact. They'll scrounge up some obscure article that 'proves' their point every time. Fanaticism at its best.

I was looking for some data or information that was based on fact, and possibly reviewed.

J: Ahh, the old 'peer review' trick. That's another one. My information is no good because it was not 'peer reviewed.' Well, I got news for you, even when I've presented 'peer reviewed' information to evolutionists, the 'peers' were never adequate 'reviewers.' And the whole peer review process, in my opinion, is a joke for the most part. Do a little research on some of the issues involved, and you may wind up agreeing.

In regards to information science showing that information cannot arise on its own, I could not find a good source to learn quickly about the background and assumptions required to make that statement.

J: You just confirmed everything I said above. You could not find a 'GOOD' source. In evolutionspeak, that translates to, 'I found sources that confirmed what my opponent is saying, but couldn't dig up anything in support of the opposing point of view, so I'd better just say I couldn't find a 'GOOD' source of information on the subject.'

Where did you learn this from information science?

J: To answer your question with a question, why don't you just give me some peer reviewed article that proves that useful information can arise on its own from material sources, without any external input, and we'll be done with it?

Is there a book showing some of the mathematics and assumptions behind it?

J: A couple of them. And if you really did research online, then you know that without my telling you. However, they're likely not 'GOOD' books in your evolution-tainted estimation.

That was what I was asking for, so that I too could take a look at where you got your ideas.

J: Suppose my ideas were original ones? Would that make them wrong? Not necessarily at all! Would you not agree that even if they're not my ideas, they must have originated somewhere? So, are you going to keep pressing and pressing till you identify the original source of every idea? Or do original sources only count in this argument, because you can use that as one of your excuses to keep the evolutionary faith? In other words, either you give me original sources, or I'm going to keep believing what I believe, even though I don't have original sources for that either. Do you think evolution originated with Darwin? Well, it didn't. So what? It's the idea, not necessarily who originated it or when or where, that is in question here. If the source is a fallible human being, then the idea just may be fallible too, right?

In thinking about your language example, I agree that another language would make no sense but your broad jump to DNA is suspect.

J: However, you have no problem with the broad jump from a few amino acids in a flask to a human being, do you?

If RNA were to bind in a strand that could catalyze the formation of phospholipids, then that RNA strand would be more likely to be enclosed in a phospholipid bilayer, which form spontaneously.

J: You are very handily STARTING OUT with already incredibly complex materials. That's called cheating. Phospholipids must have come from somewhere, right? Phospholipid bilayers form 'spontaneously' under extremely limited conditions in the right environment. Meaningless if you're trying to somehow use this to prove evolution, or making yet another philosophical leap.

Therefore the information of the RNA could be encapsulated for a period of time.

J: Which means nothing, really. The information is already there. The RNA is already there. Encapsulated information? What good is it? Suppose I put a message in a bottle and send it out in the ocean and it winds up on a shore somewhere and is subsequently buried. What good is my 'encapsulated information'? However, if another human being finds it, who can open the bottle and read the message it contains, and make some sense of it, then the information becomes something useful, perhaps. But the whole process, from beginning to end, was directed by intelligence.

That of course is an example I thought that might or might not lead to 'information arising on its own'. I know there is much more to reply to, but I don't have time to address it right now. I just wanted to stress that if you really want to show that the current scientific theory of evolution is not science, then I think it's appropriate to encourage people to check sources of scientific data that support your claim rather than insult those who actually want to check the facts.

J: The scientific sources refuting evolution at this point are countless. Anyone who really wants information on the topic can find it very easily. It's not my purpose here to get bogged down quoting sources for every jot and tittle. That's another evolutionary ploy. The evolutionist never confronts another evolutionist about his 'sources' but if you contradict the evolutionary faith, suddenly you're bombarded with demands for 'sources' for what you believe. Well, my first 'source' is my brain - I THINK about things and QUESTION them, rather than just believing what someone tells me.

