Conservapedia:Evolution
A point-by-point discussion/refutation of Conservapedia's (ever changing, thanks to Ken DeMyer) Theory of evolution.
Conservapedia's Theory of Evolution |
RationalWiki Responses |
Introduction
The theory of evolution is a naturalistic theory of the history of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs methodological naturalism and is taught in schools and universities). Merriam-Webster's dictionary gives the following definition of evolution: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations."[1] Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the theory of evolution which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists.[2] Although the defenders of the theory of evolution contend there is evidence that supports the theory of evolution, there is a multitude of serious problems with the theory of evolution which will be discussed shortly. |
Well the article starts with a dictionary definition of evolution. None of this needs rebutting so we will start with a list of thing to look out for when reading an article written by Kenneth DeMyer. His articles typically contain the following logical fallacies; ad hoc, argumentum ad populum, argument from adverse consequences, argument from authority, argument from ignorance, argument from incredulity, anecdotal evidence, negative proof, and quote mining. In addition, the author's writing style is often very close to a blog or lecture like post rather than "encyclopedic", with repeated uses of "which will be discussed shortly" or "in regards to" and various terms such as "darwinism" or "evolutionist" that tend to crop up in all of Conservative's "pet articles". Keep track of the number times you see one of these logical fallacies and styles, it makes for interesting reflection. As for the atheist promoting evolution, the argument supporter of evolution equals atheist will be trotted out several times so we will rebuttal this later. | |
As far as public support for the evolutionary viewpoint, an article by CBS News begins with the observation that, "Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved."[3] A 2005 poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research found that 60% of American medical doctors reject Darwinism, stating that they do not believe humans evolved through natural processes alone.[4] Thirty-eight percent of the American medical doctors polled agreed with the statement that "Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement." [5] The study also reported that 1/3 of all medical doctors favor the theory of intelligent design over evolution.[6] In addition, there is evidence to suggest that the evolutionary position is gradually losing public support in the United States.[7] The prestigious science journal Science reported the following in 2006 concerning the United States: "The percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005. Meanwhile the fraction of Americans unsure about evolution has soared from 7 per cent in 1985 to 21 per cent last year."[8] In January 2006, the BBC reported the following in respect to Britain:
|
Here we have our first logical fallacy, argumentum ad populum. The argument here is simple, more people believe X is not true than believe it is true, therefore X is not true. Many years ago, most people believed that the Earth was the centre of the universe, but this didn't cause it to be true. It would also be akin to saying that you can fly providing you don't believe in gravity, or that Mount Everest wasn't the tallest mountain on the planet until it was discovered. In short, this is a needlessly fallicious argument because the universe and the rules that it operates on do not care what people think, regardless of how comforting or "common sense" it may seem. | |
The theory of evolution posits a process of self-transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory.[10][11] Although not a creation scientist, Swedish geneticist Dr. Heribert Nilsson, Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden, stated: "My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint."[12] |
This quote here is from 1953. It is now 71 years old. It is, how shall we say, a little out of date based on current research. There have been several observed experiment which have demonstrated aspects of evolution. | |
The fossil record is often used as evidence in the creation versus evolution controversy. The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the many flaws in the theory of evolution.[13] Even evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at Oxford, stated the following: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."[14] The fossil record will be discussed in greater detail in regards to why the fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is decidedly counter evidence to the evolutionary position. |
Logical fallacy number two, quote mining. The full quote from Mark Ridley actually quite nicely rebuts the point trying to be made here.
| |
The great intellectuals in history such as Archimedes, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and Lord Kelvin did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version. Even after the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted heavily in England and Germany, most leading scientists were against the theory of evolution.[16] |
Now we have reached the strangest point of this introduction and the first true invoking of the fallacy Argument from authority. The argument is important person did not believe X, so X is not true. Why these people did not propose evolution is more a matter their field of study, knowledge known at the time, or a lack of insight on their part, it has no impact on the truth or otherwise of evolution. As for the initial resistance at the time evolution was proposed (also look at the reference and you will see only two opponents are named) this is the most important aspect of science, skepticism. If scientist immediately embarrassed every hypothesis proposed without evidence and testing, no coherent and consistent framework would ever be formed. | |
The theory of evolution was published by naturalist Charles Darwin in his book On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, in 1859.[17] Prior to Charles Darwin publishing his work On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, Darwin wrote in his private notebooks that he was a materialist, which is a type of atheist.[18] Charles Darwin’s casual mentioning of a ‘creator’ in earlier editions of The Origin of Species appears to have been a merely a ploy to downplay the implications of his materialistic theory.[19] The amount of credit Darwin actually deserves for the theory is disputed.[20] Darwin's theory attempted to explain the origin of the various kinds of plants and animals via the process of natural selection or "survival of the fittest". | ||
The basic principle behind natural selection is that in the struggle for life some organisms in a given population will be better suited to their particular environment and thus have a reproductive advantage which increases the representation of their particular traits over time. Many years before Charles Darwin, there were several other individuals who published articles on the topic of natural selection.[21] Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was a naturalist who supported the theory of evolution. Lamarck's theory of evolution asserted that evolution occurs because organisms are able to inherit traits acquired by their ancestors and this has been rejected.[22] Darwin did not first propose in his book Origin of Species that man had descended from non-human ancestors. Darwin's theory of evolution incorporated that later in Darwin's book entitled Descent of Man. | ||
In regards to the history of the theory of evolution, although Darwin is most well known regarding the beginnings of the evolutionary position, evolutionary ideas were taught by the ancient Greeks as early as the 7th century B.C.[23] The concept of naturalistic evolution differs from the concept of theistic evolution in that it states God does not guide the posited process of macroevolution.[24] |
Theory of Evolution - Mutations and the Life Sciences in General
Evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote regarding the theory of evolution: "The process of mutation is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution."[25] In regards to the various theories of evolution, most evolutionists believe that the processes of mutation, genetic drift and natural selection created every species of life that we see on earth today after life first came about on earth.[26] However, Pierre Grasse, who served as Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated the following: "Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." Grasse pointed out that bacteria which are the subject of study of many geneticists and molecular biologists are organisms which produce the most mutants.[27] Grasse then points that bacteria are considered to have "stabilized a billion years ago!".[28] Grasse regards the "unceasing mutations" to be "merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect."[29] In addition, Harvard biologist Ernst Mayr wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations."[30] Creation scientists believe that mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift would not cause macroevolution.[31] Furthermore, creation scientists assert that the life sciences as a whole support the creation model and do not support the theory of evolution.[32] Homology involves the theory that macroevolutionary relationships can be demonstrated by the similarity in the anatomy and physiology of different organisms.[33] An example of a homology argument is that DNA similarities between human and other living organisms is evidence for the theory of evolution.[34] Creation scientists assert that the homology argument is not a valid argument. Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that speciation occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionist believe is the case.[35] Critics of the theory of evolution state that many of today's proponents of the evolutionary position have diluted the meaning of the term "evolution" to the point where it defined as or the definition includes change over time in the gene pool of a population over time through such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.[36] Dr. Jonathan Sarfati states the following in relation to the diluted definition of the word "evolution":
|
Theory of Evolution and Little Consensus
There is little scientific consensus on how macroevolution is said to have happened, as can be seen in the following quotes:
|
The scientific consensus is strong, which can be seen from the actual quotes:
What has been quote mined here is what is known as a review paper, in that no new research is presented instead an over arching view of several is given. These are important, as the author says, papers tend to be reductionist, looking at one small aspect of a broader narrative and so we need to step back and see how all this molecular biological research fits into the broader framework of evolutionary theory. This is why quote mining is so deceptive as the quote by itself has a very different meaning than the one the author is trying to convey. The final conclusion by Morris for those interested.
