Posts Tagged ‘Darwinism’

Perry Marshall – 7 Biology Myths an Electrical Engineer Would Never Tolerate

June 21, 10

An excellently written, quite clear piece – 7 Biology Myths an Electrical Engineer Would Never Tolerate by Perry Marshall, introduced to me by my dad.

His basic thrust on the topic overall is that macroevolution is true, however the traditional Darwinistic idea of it being random and unguided is a fallacy. You could say that he holds to a fusion of evolution and Intelligent Design, which gels with my own Sin Theory of Evolution.

An excerpt, which is actuall the conclusion:

BOLD HYPOTHESIS: When Biologists accept what Electrical Engineers know about information, a whole bunch of problems in biology will be solved:

1. The random mutation theory will be discarded. It will be replaced with Transposition, Natural Genetic Engineering, Horizontal Gene Transfer and Genome Doubling. Suddenly evolution will make sense because it is understood as an engineered process not random accident.

2. We’ll discover that what was originally thought to be junk DNA is actually the heart of the most sophisticated database format ever devised.

3a. Evolution will not be taken for granted but deeply appreciated as an utterly ingenious mechanism, pre-programmed into living things. As software engineers replicate the evolutionary algorithm in computer programs, we’ll achieve huge breakthroughs in Artificial Intelligence.

3b: Evolution is orchestrated at a very high level within the organism. It is controlled by a mechanism that is currently poorly understood. This mechanism is beautifully efficient, elegant, fractal, and follows a very exact mathematical protocol. Bioninformatics will become the most rigorous discipline in engineering. The ‘code’ of this protocol will be cracked because of the Human Genome Project and the public availability of DNA sequences. This discovery will lay the foundation of an entire new branch of Computer Science in the 21st century.

4. The “Physics and Chemistry” paradigm of biology will be replaced with a “Bioinformatics” paradigm. Evolution and the origin of life theories will make much more successful predictions.

5. Neo-Darwinism will be discarded because biologists will recognize that biological evolution is just like Genetic Algorithms: It employs pre-programmed goals and educated guesses, not random chance.

6. Rather than assuming designs in biology are “pathetic” or “stupid” we’ll discover deeper reasons for why organisms are the way they are. And greater insights into the subtlety of living things.

7. Everything in biology makes sense once you understand that every single one of the 5 million trillion trillion cells on earth is purposeful and intentional and the original cells were designed to evolve and adapt.

Biblical History and Aspects of Macro-Evolution Are Highly Likely to Be True

January 16, 08

IMHO, the Bible’s account of historical events is well verified in many places by archaeological and manuscript discoveries.

Many of these are ‘anecdotal’ in that just the name of a certain person or a certain place described in the Bible have been verified by secular research.

But other examples are highly detailed and specific, such as the Cyrus cylinder vs Book of Ezra.

With so much correlating evidence in favour of parts of the Biblical account, it is highly likely that the remainder of the Bible – the parts not yet proven definitely factual – is also accurate.

Yet Bible skeptics continue to contend that the Bible’s historical account is flawed, fictional, or only vaguely connected to actual historical finds – this in spite of mounting evidence dug up from the ground.

But that got me thinking… Isn’t that the same thing I am personally doing with the fossil record of macro-evolution?

(Macro-evolution being from one species to a new species, rather than modification within a species.)

To be precise: The theorized evolution of whales, from land-based mammals to halfway-aquatic, then finally fully aquatic swimmers. For more on that, see these educative comments:

My objections to the reasoning that ‘fossils = proof of evolution’ is that such evidence is, to me, circumstantial – the fossils are individual and isolated snapshots frozen in time.

Three different fossils may show a whale-ish land mammal with running legs, a water-land mammal with swimming legs, and an almost modern whale with atravistic hind legs. But these fossils could merely show three unrelated animals that happen to look slightly similar.

But now I compare it to the standard I hold Biblical archaeology to: For example, the Cyrus cylinder seems to independently verify the account of the Jews returning to Israel after the exile to Babylon, along with corroborative facts such as the Jewish legacy in Iraq (e.g. Babylonian Talmud).

But these findings could merely show that the writer of Ezra had at least moderate research skills. Cyrus was a famous name, and his decrees would be heard across the known nations. It could have been that a Jewish scribe used Cyrus’ decree as the basis for a (fictional) story of the triumphal return of the Jews.