Ciao,
John

I recently found an article about the early atmosphere and the Urey-Miller experiment. Current calculations are showing that H2 escaping earth's atmosphere was energy limited, and therefore the atmosphere could have been a reducing atmosphere due to a hydrogen mixing ratio of greater than 30%. I also found some older rigorous studies of production of biomolecules in a weakly reducing atmosphere (as opposed to the stronger reducing atmospheres previously assumed). Models and experimental data showed production of formaldehyde was possible, which is a reactive intermediate that can lead to several important biomolecules.

J: Ok, let's stop here a minute and take a breather. What you're saying here is you're about to embark on a philosophical expedition to prove to the world that Miller and Urey's experiment really does have some value in demonstrating that human beings started out as something similar to a glop of molecules in a glass flask. Hence the use of the word 'important' when referring to the molecules in question. You see, they're not just any old molecules. They're IMPORTANT molecules, because they're about to be used to bolster your religious belief in evolution. Ok, I have not read the rest of your letter below yet, so let's see if my prediction is correct.

The importance of the Urey-Miller experiment was that biomolecules are indeed producible from simple molecules.

J: So far it appears I'm on target.

Your comments about a designer are unfounded.

J: That's 2 points for John now! You're now going to try to convince me that Miller and Urey's experiment had no design, no purpose, and no intended outcome behind it, right?

First of all, you are basically saying that anything performed in a lab will not emulate nature without a designer because a designer performed the experiment.

J: Did I say that? If so, even I am impressed!

The experiment was set up using the assumptions

J: There's that A-word again!

that they clearly stated (that may or may not be true), then the flask was sealed and the experiment was performed.

J: All without an intelligent designer, of course. And just like Nature would've done it!

If you have a problem with there experimental techniques then say so, but I will not accept the argument that merely having someone set up the experiment implies that a designer had to do it in nature.

J: I'm gonna have to really think that one through.... Can we say conversely that if it happened in nature without a designer, then having someone set up an experiment does not emulate anything that happened in nature, and hence is invalid as a proof?

You then state that had the experiment been left on, then all of the molecules would have been destroyed. Really?

J: I believe Miller himself recognized that one. Yes, really. Any scientist will tell you the same thing.

Did you test that to find it out?

J: Not recently, but I do recall having left something in the oven once or twice, and though it formed a gloppy molecular structure at first, it was eventually destroyed completely, and a mess to clean up, to boot! Of course, if Miller and Urey's experiment were still sparking away, there'd probably be a human being in that flask by now!

Second, you are saying that building blocks couldnt be put together without a child to play with them (in the example in your text).

J: That's a fair exposition of what I said, yes. And yes, I did test it to find out. And the blocks are still sitting in the box where I put them. I probably should check though to see if they've made themselves into something at this point.

That is a ridiculous example, and I think you should immediately remove it from your text.

J: Why, I'll do no such thing! That is, unless I find the blocks have made themselves into something. Hold on, I'll go check................ ............ ............ I'm back, and those blocks are still just sitting in the box where I left them. And I had high hopes, too.

Single molecules are nothing like a childs building blocks.

J: They certainly aren't are they!? BUT THEY DID MAKE THEMSELVES BY THEMSELVES, RIGHT? So far, my original contention about your defense of the religious faith of evolution has not failed to come true.

A childs building blocks, as a whole, have no kinetic energy and will not form bonds with each other. Molecules on the other hand are moving very fast, and form bonds with each other; therefore molecular building blocks can put themselves together!

J: Ain't that amazing! Well, now, where did kinetic energy come from? Did it arise on its own? Sorry, but you have not recognized the fallacy in your attempt to defend the faith. First of all, kinetic energy does not create itself. Secondly, the fact that molecules can bond is not the fortunate result of blind chance processes like you imagine. Third, the fact that molecules exist at all has to be explained, and you have not done that. You've STARTED with the molecules, not the whatever that made them in the first place. Fourth, the fact that molecules fortuitously bond to make useful things, and living things, cannot be explained by your blind chance religion.