| |||
|
This is a quote from a University media release Pitt Professor Contends Biological Underpinnings Of Darwinian Evolution Not Valid, as always, is taken out of context. What Professor Schwartz is contesting in his paper Do Molecular Clocks Run at All? A Critique of Molecular Systematics is that assumptions made by Zuckerkandl and Pauling in 1962, that degree of overall similarity reflects degree of relatedness - e.g, that humans have the most DNA in common with chimpanzees and so we share a closer common ancestor than we do with orangutans - is false. Professor Schwartz has the very heterodoxy view that humans are actually closer related to orangutans. Professor Schwartz better explains his position in the introduction to his paper;
Professor Schwartz's hypothesis relies on a hyper-punctuated equilibrium, he expects no transitional to exist at all, rather than the Darwinian model of continual and gradual change. RationalWiki looks forward to further research on this topic. | |||
|
The important word in this quote is superficially, actually all up these three quote actually fit quite nicely together forming a strong case for evolutionary research. In 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick, published the structure of DNA and at the time all seemed clear, DNA → RNA → protein. DNA gave us the protein, so a change in DNA causes a change in protein and hence different species. However as more and more research came in this simple dogma came apart. It came clear that RNA also formed DNA and that most organisms in fact have the same proteins. The orthodoxy that DNA is a blueprint to make protein did not stand up to the research and as Morris said it has became more clear that proteins are tools that make a different organism depending on where, when and how they are used. The proteins that make a human, will not make a human outside a human womb. This has also changed the view of the way evolution occurs, gradual evolution has given away to punctuated evolution. Instead of species changing slowly over time, they remain fixed changing quickly into a new species depending on the environment. What DeMyer has done is tried to paint sciences biggest strength as a weakness in an attempt to sow doubt about evolution. It is because scientist are always testing their previous assumption as more information becomes available, hypotheses are overturned and progress is made. What will become of Schwartz's hypothesis is unknown but it is being heard and tested because he has supported it with research and data, not context-less quotes. | |||
Pierre Grasse, who served as Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated the following:
|
Genetic Code, Processing of Biological Data, and Biological Information
Creation scientists and intelligent design advocates state the genetic code, genetic programs, and biological information argue for an intelligent cause in regards the origins question and assert it is one of the problems of the theory of evolution.[42][43] Dr. Walt Brown states the genetic material that controls the biological processes of life is coded information and that human experience tells us that codes are created only by the result of intelligence and not merely by processes of nature.[42] Dr. Brown also asserts that the "information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs."[42] To support his view regarding the divine origin of genetic programs Dr. Walt Brown cites the work of David Abel and Professor Jack Trevors who wrote the following:
In the peer reviewed biology journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington Dr. Stephen Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms and proposed an intelligent cause as the best explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.[45] The editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Dr. Richard Sternberg, came under intense scrutiny and persecution for the aforementioned article published by Dr. Meyer. |
Evolutionary Theory and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation
A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent material to promote the theory of evolution was the work of German scientist and atheist Ernst Haeckel. Noted evolutionist Stephen Gould wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of Natural History:
An irony of history is that the March 9, 1907 edition of the NY Times refers to Ernst Haeckel as the "celebrated Darwinian and founder of the Association for the Propagation of Ethical Atheism."[47] Stephen Gould continues by quoting Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated: "I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically".[46] Intelligent design theorist Michael Behe publicly exposed the fraudulent nature of Haeckel's embryos in a NY Times article.[48] It appears as if Stephen Gould was irritated that the fraud was exposed in manner that publicly embarrassed the evolutionary community - namely though a high profile NY Times article.[49] Creation scientists have written regarding the fraudulent nature of Haeckel's work and how a prestigious German science journal published his dubious work.[50] Dr. Jonathan Wells published a book in 2000 entitled Icons of Evolution. Dr. Wells contends that the book shows that "the best-known “evidences” for Darwin’s theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked."[51] |
Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms
Currently, there are over one hundred million identified and cataloged fossils in the world's museums.[52] If the evolutionary position was valid, then there should be "transitional forms" in the fossil record reflecting the intermediate life forms. Another term for these "transitional forms" is "missing links". Darwin himself admitted that his theory required the existence of "transitional forms." Darwin wrote: "So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth."[53] However, Darwin wrote: "Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory."[54] Darwin thought the lack of transitional links in his time was because "only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored and no part with sufficient care...".[55] As Darwin grew older he became increasingly concerned about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution in terms of the existence of transitional forms. Darwin wrote, "“When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”[56] Scientist Dr. Michael Denton wrote regarding the fossil record:
Creationists assert that evolutionists have had over 140 years to find a transitional fossil and nothing approaching a conclusive transitional form has ever been found and that only a handful of highly doubtful examples of transitional fossils exist.[58] Distinguished anthropologist Sir Edmund R. Leach declared, "Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so."[59] David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma wrote that "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them…".[60] David Raup, who was the curator of geology at the museum holding the world's largest fossil collection, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, observed:
One of the most famous proponents of the theory of evolution was the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted the following:
In a 1977 paper titled "The Return of Hopeful Monsters", Gould wrote: "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change....All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."[62][63] The senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. Colin Patterson, put it this way:
According to Dr. Don Batten, Stephen Gould in 1970s made some admissions that there was a "lack of evidence for phylogeny in the fossils" and that Gould had also claimed a number of that were no indisputable intermediate forms. Dr. Batten states that Gould made these statements when Gould was less concerned about creationists.[62] Dr. Batten also states that "claimed examples of transitional series and intermediate forms received an incisive critique from Gould in the 1970s...."[62] However, Gould's admissions were subsequently widely quoted by creationists.[62] According to Dr. Batton, in 1981 Gould started making intemperate language towards creationists.[65] After having been incessantly quoted by creationist regarding the fossil record, Gould altered his public stance regarding the fossil record and without stating specific examples from the fossil record and using the ambiguous term "larger groups" Gould stated the following in 1981:
In 1980, David Woodruff wrote in the journal Science the following: "But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.”[67] The late Ernst Mayr was a prominent Harvard biologist who also served as the director of Harvard's Museum of Comparative Zoology. Mayr was a staunch evolutionist and atheist[68] who maintained that evolution was a fact, yet in 1982 Mayr was compelled to make the following admission regarding the fossil record in relation to the theory of evolution: "Even the fossil record fails to substantiate any continuity and all novelties appear in the fossil quite suddenly.[69] In 1985, Gould was more specific regarding his claim that there were intermediate forms and asserted that Archaeopteryx was a intermediate form.[70] Also, according to Dr. Batten, in 1994 the following occurred in regard to Gould's stance on the fossil record:
In 2001, staunch evolutionist Ernst Mayr wrote the following:
As mentioned earlier, one of the more famous alleged transitional fossils claimed by evolutionists is Archaeopteryx. Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds and an evolutionist himself, has stated the following regarding Archaeopteryx:
Creation scientists have a number of arguments against Archaeopteryx being a transitional fossil find.[72][73] A second famous alleged transitional fossil claimed by evolutionists is Tiktaalik. Creation scientists have a number of arguments regarding the fossil find of Tiktaalik not being a transitional find.[74] |
The Fossil Record and the Evolutionary Position
Creationists can cite quotations which assert that no solid fossil evidence for the theory of evolution position exists: |
Yes, you can indeed quote can't you. Full quotes are: | |||
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
It is difficult to describe how out of context this quote is given that it is the subtitle of an editorial discussing several paper that are printed in that issue of Nature. Instead for a reflection on the article here are the final two paragraphs.
| |||
For more fossil record quotes please see: Fossil record quotes |
Paleoanthropology
Paleoanthropology is an interdisciplinary branch of anthropology that concerns itself with the origins of early humans and it examines and evaluates items such as fossils and artifacts.[80] Dr. David Pilbeam is a paleoanthropologist who received his Ph.D. at Yale University and Dr. Pilbeam is presently Professor of Social Sciences at Harvard University and Curator of Paleontology at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology.[81] In addition, Dr. Pilbeam served as an advisor for the Kenya government regarding the creation of an international institute for the study of human origins.[82] Dr. Pilbeam wrote a review of Richard Leakey's book Origins in the journal American Scientist and he stated the following:
Dr. Pilbeam wrote the following regarding the theory of evolution and paleoanthropology:
Evolutionist and Harvard professor Richard Lewontin wrote in 1995 that "Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor...."[84] In the September 2005 issue of National Geographic, Joel Achenbach asserted that human evolution is a "fact" but he also candidly admitted that in regards to the field of paleoanthropology that "Today the field has again become a rather glorious mess."[85][86] In the same National Geographic article Harvard paleoanthropologist Dan Lieberman states, "We're not doing a very good job of being honest about what we don't know...".[86] In regards to the pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal Science the following regarding their highly speculative nature:
In addition, the science magazine New Scientist reported the following: Dr. Tim White, anthropologist at the University of California-Berkeley, likened the incident on par with the "Nebraska man" and "Piltdown Man" incidents.[89] Dr. White stated regarding the fossil find, "Seldom has a bone been hyped as much as this one."[89] Anthropologist Dr. Noel Boaz from New York University who made the original classification of the fossil has countered, "I have not gone any further than the evidence allowed."[89][91] Dr. Boaz described the fossil find and defended his stance regarding the fossil find in the journals Nature, the American Journal of Physical Anthropology and Natural History. However, at a meeting of physical anthropologist his fellow anthropologist were skeptical of the find some stating that at first glance the bone looks nothing like a collar bone.[91] Dr. White stated that "to be a clavicle, the specimen should have an S...curve, but it does not.[89] Dr. White also stated the blunder may force a rethinking of theories among evolutionary theorists on when the line of man's ancestors separated from that of apes.[89] Dr. White added "The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone."[89] Dr. White has dubbed the "humanoid species" arising from the fossil find "Flipperpithecus".[91] Creation scientists concur with Dr. Pilbeam regarding the speculative nature of the field of paleoanthropology and assert there is no compelling evidence in the field of paleoanthropology for the various theories of human evolution.[92][93][94] |
Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium
Because the fossil record is characterized by the abrupt appearance of species and stasis in the fossil record the theory of punctuated equilibrium was developed and its chief proponents were Stephen Gould, Niles Eldridge, and Steven Stanley.[62] According to the American Museum of Natural History the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium "asserts that evolution occurs in dramatic spurts interspersed with long periods of stasis".[95] Because Stephen Gould was the leading proponent of the theory of punctuated equilibrium much of the criticism of the theory has been directed towards Gould.[96][97] In 1995, there was an essay in the New York Review of Books by the late John Maynard Smith, a noted evolutionary biologist who was considered the dean of British neo-Darwinists, and Smith wrote the following regarding Gould's work in respect to the theory of evolution:
Noted journalist and author Robert Wright , wrote in 1996 that, “among top-flight evolutionary biologists, Gould is considered a pest—not just a lightweight, but an actively muddled man who has warped the public's understanding of Darwinism.”[100][101] Creation scientist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati wrote regarding the implausibility of the theory of punctuated equilibrium and the implausibility of the idea of gradual evolution the following:
Stephen Gould admitted in 1977 in a paper called, ‘The Return of the Hopeful Monsters that when he studied evolutionary biology in graduate school that "official rebuke and derision focused upon Richard Goldschmidt", Gould nevertheless stated in that paper the following regarding Goldschmidt and the theory of evolution:
Similarly, creation scientist Dr. Don Batten concurs with the Harvard evolutionist Ernst Mayr and states that in 1982 Gould distanced himself from "Hopeful Monsters" and cites Gould stating that "Punctuated equilibrium is not a theory of macromutation, it is not a theory of any genetic process" although Dr. Batten also cites Gould admitting to having supported "certain forms of macromutational theory … though not in the context of punctuated equilibrium."[62] Dr. Batten further states regarding the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium (PE) the following: "By the time of their 21st anniversary review of PE, Gould and Eldridge had retracted to proposing PE as ‘a complement to phyletic gradualism’. This is a rather major backdown on the brashness of their claims in 1972, and especially Gould’s claims up to 1980..."[62] In 1986, Niles Eldredge published his work Time Frames: the Re- thinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria in which he wrote: ‘This book is my version of the story of “punctuated equilibria” … {emphasis added). This of course suggested that Eldridge wished to remove himself from other versions.[62] According to Dr. Batten, this was because Niles Eldredge had been "less dogmatic than Gould had been in the 1970s about the lack of gradual change in the fossil record". In 1986, Niles Eldridge took objection to the "hopeful monster" association with the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium and wrote: "The assertion that punctuated equilibria represents a resurrection of Goldschmidt’s "macromutations" and "hopeful monsters" remains the most serious and irksome misconstrual of our ideas." Eldridge also added that "The most common misconception about "punctuated equilibria" - that Gould and I proposed a saltationist model of overnight change supposedly based on sudden mutations with large-scale effects (macromutations á la Richard Goldschmidt)..."[62] According to Stephen Gould, Daniel Dennet and Richard Dawkins, who hold to a traditional Darwinian gradualism view of the theory of evolution, trivialized the importance of the theory of punctuated equilibrium.[105] Dawkins called the theory of punctuated equilibrium "an interesting but minor wrinkle on the surface of Neo-Darwinism theory". Dennet went farther and stated that the theory of punctuated equilibrium was a "a false-alarm revolution that was largely if not entirely in the eyes of the beholders."[105] |
The Issue of Whether the Evolutionary Position Qualifies as a Scientific Theory
Karl Popper, a leading philosopher of science and originator of the falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience,[106] stated that Darwinism is "not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme."[107] Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse stated the following regarding Popper's statement and the actions he took after making that statement: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."[108] In regards to the falsifiability of the evolutionary position, although offering a poor cure to the problem that Karl Popper described, committed evolutionists Louis Charles Birch & Paul R. Ehrlich stated in the journal Nature the following:
|
Implausible Explanations and the Evolutionary Position
Individuals who are against the evolutionary position assert that evolutionary scientists employ extremely implausible "just so stories" to support their position and have done this since at least the time of Charles Darwin.[110] [111] A well known example of a "just so story" is when Darwin, in his Origin of the Species, wrote a chapter entitled "Difficulties on Theory" in which he stated:
Even the prominent evolutionist and geneticist Professor Richard Lewontin admitted the following:
Dr. Sarfati wrote regarding the theory of evolution the following:
Opponents to the theory of evolution commonly point to the following in nature as being implausibly created through evolutionary processes:
Lastly, biochemist Michael Behe wrote the following:
|
Statements of Design
Phillip E. Johnson cites Francis Crick in order to illustrate the fact that the biological world has the strong appearance of being designed:
Stephen C. Meyer offers the following statement regarding the design of the biological world:
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states the following regarding a candid admission of Charles Darwin:
|
|
Theory of Evolution and the Scientific Journals
Advocates of the theory of evolution have often claimed that those who oppose the theory of evolution don't publish their opposition to the theory of evolution in the appropriate scientific literature (creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals which favor the creationist position).[132][133][134] Recently, there has been articles which were favorable to the intelligent design position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the theory of evolution.[135] |
Effect on Scientific Endeavors Outside the Specific Field of Biology
Stephen Wolfram in his book A New Kind of Science has stated that the Darwinian theory of evolution has, in recent years, "increasingly been applied outside of biology."[136] |
Lysenkoism
The theory of evolution played a prominent role in regards to atheistic communism.[137] Communists, in particular Stalinism, favored a version of Lamarckism called Lysenkoism developed by Trofim Denisovich Lysenko.[138] Lsyenko was made member of the Supreme Soviet and head of the Institute of Genetics of the Soviet Academy of Sciences.[139] Later Lysenko became President of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences.[140] Many geneticists were imprisoned and executed for their bourgeois science, and agricultural policies based on Lysenkoism that were adopted under the Communist leaders Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong caused famines and the death of millions.[141] |
Medical Science
The theory of evolution has had a negative effect on the field of medical science. According to Dr. Jerry Bergman the list of vestigial organs in humans has gone from 180 in 1890 to 0 in 1999.[142] Furthermore, Dr. Bergman states the following:
|
Astronomy
Young earth creation scientist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati states that evolutionary thought has been applied to the field of astronomy.[144] Sarfati's claim is supported by the fact that astronomers do refer to the "evolution of the universe".[145] |
Though an English word has more than one meaning may come as a shock to those homeschooled by barely literate goats, modern society has learned to deal with it. | ||
Sarfati asserts the evolutionary view has had a negative effect on astronomy and that arguments to support the proposed evolutionary time scales of billions of years via the field of astronomy are invalid.[146] |