So by the very same standard with which Biblical skeptics dismiss the archaeological and manuscript evidence that I feel proves Biblical history (you need complete historical accounts!), I am dismissing the fossil evidence that evolutionists feel prove descent with modification (you need more transitionals!).

Therefore, if I am in any way consistent, fair and unbiased in my judgement, I must come to the same conclusions for both disciplines.

So here it is at last: I admit that certain aspects of the theory of evolution, namely the gradual descent with modification of certain species into different species, is highly likely to be true.

With one caveat: That the accusations of fraud and misleading raised by sites like Answers in Genesis are unfounded (compare that to Wikipedia on whale evolution and see this comment for a counter).

Greatest of thanks go to commentor Ed Darrell, who was quite tireless in presenting information and links to convince me of the factual truth of evolution (despite my obtuseness).

I’m not 100% there yet, but I’m middle-ground rather than strongly skeptical. I still have issues with other aspects of Darwinistic evolution, such as how the various Phyla formed and why no transitionals seem to survive to the current day.

So, to summarize: Using the same standard for both, I believe Biblical history and cetain aspects of macro-evolution to be highly likely to be true, as corroborated by physical evidence dug up from the ground.

Welcome in, have a seat and a hot cup of chocolate, certain aspects of macro-evolution!

But global warming still stays outside in the CO2-caused record snowfall.

Please Cite Me the Evidence for Evolution and Global Warming

December 17, 07

So anyone, please tell me:

What evidence is there that firmly demonstrates the occurrence of evolution in the past or present?


What evidence is there that firmly links rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to the increase in global temperature?

Can anyone actually cite some worthwhile evidence, apart from the easy-to-debunk, endlessly rehashed fallacies and disproven non-facts?

What I’m looking for is definitive, conclusive evidence that completely excludes all other explanations… Not piles of circumstantial evidence that can be equally well explained by other theories.

In short: I want proof that DIRECTLY AND UNCONTESTABLY PROVES that evolution or global warming is a fact, not CONJECTURES BASED ON (HIGHLY) CORROBORATIVE DATA that it is a fact.

Also, clarification: I’m looking for proof of macro-evolution, i.e. evolution from one species or even Class into a whole other type of life form. Micro-evolution, i.e. adaptation within a recognizable kind of life form, is a given.

The bet: That you cannot quote or link me any evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that evolution has happened, or that global warming is caused by human produced carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere.

The stake: If you present an argument that I actually find compelling, I will believe in evolution and/or global warming. I will publicly admit as much from now on, including the fact that I was wrong about the subject before.

Note: I’ll keep a very open mind, but good luck trying. I was once a strong believer in both evolution and global warming, until I actually LOOKED AT THE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS MYSELF instead of just accepting what the evolution textbooks and An Inconvenient Truth say.

So you might have a hard time re-convincing me of all the old arguments that I had debunked for me to turn me from proponent to skeptic.


Why I Feel About Global Warming The Same Way I Feel About Evolution

100 Scientists Dissent Darwinism

100 Scientists Dissent Global Warming

The Sin Theory of Evolution – Reconciling Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design

November 22, 07

The idea in brief:

Here is my ‘Sin Theory of Evolution’ that reconciles Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design:

1) I believe God created the world and all life, and He created it perfect;
2) But we do see some evidence of gradual evolution in fossils and DNA;
3) Yet this gradual evolution is too complex to be the product of random chance – it seems more like careful design by a powerful intelligence (ref: Irreducible Complexity);
4) Many physical features of lifeforms are purposed for harm (e.g. thorns, claws, poison stingers) – pointing to a sadistic, malevolent sentience manipulating it.

Combining the above: God created life; humanity’s sin spoiled it and continues to mutate it; and the devil is the evil Intelligent Designer who has been tampering with God’s original genetic blueprints over the millennia to produce ever more harmful, horrific DE-evolutions.

Evolution is not life getting better and better. It is merely life trying not to die as the entire of creation deteriorates!

After all, in a perfect world with no death, ‘survival of the fittest’ is nonexistant – EVERY ANIMAL SURVIVES, hence there is no mechanism for Darwinistic evolution! Physical features like paralyzing venom or a hard shell would be superfluous – there is no prey to catch or predation to hide from!