Using your example of building blocks not assembling themselves, a lot of chemistry doesnt make sense. You could say I put acetone and sodium hydride in a container, but they would not react because someone has to put those building blocks together, but actually they would react.

J: Ditto all the above. And now let me throw a monkey wrench (pun intended) into the equation. If you know anything about chemistry, you also know that energy can BREAK bonds. And that is EXACTLY what would have happened to any so-called complex molecules that formed in the original alleged primordial 'soup.' The bonds would have been broken by UV rays and cosmic rays. Also, the molecules would have dissipated in the medium (ocean, pond, whatever) in which they formed. So once again your religious faith fails when put to the test.

You also mentioned something about how molecules disperse in a liquid.

J: Just mentioned it again, too.

I agree, but that doesnt happen immediately. Local higher concentrations can occur if some event causes molecules to form.

J: Gawwwwlly! No ASSUMPTIONS involved HERE, are there???!!!!

In regards to DNA, with important I was referring to parts of DNA that were very important for survival. Regardless, the point of my post was that the facts were consistent with the scientific theory of evolution.

J: I WIN! My original contention has now been proved beyond a shadow of doubt! Bottom line: Miller and Urey's experiment creating a few amino acids in a glass flask has now been VINDICATED! Evolution is once again saved from the jaws of death! Human beings evolved from a glop of molecules that didn't dissipate but rather came together, got more complex, and finally evolved brains that could invent these stories! Truth shall prevail! Whatever truth is. Eventually we'll figure out which molecules evolved to make truth.

DNA being conserved across several animals is scientific data that is consistent with evolution.

J: Yep, just like wheels being conserved across several vehicles proves one vehicle turned into another. Of course, once again you're STARTING with the wheel, not telling me where the wheel came from to begin with.

You are very insistent that a lot of evidence for evolution DOESNT PROVE ANYTHING.

J: Ummm, can we try that again? I am very insistent that there is NO evidence for evolution, so there's nothing to prove.

Well, you know what? Nothing in science is ever absolutely proved.

J: Good! Then you're admitting that maybe evolution is wrong?

We will never ever prove that any scientific theory is absolutely true.

J: You're sure trying though!

So if the point of your website is that the scientific theory of evolution is not proved to be absolutely true, then I agree.

J: Well, thanks then. We're getting somewhere.

But, I thought the point of your website was to show that the theory of evolution was not science.

J: It's not. Thank you for picking up on that. It is one of my points. It is NOT science. Evolution is a faith belief, defended by fanatics.

In regards to referring to my statement about your logic as a typical evolutionist response, I am not really sure how to respond. In showing that some things are not known absolutely, you do not discredit a scientific theory. There is evidence the big bang occurred (for instance the relative abundances of light elements, cosmic microwave background radiation, and red shift).

J: You are committing the classical evolutionist fallacy of confusing 'evidence' with 'interpretation.' The EVIDENCE may exist in the form of red shift, CMBR, etc. But your INTERPRETATION is that they support the big bang. There are other interpretations of that evidence that are NOT consistent with big bang theory. I believe I've already presented some, such as the fact that the CMBR could be simply the temperature of interstellar space (after all, those stars put out a lot of heat, don't they?), and that redshift has other explanations such as tangential motion, or gravitational stretching, or simply light becoming 'tired' (losing energy) after traveling great distances. But the evolutionist ignores the other interpretations because they conflict with his religious faith.

In the end of your reply you blatantly state that the scientific theory of evolution is not testable.

J: It's not.

Well, I guess if you rule out all of the experiments (because someone performed them of course), and all of the data in nature that is consistent with evolution,

J: This is so typical of you guys. We always hear about 'all the data that supports evolution' but then when we ask for some examples it's always the same old tired, debunked bunkum because nobody has ever seen, nor ever will, evolution in action, because it doesn't happen and never did.

then that is correct, but I think you and I both know there is no good reason to rule out that information. In regards to information-increasing mutations, I found a study of some bacteria in which a mutation occurred and an enzyme named nylonase was formed that can digest nylon. Nylon is a man-made substance, so new information was required to form an enzyme that digested it.