What negative effect on astronomy? Ken doesn't say, but the time scales used by astronomers are not based on evolution. The time scales are based on thousands of peer-reviewed studies, which, in turn, are based on billions of pieces of evidence, from radioactive dating to the measurement of gamma ray bursts. Sarfati doesn't attempt to context these. Nearly no one on the woowoo side does, as the evidence is simply overwhelming. From here on out, Ken's central idea seems to be that if astronomy has been wrong about anything, or can't answer any question, then "Goddidit" is a smarter answer. This is dumb in a special way that the religious seem to have a monopoly on. First of all, astronomy has discovered many, many things. If we were to travel back in time to 1900, Ken's philosophy would have us giving up before the discovery of many things that everyone -- from the experts, down through the mildly-retarded, and even YEC's -- acknowledges, like the existence of galaxies outside or own. Secondly, Ken's proudly myopic idea applies equally to things like medicine and meteorology. If we can't figure out what causes Alzheimer's, why bother to treat it? If we can't predict the weather 100% of the time, why try at all? The failure of predictions is a key aspect of how science is done. The only field which has no failed predictions is astrology, by sticking to predictions like "You will face some challenges this year!" The idea is that a scientist makes a prediction and tests it. If it's wrong, he discards or modifies his theory. | ||
Creationists can cite examples of scientists stating that evolutionary ideas in astronomy have failed to have any explanatory power: |
People who can be bothered doing research can find the full quote and see how dishonest some of these quote mines are:
| ||
|
An unsolved problem in science does not indicate that science will never work. This is simply God of the gaps. Science tried to explain most things unsuccessfully for hundreds of years. Not knowing where lightning came from in 1750 was not a good reason to suspect that the answer was actually Zeus. | ||
|
We don't know how gravity works, but we still study physics. Just because science can't explain all of the details of one fundamental thing doesn't mean that we just give up science. Don't believe RW? Just ask Robert Irion (from the article cited).
Wow bitchy! Isn't the cut and thrust of intellectual debate stimulating unlike the article to the left? | ||
|
Fuck it, then, let's just give up and go home. Ken's proposed alternative is: Magic Jesus did it, and don't ask how. | ||
In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote regarding the Milky Way galaxy the following:
Dr. Walt Brown provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that cite the failings of current old universe paradigm explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.[147][148][149] |
Origin of Life
Evolutionary thought has had an influence on origin of life research as well. For example, a 2004 article in the International Journal of Astrobiology is titled On the applicability of Darwinian principles to chemical evolution that led to life.[151] It is also clear that early origin of life researcher Aleksandr Oparin who proposed materialist ideas regarding the origin of life was influenced by evolutionary thought.[152] However, the current naturalistic explanations for the origin of life are inadequate. |
Age of the Earth and Universe and the Theory of Evolution
As far as the evolutionary timeline posited by evolutionary community, the various theories of evolution claim that the earth and universe are billions of years old and that macroevolutionary processes occurred over this time period.[153][154] William R. Corliss is a respected cataloger of scientific anomalies and the science magazine New Scientist had an article which focused on Mr. Corliss's career as a cataloger of scientific anomalies.[155] Mr. Corliss has cataloged scores of anomalies which challenge the old earth geology paradigm.[156][157] Young earth creationist hold the earth and universe is approximately 6,000 years old.[153] Young earth creationist scientists state the following is true: there are multiple lines of evidence pointing to a young earth and universe; the old earth and universe paradigm has numerous anomalies and uses invalid dating methods, and there are multiple citations in the secular science literature that corroborate the implausibility of the old earth and universe paradigm (for details see: Young Earth Creationism). |
|
Scientific Community Consensus and the Macroevolution Position
A 1997 Gallup poll indicated that 55% of United States scientists believed that humans developed over a period of millions of years from less developed forms of life and that God had no part in the process, 40% believed in theistic evolution, and 5% of scientists believed that God created man fairly much in his current form at one time within the last 10,000 years.[158] According to the creationist scientist community, there is widespread discrimination against creationist scientists.[159] On April 18, 2008 a film documentary by Ben Stein entitled Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed! was released to the public which documents the suppression of scientific freedom in regards to scientists who are critical of the evolutionary position.[160][161] Scientific freedom being suppressed in regards dissenting from the evolutionary position is not surprising given that a poll among United States scientists showed that approximately 45% of scientists believed there was no God.[162] In addition, a survey found that 93% of the scientists who were members of the United States National Academy of Sciences do not believe there is a God.[163] Given this state of affairs, a future paradigm shift from the theory of evolution to a creation science position could be slow given the worldviews of many scientists. Also, the current scientific community consensus is no guarantee of truth. The Template:CplHistory of science shows many examples where the scientific community consensus was in error, was scientifically unsound, or had little or no empirical basis. For example, bloodletting was practiced from antiquity and still had many practitioners up until the late 1800s.[164] In his essay, A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready? , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D. wrote the following: "...history is rife with examples in which our best medical judgment was flawed. The prestigious British Medical Journal begun in 1828 chose the name Lancet to signal its scholarly intent and cutting edge therapy."[165] Also, in regards to modern medical science, in a 1991 BMJ (formerly called the British Medical Journal) article, Richard Smith (editor of BMJ at the time) wrote the following: "There are 30,000 biomedical journals in the world...Yet only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence, David Eddy professor of health policy and management at Duke University, told a conference in Manchester last week. This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all."[166] Next, alchemy was at one time considered to be a legitimate scientific pursuit and was studied by such notable individuals as Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Roger Bacon, and Gottfried Leibniz.[167][168] Given the aforementioned weaknesses in the evolutionary position and given that the history of science shows there have been some notable paradigm shifts,[169][170][171] the scientific consensus argument for the macroevolutionary theory certainly cannot be called an invincible argument. In addition, biblical creationists can point out examples where the scientific community was in error and the Bible was clearly correct. For example, until the 1970s the scientific consensus on how lions killed their prey was in error and the Bible turned out to be right in this matter.[172] Also, for centuries the scientific community believed that snakes could not hear and the 1988 edition of The New Encyclopedia Britannica stated the snakes could not hear but that was mistaken and the Bible was correct in this matter.[173] In addition, 19th century European naturalists were wrong concerning a matter regarding ant behavior and the Bible was correct.[174] Many creationists such as the creationist at Creation Ministries International and CreationWiki assert that the Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed.[175][176] In addition, Christianity had a profound influence in regards to the development of modern science. |
Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution
There have been significant and negative social ramifications of the adoption of the theory of evolution. The theory has been foundational to Social Darwinism, Nazism, Communism, and racism.[177] The staunch evolutionist Stephen Gould admitted the following:
In regards to evolutionary racism, Adolph Hitler wrote the following, in his work Mein Kampf:
Hitler also wrote in Mein Kampf:
Dr. Robert E.D. Clark wrote, in his work Darwin, Before and After, the following regarding Hitler and the theory of evolution:
Richard Hickman, in his work Biocreation, concurs and wrote the following:
Noted evolutionary anthropologists Sir Arthur Keith conceded the following in regards to Hitler and the theory of evolution: “The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution”.[183] B. Wilder-Smith wrote the following regarding Nazism and the theory of evolution:
As noted earlier, evolutionary ideas influenced the thinking of the nineteenth and twentieth-century Communists.[185] Karl Marx wrote in a letter the following, ""Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history." Darwin's ideas also influenced the thinking of Engels, Vladimir Lenin, and Joseph Stalin.[186] Dr. Josef Mengele's evolutionary thinking was in accordance with social Darwinist theories that Adolph Hitler and a number of German academics found appealing.[187] Dr. Joseph Mengele studied under the leading proponents the "unworthy life" branch of evolutionary thought.[188] Dr. Mengele was one of the most notorious individuals associated with Nazi death camps and the Holocaust.[189] Mengele obtained a infamous reputation due to his experiments on twins while at Auschwitz-Birkenau.[190] |
The argument of Hitler use of evolution in justifying genocide has, unfortunately, become so widespread amongst creationists that we have addressed it in Hitler and evolution. To give a brief summary we have the logical fallacy argument from adverse consequences. X implies/may leads to/causes Y, Y is immoral/tragic/considered bad, therefore X is wrong. This a ridiculous argument, so the idea that evolution is wrong because of the holocaust is not worth considering. On to the argument that Hitler's interpretation of the theory of evolution caused has two problems. First of all there is strong evidence to suggest that Hitler was himself a creationist. Second it takes a misinterpretation of the theory of evolution to come to that conclusions presented any way. The quotes from Mein Kampf are, unsurprisingly, quote mined. The complete quotes can be found in the article Hitler and evolution and so will not be reiterated here. | ||||||
Previously it was mentioned that evolutionary ideas contributed to the scourge of racism. [191][192] Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley contributed greatly to the theory of evolution broadly being accepted in the 1900s. [193] Darwin, Huxley, and the 19th century evolutionists were racist in sentiment and believed the white race was superior. [194] For example, Charles Darwin wrote in his work The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex the following:
John C. Burnham wrote, in the journal Science, the following in regards to the theory of evolution and racism:
Harvard University's Stephen Jay Gould stated, "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."[197] Also, according to atheist philosopher David Stove the theory of evolution was influential in regards to the sexual revolution.[198] An individual's view regarding the theory of evolution may also affect one's view regarding homosexuality. For example, Creation Ministries International states: In addition, creationists assert that human homosexuality is not genetic in origin.[200] |
Creation Scientists Tend to Win the Creation-Evolution Debates
Creation scientists tend to win the Creation-Evolution debates and many have been held since the 1970's particularly in the United States. Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a Wall Street Journal reporter that the "creationists tend to win" the public debates which focused on the creation vs. evolution controversy.[201][202] In August of 1979, Dr. Henry Morris reported in an Institute for Creation Research letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”[202] Morris also said regarding the creation scientist Duane Gish (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”[202] Generally speaking, leading evolutionists generally no longer debate creation scientists.[203] In an article entitled Are Kansas Evolutionists Afraid of a Fair Debate? the Discovery Institute states the following:
|
Theory of Evolution and Liberalism
In regards to the theory of evolution and liberalism, in the United States, CBS News reported in October of 2005 that the Americans most likely to believe only in the theory of evolution are liberals.[205]
Given that liberalism is so prevalent in academia, it is not entirely surprising that college graduates are indoctrinated into the evolutionary paradigm via evolutionary propaganda. |
Further Reading (including free on-line versions)
|
Good explanations of evolution please! |
Footnotes
- ↑ Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, Definition for "evolution"
- ↑
- Dr. Don Batten, A Who’s Who of evolutionists Creation 20(1):32, December 1997.
- Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.,F.M., Refuting Evolution, Chapter 1, Facts and Bias
- ↑ CBS News (online), Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution: Most Americans Do Not Believe Human Beings Evolved, November 2004
- ↑ Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
- ↑ Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
- ↑ Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
- ↑ http://www.wasdarwinright.com/home.htm
- ↑ http://www.wasdarwinright.com/home.htm
- ↑ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm
- ↑ Russell Grigg and Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Intelligent Design—‘A War on Science’ says the BBC]
- ↑ Paul McHugh, The Weekly Standard, Teaching Darwin: Why we're still fighting about biology textbook. March 28, 2005
- ↑ Nilsson, Heribert, Synthetische Artbildung, Verlag CWK Gleerup, Lund, Sweden, 1953, page 1185
- ↑
- ↑ Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831
- ↑ Full quote can be seen here
- ↑
- ↑ Charles Darwin, (1859),The Origin of Species, Project Gutenberg online text
- ↑
- http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1877
- Barrett, Paul H. Darwin on Man 1974:276
- American Scientist May 1977:323
- ↑ http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1877
- ↑ Russell Grigg, Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again!
- ↑ Russell Grigg, Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again!