But is that all there is? Thankfully no, because Jesus’ redemptive sacrifice cleanses sin and will one day return all creation to its original, non-evolving perfection. Amen!

Bible references: God created life (Gen 1 & 2); animals originally ate plants (Gen 1:29-30); sin introduces death (Gen 2:17 & Rom 5:12) and harmful features of lifeforms (Gen 3:18); the devil has temporary power over the world (2 Cor 4:4 & Eph 2:2); Jesus will repair the world (Isa 11:6-9 & Rom 8:23)


“I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.” – Charles Darwin

The above quote from the hero of evolutionists himself points out one conundrum faced by creationists and Intelligent Design proponents alike: If the multitudes of life forms on this Earth are created or designed by a just and loving God, then how could He create creatures with such cruel features as parasite-depositing stings, or razor claws coupled to a (let’s face it, fellow cat lovers) horrifically sadistic mind?

I believe I may have a suitable answer.

Here’s an interesting theory fleshed out by myself, one that reconciles Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design. Impossible? Believe it or not, I think it makes sense.

(If you’re lazy to read, summary of my theory at bottom of this post.)

This post first assumes the following:

1) God as portrayed in the Bible is real.

2) God created all life on Earth as Creationism holds.

3) Evolution is an existing process that affects the descent of life as the theory of evolution holds.

4) Life is too complex to be formed by purely random chance, especially complex organs such as the eye or the stinger, as Intelligent Design holds.

Now watch as I reconcile these disparate assumptions, beginnign with some basic introduction to those topics



The theory of Evolution holds that life was first formed from inorganic matter. This simple life then gradually, randomly changed as it multiplied and spread. The better changes resulted in the organism surviving better, thus being able to have more offspring which in turn survived and multiplied.

Over millions of years, these bit-by-bit adaptations have resulted in the varied forms of life we see today. From bacteria to apple trees to ants to whales and humans, all are descended from the same ancestor, with the poorer features weeded out by death – a process called natural selection.

And throughout this gradual evolution, there was no guiding force behind it all – only random chance and natural forces of selection.

Pro-evolution scientists and supporters claim that there is ample evidence that supports the theory of evolution, such as how some fossils seem to show halfway-formed appendages and how life forms seem to share common links.

More confrontational supporters also like to taunt Christians by pointing out creatures like sharks and parasitic wasps, asking: “How can a loving God create such vicious and horrible creatures?”



According to the Bible, God created all life on this Earth, wilfully and intelligently. His ultimate creation was man. God made everything perfect, but man sinned and spoiled this perfect creation.

But because of the corrupting influence of sin, death entered into the world. Man and animal turned violent, with the first recorded murder being perpetrated by Cain against Abel. Creation had been tainted and spoiled, twisted into a nightmarish parody of Eden.

In the Bible (namely, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2) it is made clear that God was directly responsible for all life on Earth. In fact, He was responsible for all creation. But how exactly he made life appear (Creation: How?), and how long he took (literally 6 days, or is that just a figurative description?) are not stated.

Pro-creation supporters claim that there is no solid evidence of evolution, such as fossils that clearly show the small steps between forms of life that evolution requires.

On the contrary, they cite many shortcomings of the theory, such as how there seems to be no possible method by which complex organs could have evolved gradually, when even the tiniest missing part would render ther whole organ completely useless. (X-Men: An Example of Intelligent Design)

Which is the basis of Intelligent Design theory.



The theory can be explained like this: If you came across an extremely complex design feature, one with hundreds of interlinked parts, would you immediately think it was randomly formed… Or intentionally and carefully designed?

Let’s say 10,000 years in the future, an alien explorer discovers the ruins of post-apocalyptic Earth. The first thing they notice is all the ‘four-appendaged fossils’ of the ‘predominant life form’ in the ruined cities – cars.

They begin studying the cars, and notice that they have similar traits but with significant variation. Some as smaller, some are bigger. Some are two-doored, others have retractable roofs. They also notice that the cars seem closely related to trucks, vans and the two-wheeled motorcycles.

