|
home | what's new | other sites | contact | about |
||
|
Word Gems exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity
Toppling the pillars of Darwinism:
return to "Evolution Controversy" contents page
The sheer magnitude of the “evolution-versus-creationism” debate has driven me to despair in terms of addressing it with any semblance of complete research. Originally, I’d intended a full series of survey-articles, such as the one on “missing links,” which would highlight and discuss each aspect of the controversy. However, as I rethink this project, why should I do this? There are many good sources, readily available on the internet, which have credibly addressed these issues. Instead, rather than “re-invent the wheel” here, I will offer a brief outline of some of the material, with an encouragement to “internet search” for more information. A “Cliff’s Notes” approach, strategically applied, will keep this writing to manageable proportions, allowing me to focus on items that will not be readily available to you.
toppling the revered icons, trampling the holy relics of materialism Most of us will be somewhat familiar with the popular “proofs” of evolution listed below. There’re famous. If you’ve had a biology course in high school or college, you’ve been offered these “sacred doctrines” of materialistic science. As you will discover, however, this will unfold as the reverse of “Miss Clairol: the closer you get, the better she looks.” With these arguments, it’s more like, “the closer you get, the more it all evaporates and disappears” into a funny-business and nothingness of outright fraud, gratuitous analysis, unwarranted conclusion, unscientific mindset, dogmatic assertion – in other words, we’re looking at a “fake news” effort, designed to bolster a materialistic world-paradigm.
Comparative embryology: The sketches of embryos originally created by Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) are still found in modern biology textbooks, even though it’s come to light that these drawings were offered fraudulently. They do not accurately depict the embryos in question; further, Haeckel’s assertion of embryonic similarity is easily falsified by new information in this field. Nevertheless, these tired old “fake news” depictions are still trotted in textbooks out as “proof” of Darwinism. Homology: (literally, “a study of sameness”) Comparative embryology is a subset of homology, an investigation of the anatomical similarities among various species. Concurrence here is given to us as evidence of common ancestry. However, as creationists point out, the similarities might just as easily support a view of “common design” by an Intelligent Designer. But this possibility is never mentioned by Darwinists. “Eohippus” to the modern horse: Those who first analyzed the “eohippus” fossil classified it as “rock badger” not a proto-horse. The famous artwork with its nice-and-neat stair-step increase of equine size represents a flight of fancy, an unwarranted “connecting of the dots,” with no necessary linkage among the participants. It’s all conjecture; as meaningful as a side-by-side comparison of a unicycle, a motorbike, a Model-T, a ’54 Chevy, and a new Lincoln. READ MORE Dark and light peppered moths: This is another famous example from textbooks. It’s considered to be a cornerstone of Darwinian evidence. And yet, when we look at the facts, no evolution, no change, took place. All that happened was a variation in population-numbers among the dark, intermediate, and light-colored moths. And these numbers went back and forth. No net change to the creature itself. Stanley Miller and the amino acids: Another textbook sensation, originally promoted as one short step away from “creating life in a test-tube.” Again, the closer we look, the less that meets the eye. Amino acids are mere “building blocks” of proteins, a far, far, cry from “life,” which has not even been conclusively defined. A “building block” is like a single piece of Lego. Will it construct itself, all by itself, into a house, a farm, a town? Will the amino acid craft itself into a fully functioning organism? Further, as is now admitted, the “environment” Miller allowed for the assemblage of the amino acids did not represent what we believe to be the early Earth atmosphere. Also, as Goswami points out in his book, “Creative Evolution,” proteins are so complex that their coming into being via randomness would require a period of time longer than the entire history of the universe! But such detail is never mentioned in the excitement of the headlines, “Life Created In A Test-Tube!” It’s just more fake news. Editor's note: See the article "Not Enough Time, Part II" for further discussion on the complexity of protein molecules. There's not enough time in trillions of universes! Missing links: We discussed this in a separate article; but, this area too represents opportunity for wild conjecture. First, let it be said that evolutionists themselves, in any case, claim only a mere handful of examples when scores of thousands are required for their theory. But, concerning their candidates, how do you determine if a creature is an intermediate "missing link" or a stand-alone entity? If it's surviving and doing well, as it would have to do to maintain itself, how do we know it's "just passing through" on the road to becoming something else? This is pure speculation. Some animals have not changed in millions of years. Why should we presume that a purported "intermediate" is half-way along to morphing into a new form? Vestigial organs: A hundred years ago it was believed that nearly 200 aspects of the human body were unnecessary, mere vestiges of a primordial evolutionary past. You might remember this being said about the human appendix, which we now understand to be associated with the body’s immune system. How many “vestigial organs” are on the list today? Virtually zero. And yet "vestigial organs" is still promoted -- with a wink -- as a major proof of evolution; but only to the party-faithful.
|
||
|
|