- ↑ MedicineNet.com, Definition of Lamarkism
- ↑ Dr. Jerry Bergman, Evolutionary Naturalism: An Ancient Idea First published: TJ 15(2):77–80 August 2001
- ↑ Dr. Werner Gitt, 10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution First published: Creation 17(4):49–51, September 1995
- ↑ NorthWest Creation Network, Quotes on Genetics
- ↑ Jonathan Sarfati, P.H.D., F.M., Climbing Mount Improbable:A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins
- ↑ Pierre Grasse regarding mutations
- ↑ Pierre Grasse regarding mutations
- ↑ [ http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre Grasse regarding mutations]
- ↑ Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296
- ↑
- Answers in Genesis, Mutations: Questions and Answers
- Dr. Jerry Bergman, Darwinism and the Deterioration of the Genome
- Jonathan Sarfati, P.H.D., F.M., Climbing Mount Improbable:A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins
- Jonathan Sarfati, P.H.D., F.M., Refuting Evolution, Chapter 2, Variation and Natural Selection Versus Evolution
- Answers in Genesis, Natural Selection Questions and Answers
- ↑
- Dr. Walt Brown, Center for Scientific Creation, Life Sciences
- Jonathan Sarfati. P.H.D., F.M.,Who's Really Pushing 'Bad Science'?
- ↑ Dr. Jerry Bergman, Does Homology Provide Evidence of Evolutionary Naturalism?
- ↑
- Dr. Georgia Purdom, If Human and Chimp DNA Are So Similar, Why Are There So Many Physical and Mental Differences Between Them?
- Dr. Don Batten, Human/Chimp DNA Similarity: Evidence for Evolutionary Relationship?
- Jonathan Sarfati, P.H.D., F.M., Refuting Evolution, Chapter 6, Humans: Images of God or Advanced Apes?
- ↑ Creation Ministries International, Speciation: Questions and Answers
- ↑
- ↑ Jonathan Sarfati,Ph.D., F.M. Refuting Evolution 2, Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science
- ↑
- ↑
- ↑ Stephen E. Jones, Creation/Evolution Quotes: Mechanisms #1
- ↑ http://bevets.com/equotesg3.htm
- ↑ 42.0 42.1 42.2 Dr. Walt Brown, Center For Scientific Creation, Codes, Programs, and Information
- ↑
- ↑
- Dr. Walt Brown, Center For Scientific Creationism, Notes and References: Codes, Programs, and Information
- PubMed Central (PMC), Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information by David L Abel1 and Jack T Trevors
- ↑ Dr. Stephen Meyer, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2):213-239. 2004, The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories
- ↑ 46.0 46.1 "Another Evolution Fraud Exposed" - Creationism.org, INVESTIGATING GENESIS SERIES.
- ↑ http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C03EFDD123EE033A2575AC0A9659C946697D6CF
- ↑ http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf
- ↑ http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf
- ↑
- ↑
- ↑ Creation's Tiny Mystery: Chapter 7: Creation Science—a Public Issue
- ↑ THE DARWIN PAPERS, VOLUME 1, NUMBER V, FOSSILS: HISTORY WRITTEN IN STONE
- ↑ NATURAL DISCONTINUITIES AND THE FOSSIL RECORD
- ↑ Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, Chapter X: ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD
- ↑ Dr. Walt Brown, Center for Scientific Creationism, References and Notes: Distinct Types
- ↑ NATURAL DISCONTINUITIES AND THE FOSSIL RECORD
- ↑
- ↑ Sir Edmund Leech, Addresing the 1981 annual meeting of the British Association for the advancement of Science, 'Men, bishop and apes'. Nature vol 293, 3 Sep. 1981, p. 19 and 20
- ↑ Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D., 15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American’s Nonsense—Argument #13
- ↑ Dr. Walt Brown, Center For Scientific Creationism, References and Notes: Fossil Gaps
- ↑ 62.0 62.1 62.2 62.3 62.4 62.5 62.6 62.7 62.8 62.9 Dr. Don Batten, Punctuated Equilibrium: Come of Age?, 1994
- ↑ Stephen Jay Gould, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters," Natural History 86 (June/July): 22-30
- ↑ Answers in Genesis, Those fossils are a problem
- ↑ Dr. Don Batten, Gould Grumbles About Creationist ‘Hijacking’
- ↑ Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2 (May 1981)
- ↑ Dr. Walt Brown, Center For Scientific Creationism, References and Notes: Fossil Gaps
- ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1208mayr.asp
- ↑ Ernst Mayr, 1982a. Speciation and macroevolution. Evolution 36, page 1120
- ↑ Stephen Jay Gould, "Not Necessarily a Wing," Natural History 94 (October 1985): 12-25;
- ↑ Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, (New York: Basic Books, 2001), p. 14
- ↑ 72.0 72.1 Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, P.H.D., F.M., Archaeopteryx (unlike Archaeoraptor) is NOT a hoax — it is a true bird, not a “missing link”
- ↑
- ↑
- Jonathan Sarfati, P.H.D., F.M., Tiktaalik—a fishy ‘missing link’
- Frank Sherwin, M.A., Tiktaalik: Our Ancestor?
- Dr. David Menton, Tiktaalik and the fishy story of walking fish
- ↑ Christian Answers Network, The Fossil Record - References
- ↑ Dr. Walt Brown, Notes and References: Fossil Gaps
- ↑ Sean Pitman, M.D., Early Man
- ↑ Solly Zuckerman: Biography
- ↑ Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.
- ↑ Encyclopedia Britannica (online): Paleoanthropology
- ↑ Dr. David Pilbeam: Brief Biography
- ↑ Answers in Genesis, Those Fossils Are A Problem
- ↑ 83.0 83.1 Sean Pitman, M.D., Thoughts on Evolution From Scientists and Other Intellectuals
- ↑ Brad Harrub, Ph.D., Bert Thompson, Ph.D., and Eric Lyons, M.Min., Human Evolution and the “Record of the Rocks”
- ↑ Brad Harrub, Ph.D., The “Glorious Mess” of Human Origins
- ↑ 86.0 86.1 National Geographic (online edition), Joel Achenbach, PALEOANTHROPOLOGY, Out of Africa, Are we looking for bones in all the right places?