Then one of them discoveres a three-wheeler, a vehicle with three wheels (Benz Patent Motorwagen). This is hailed as an amazing discovery, proof that four-wheeled life forms were descended from two-wheeled life forms – with the three-wheeled life forms as an intermediate species!

The alien scientists soon build an entire tree of evolution, showing how trucks diverged early from the car line to evolve different engines. Unusual vehicles like tanks are touted as proof of specialization, a modification to deal with the attacks of predatory vehicles – perhaps those large ones with massive jaws that we call bulldozers.

Sounds like a strange and improbable scenario? That’s what seems to be happening with the theory of evolution today, says supporters of Intelligent Design.

Look at a car, see how well designed it is – every part working together with some other part, to result in a fully functional whole vehicle. What are the chances that such a complex machine could have been put together by completely random forces – such as a hurricane passing through a junkyard?

Or does the intricate design of the car logically point to a designer who is highly intelligent – in this case, human engineers?

Now look at biological life – at the eye, at the neuron, at the bombardier beetle‘s explosive chemical blast that repels atatckers yet doesn’t kill itself. What are the chances that all this DNA and proteins and organic matter formed from random forces – such as lightning striking toxic organic elements such as cyanide?

Or does the incredible complexity of biological life, far more advanced than what humans can design (like the echolocation of bats that trumps our best sonar), point to a designer who is supremely intelligent?

And that’s Intelligent Design briefly explained.



Now here is what I’ve thought up. In the Bible, it is written that before the introduction of sin to mar God’s perfect creation, there was no death or killing. Animals ate grass and lived peacefully with one another.

Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.Genesis 1 : 29-30

Now if creation was already perfect, then of course there would be no need for evolution. There was no danger or competition to adapt to. There was no death to escape. Everything was going along swimmingly.

According to the theory of evolution, why did lions evolve huge fangs? So that they could more effectively hunt and kill their meaty prey to eat. Why did gazelles evolve fast sprinting? To better escape hungry lions.

But if the lion and the gazelle were originally able to live in peace with each other, they would never have to evolve to survive. There was no death to avoid, and therefore no natural selection to weed out ‘unfit’ genes. In fact, if creation was perfect, then there wasn’t such a thing as less-than-perfect genes either!

Evolution happens due to natural selection, the fittest surviving. Before sin and death came, there WAS NO natural selection – every animal survived. There is simply no need for evolution when life is already forever unchanging at its pinnacle.

Therefore, in a perfect and sinless creation, evolution has no place at all. Who would need to mess with God’s perfect handiwork, after all?

As Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis puts it:

…when Christians believe in millions of years, they have a problem of consistency by insisting on death, carnivory, disease, and thorns before sin!

(See also the ‘animals living in peace’ promise of Isaiah 11:6-9, which I go into towards the end of this post.)



Now picture the entry of sin into the world, with a single act of arrogant disobedience by Adam and Eve.

Let me first say that sin is the most powerful mutation-causing agent in existence. It singlehandedly caused humans who were supposed to live forever to age and die. It corrupted our minds and hearts to turn to society-destroying evil. And after it accomplished that, it went on to shorten the days of man from centuries to mere decades.

And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”  – Genesis 2 :16-17

…Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned… – Romans 5:12

So imagine as sin spreads its corrupting influence… All of a sudden, the grass-eating lions start to crave for meals of flesh and blood. The lions turn on the lambs (and gazelles), ripping them to shreds for their warm, bloody chops.

As time passes, sin mutates the predators to become completely dependant on meat for food. In order to catch this meat, the lions evolve/mutate to be even more fatally endowed, with throat-ripping fangs and razor-sharp claws.

And those that do not have such weapons? They soon die from starvation and competition, removing their un-modified genes from the next generation’s pool. There’s your natural selection for you.

Meanwhile, in order to survive in this new and brutal world, the other creatures must adapt. Those that are weaker are hunted down and eaten, leaving only the fittest to pass down their genes. They even have to adapt and compete among themselves as food grows scarce.

Further evidence of the deterioration of creation can be seen in this:

To the woman he said,
“I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.

It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field. –
 Genesis 3:16-18

From almost painless childbirth, something changed (i.e. mutated) so that childbearing became much more painful.

From being defenceless, plants began producing physical defences to protect themselves from being eaten (whereas God originally willed them to be eaten by all animals).