J: Aren't you the one who just called for people to not look for obscure articles in support of their belief because you'll always find somebody who supports you no matter what wacko idea you have? The nylonase example has also been challenged, but apparently you either ignored or chose not to read the articles debunking it. Here's a great example of evolutionists jumping to their philosophical conclusion before all the facts are in. An enzyme is discovered that can digest nylon, a man-made substance. And suddenly the evolutionist jumps to the conclusion that this PROVES that particles turned themselves into people. The fact that you have to latch onto something that trite and pathetic to prove your bigger picture shows just how desperate you are, not how much proof you have! If you wait till all the facts are in, the opposition's contention that the enzyme that digests nylon is not an example of new information at all, but rather a recombination or change in information that is already present, will prevail. And in fact, subsequent experimentation seems to be bearing that out. Here's an article for your consideration: http://crevo.blogspot.com/2005/06/evolution-chance-and-design-to-cb940.html

Finally, you implied at one point that I believe in evolution because I dont know what to believe in. You have no idea what I believe in. I realize that you use the word believe because you want to show that evolution is a religion and not a science, but I ACCEPT the scientific theory of evolution

J: Believe by any other name is still believe.

because it is consistent with scientific experiments and observations.

J: Of which you have not given a single example, let alone demonstrated that your leap from molecules to man has any substance in reality.

John

-- J

Hi J:

Your argument amounts to the following: Evolution is demonstrably false, but since we don't have a substitute (or I should say we do, but don't want to accept it as such), we can't trash it.

Let's put it another way: We're going to choose to believe a lie because we haven't come up with a better explanation.

Or another way: This tool is totally useless for the job I'm trying to do, but I'm not gonna trash it till another tool comes along.

Or another way: I believe in flying saucers even though there's absolutely no proof they exist, because I haven't seen a better explanation for those strange lights I saw the other night, and that other people say they see now and then.

Or one more: I believe astrology is the best explanation for what guides our daily activities, because that's the best explanation we have for what's guiding us, and until someone comes up with a better one, I'm going to believe it, despite the fact there's not a shred of evidence that it's true.

Your just-so statement that evolution is a 'great explanatory theory' amounts to admitting that it's a great basis on which to build fairy tale stories that supposedly explain where everything came from. And we're gonna believe those fairy tales come hell or high water. Evolution is an 'explanatory' theory only in that its adherents are very adept at inventing explanations to keep the theory alive. You have the same facts that I have, and that thousands of other scientists who do NOT believe in evolution have, and we use different 'explanatory' theories to explain the facts. Once again, you're confusing the facts with the theory. Evolution explains nothing. People explain things. It's called interpretation. And it's a faith belief, and you are one of its fanatical defenders.

Thanks for writing,
John

-- A. W.

Hi A,

Your post is insanely long and tedious. Sorry, but I can't wade through it. However, I will take the first sentence:

”The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) strongly supports the position that evolution is a major unifying concept in science and should be included in the K-12 science education frameworks and curricula.”

Certainly it's a unifying concept! It unites those who would rather let other people do their thinking for them into a solid group of religious fanatics who will defend their faith despite all the evidence to the contrary.

If evolution is such a unifying concept, why do so many evolutionists disagree with each other about everything but the theory itself (which has to be preserved at all costs!), and why are we having this debate? Apparently you're unaware that thousands of scientists, and millions of laypersons worldwide don't even accept evolution as a valid explanation of origins.

John

-- J

Hello again, J,

Biology as a science has absolutely no need for an evolutionary framework in order to survive, and neither does any other branch of science. That's just the usual mantra evolutionists use to dupe the uninformed into believing evolution is indispensable. Biology was around way before evolution, and will continue just fine once the theory is abandoned. There is nothing in biology nor medicine that benefits from a faith belief in evolution. All processes are explainable without any recourse whatsoever to the religious theory.

I have not kept religion out of my website at all. I have repeatedly and unequivocally affirmed that e