- ↑ Frank Sherwin, M.A., "Human Evolution" An Update
- ↑ Bert Thompson, P.H.D. and Brad Harrub, P.H.D., 15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American's Nonsense
- ↑ 89.0 89.1 89.2 89.3 89.4 89.5 89.6 Ian Anderson, "Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin's rib", in New Scientist, 28 April 1983, page 199
- ↑ http://www.creationism.org/articles/quotes.htm
- ↑ 91.0 91.1 91.2 W. Herbert, Science News. 123:246 (1983)
- ↑ Creation Ministries International, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3048 Anthropology and Apeman Questions and Answers
- ↑ Answers in Genesis, Anthropology and Apeman Questions and Answers
- ↑ Brad Harrub, Ph.D., Bert Thompson, Ph.D., and Eric Lyons, M.Min., Human Evolution and the “Record of the Rocks”
- ↑ http://www.amnh.org/science/divisions/paleo/bio.php?scientist=eldredge
- ↑ http://dannyreviews.com/h/The_Dynamics_of_Evolution.html
- ↑ Yale Review of Book, Spring 2002 issue, Monograph: Punctuated Equilibrium
- ↑ http://www.arn.org/ftissues/ft9801/johnson.html
- ↑ http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/shermer_sjgould.pdf
- ↑ http://dannyreviews.com/h/The_Dynamics_of_Evolution.html
- ↑ Yale Review of Book, Spring 2002 issue, Monograph: Punctuated Equilibrium
- ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp
- ↑ http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_hopeful-monsters.html
- ↑ http://www.jstor.org/view/00143820/di000259/00p0112v/9?frame=noframe&userID=80cd9169@buffalo.edu/01cc99331a00501bfcac5&dpi=3&config=jstor
- ↑ 105.0 105.1 http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_structure.html
- ↑
- ↑ http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html
- ↑ http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html
- ↑ L.C. Birch and P.R. Ehrlich, Nature, vol. 214 (1967), p. 349
- ↑ http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/two-just-so-stories/
- ↑ http://darwinstories.blogspot.com/
- ↑ http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html
- ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_science.asp#r1
- ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp
- ↑ http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5044
- ↑ http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/evolution/cooperat.html
- ↑ http://www.icr.org/article/146/
- ↑ http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2331
- ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/ants.asp
- ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/planes.asp
- ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i4/migration.asp
- ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/whale.asp
- ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter5.asp
- ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i2/whale.asp
- ↑ http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4340
- ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/beetle.asp
- ↑ http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Woodpecker.htm
- ↑ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719
- ↑ http://www.ldolphin.org/ntcreation.html
- ↑ http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm
- ↑ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html
- ↑ http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640
- ↑ http://creationresearch.org/crsq.html
- ↑ http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/
- ↑ http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640
- ↑ http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/page-14-text?firstview=1
- ↑
- ↑ http://www.bookrags.com/research/lysenkoism-wog/
- ↑ http://www.bartelby.com/65/ly/Lysenko.html
- ↑ http://www.bartelby.com/65/ly/Lysenko.html
- ↑ http://www.bookrags.com/research/lysenkoism-wog/
- ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp
- ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp
- ↑ http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836
- ↑
- ↑ http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836
- ↑ 147.0 147.1 147.2 Strange Planets - Creationscience.com
- ↑ 148.0 148.1 Star Births? Stellar Evolution? - Creationscience.com
- ↑ 149.0 149.1 Galaxies - Creationscience.com
- ↑ http://www.icr.org/article/547/
- ↑ http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=240771
- ↑
- ↑ 153.0 153.1 Sarfati, 1999, Chapter 8, How old is the earth?
- ↑ http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836
- ↑ Adrian Hope, Finding a Home for Stray Fact, New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83
- ↑ http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm
- ↑ http://www.apologeticspress.net/articles/184
- ↑ Views in U.S. Much Different Than Elsewhere, Kenneth Chang, ABCNews.com, 1999.
- ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp
- ↑ http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57840
- ↑ http://www.expelledthemovie.com/
- ↑ http://www.ovpr.uga.edu/researchnews/97su/faith.html
- ↑ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html
- ↑ http://elane.stanford.edu/wilson/Text/5d.html
- ↑ http://www.dcmsonline.org/jax-medicine/2000journals/may2000/editorial.htm
- ↑ [1]
- ↑ http://www.levity.com/alchemy/caezza4.html
- ↑ http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011664/Roger-Bacon
- ↑ http://www.jstor.org/view/03697827/ap020019/02a00050/0
- ↑ http://www.geoff-hart.com/resources/2006/intheory.htm
- ↑ http://www.easst.net/review/dec1998/bastos
- ↑ http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BLions87.htm
- ↑ http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BCobra94.htm
- ↑ http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm
- ↑ Bible Scientific Foreknowledge
- ↑ http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1718/
- ↑
- ↑ http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/social.html
- ↑ http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/09/15/a-church-apology-to-darwin/
- ↑ http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=268
- ↑ http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_holocaust_why_did_it_happen
- ↑ http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v08n3p24.htm
- ↑ http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_holocaust_why_did_it_happen
- ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/nazi.asp
- ↑ http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276
- ↑ http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276
- ↑ http://www.posner.com/book1.htm
- ↑ http://www.posner.com/book1.htm
- ↑ http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/joseph_mengele.htm
- ↑ http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/joseph_mengele.htm
- ↑ http://www.icr.org/article/55/
- ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/racism.asp
- ↑ http://www.icr.org/article/55/
- ↑ http://www.icr.org/article/55/
- ↑ The Descent of Man, chapter VI
- ↑ http://www.icr.org/article/55/
- ↑ http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=268
- ↑ http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18094
- ↑ Web-cast Questions & Answers - CreationOnTheWeb.com
- ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0928ep5.asp
- ↑ Ankerberg, John, and Weldon, John, Truth in Advertising: Damaging the Cause of Science
- ↑ 202.0 202.1 202.2 Fraser, Bill,Who wins the Debates?
- ↑ http://www.icr.org/article/811/
- ↑ http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/02/are_kansas_evolutionists_afraid_of_a_fai.html
- ↑ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
- ↑ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
- ↑ http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2176
- ↑ http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm
- ↑ http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html
- ↑ http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html