So again, the Bible records how sin acted as a mutagen, a catalyst to spur the evolution of life forms so that they could fight to live in a hostile, cruel fallen world.

And that is the Sin Theory of Evolution in a  nutshell. It is the horrible effects of sin that turns a perfect and peaceful life form into a vicious killer, or a frightened prey animal.

Evolution is not life getting better and better… It is merely life trying not to die as the entire of creation deteriorates!

Evolution away from God’s original and perfect design, quite frankly, looks totally evil!

If this is true, then any intelligence behind evolution must be the Devil himself!



Heh, I can just imagine Adam sandler’s Mama Boucher in The Waterboy saying that! Anyway…

Remember how I said that confrontational evolution supporters like to taunt Christians with examples of mean, spiteful and wicked-seeming life forms? Such as horrible parasitic worms that burrow out of your legs (Dracunculiasis). Freaks me out, totally!

Now, the evolutionists will spit in your face and claim that a loving Creator could never design such horrible creatures. See that quote by Darwin at the top of this post again.

So as the atheist-evolutionist argument goes, either God is not loving to design such monsters, or He is not perfect or all-powerful since He couldn’t stop such monsters from arising, or there is simply no Creator God at all!

This is not a problem for non-theistic Intelligent Design proponents, as all that they require is an Intelligence to design life… It does not necessarily have to be a moral and kind Intelligence.

But it does pose a problem for Intelligent Design proponents who are also Christians. Because if they use an example of some extremely complex, not likely to be randomly evolved biological feature – such as the famous bombardier beetle’s hydrogen peroxide explosive reaction – the atheist can counter that these designs are inherently violent (explosive death) and often obscenely cruel (corrosive chemicals), which are contrary to the idea of a just and caring Christian God.

Now according to the Sin Theory of Evolution, the correct responce would be: God did NOT directly create such frightening creatures. His original creation was perfect and peaceful, and very agreeable indeed.

What happened is that sin caused horrible mutations to appear, mutations that simultaneously aided in the survival of a species… But at the cost of other life forms.

And just as humans are subceptible to the whispered temptations of the Deceiver, so too I believe, the Devil has a certain amount of influence on the path of evolution.

I mean, think about it: A tiny worm that invades your brain (Trichinosis), heart (Heartworm) or lungs (Ascariasis) and multiplies until you die in writhing, helpless, despairing agony.

Is this more fittingly found in Heaven, or in Hell? (Where ‘the worm does not die’; but see my exegesis of the doctrine of hell.)

More like the work of a loving God who gave His own Son for our sins, or a jealous and rebellious corruptor who enjoys twisting all that is good to become evil?

So let me say it out straight: In the Sin Theory of Evolution, Satan is the Intelligent but Malevolent Designer behind all complex evolution that leads to destructive biological features!

He has been toying with God’s perfect work, trying to make it ‘better’ (i.e. more vicious and destructive) according to his own corrupted ideals.

God made a flying insect with a long ovipositor to lay eggs deep in the ground where it’s moist and cool? Corrupt it with sin, evolve it over generations to have a sharp stinger to lay eggs inside caterpillars! There’s your unbenevolent Ichneumon wasp, Darwin. NOT God’s fault.

So it is with all other nonbenevolent, too complex to randomly evolve biological adaptations… All (or most) of them are examples of Satan taking God’s original design template, and messing with it to produce horrible and twisted versions. It’s like an ill-behaved child trying to ‘fix’ a clock by removing all the gears, then sticking them back in however he feels fit.

Evolution, if it exists, is merely the tool or the result of his dastardly meddling in and muddying of the gene pool. And if he can make the necessary changes within a few generations, then that explains the lack of ‘transitional’ fossils as well.



No way! For God is faithful, just and true… A God of love and mercy!

God in His wisdom and love provides a way out. Through faith in Jesus’ redeeming sacrifice on the cross, sin will be erased and creation made perfect once more:

The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them.

The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

The infant will play near the hole of the cobra,
and the young child put his hand into the viper’s nest.

They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD
as the waters cover the sea.
Isaiah 11:6-9

Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.Romans 8:23

Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when He (Jesus) appears, we shall be like Him (i.e. perfect), for we shall see Him as He is.1 John 3:2



So here is a summary of what I have conjectured in the Sin Theory of Evolution.

God created all life perfect. How He did it exactly is not ascertained – it could be by instantaneous creation or gradual evolution.

Inherent within life were intelligently designed features, such as the very mitochondria providing energy to our cells.

Then the fall of man introduced sin as a corrupting agent, a mutagen if you will. Not in any way a good thing.

Some life forms turned carnivorous, and over time those better suited to killing prey had more offspring – the process of natural selection.

The prey which were better suited to survival too had more offspring, continuing the genetic arms race.

Simultaneously, sin gave the Devil power over Earth and all its life. The Devil started using his own (evil) intelligence modifying life’s designs into destructive features, in order to elevate himself and to spite God – accelerating the genetic arms race.

Over time, and with more and more natural selection and Devilish meddling, the basic peaceful forms of life ‘evolved’ into today’s myriad species with their fangs, claws, poisons and parasitism.

Therefore,  sin = cause of evolution.

And also,  cruel Intelligently Designed biological features = caused by the Devil.

But of course, I have no hard physical evidence to support this theory… It is merely logical and theological conjecture.

And there you have it: The Sin Theory of Evolution, that reconciles Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design. By Scott Thong.

Hope you’ve enjoyed the little science and theology session.

PS. See also this blog post on how bacteria ‘evolve’ resistance to antibiotics. No new genetic information is ever ‘randomly created’. Everything that is needed is already coded in there (including in the ‘junk’ DNA). This fits my Sin Theory of Evolution well.

Why I Feel About Global Warming The Same Way I Feel About Evolution

March 21, 07

The IPCC says that the increase in average global temperature is very likely (more than 90% likely) due to a human activity-caused increase in greenhouse gases.

In other words, that global warming is increased by human activities.

Should we put our trust in the IPCC report?

The IPCC is an grouping formed by the United Nations. It comprises 2500+ scientific expert reviewers, 850+ contributing authors and 450+ lead authors from 130 countries over the past 6 years.

So these scientists are gathered by the IPCC to look at the issue of global warming from all angles, and to objectively test the veracity of all arguments, both pro and con… Right? Well, not quite. (Btw, glance through my posts about the reliability of the United Nations.)

With these sort of credentials, it must be a sure case that global warming is increased by human activities. Right?

Well, let me put it this way. The ‘vast majority’ of scientists claim that evolution is real. Evolution is a fact. Evolution is proven. Although there are some (actually, many) who contend that evolution is merely a theory, not a proven fact, evolution supporters summarily dismiss them as quacks and religious nuts.

Despite the fact that fossils of transitional (halfway in-between species) life forms are practically nonexistent. Despite the fact that there remains no viable naturalistic explanation for how life was formed and can evolve complex organs. Despite the fact that evolution has never been observed…

Evolution is pushed at us as a ‘fact’. The minority who do not support it are denounced as mistaken fools. But is it really so?

Thus we have a mass majority of ‘expert’ scientists who loudly claim that evolution is a proven fact. The ordinary people going about their everyday lives believe it, in no small part thanks to school textbooks, the mass media and a general preference to not having a Creator that they can be held accountable to.

Compare that to the current public perception about global warming.

The IPCC is portrayed as a mass majority of ‘expert’ scientists who loudly claim that global warming caused by humans is a proven fact. The ordinary people going about their everyday lives believe it, in no small part thanks to Al Gore’s film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, panicky alarmism and the convenience of blaming local environmental problems on global warming.

Despite the fact that they use computer models to predict very complex things that have never been accurately predicted. Despite the fact that the climate has always been changing since long before humans invented industrial machines. Despite despite despite the fact that carbon dioxide forms a miniscule part of the atmosphere, that satellite temperature data contradicts the observations of ground stations, that many places including Antartica have actually been getting cooler in the past decades…

Human-caused global warming is pushed at us as a ‘fact’. The minority who do not support it are denounced as mistaken fools. But is it really so?

Is it all really so…

But let me be clear on this: Evolution and global warming are two completely separate issues. If one is proven or disproven, that doesn’t mean that the other is as well.

And if either is conclusively proven to me beyond reasonable doubt, then I will accept it as a fact and change my stance. That is my claim to objectivity and reasonableness. (Can evolutionists and global warming doomsayers say the same?)

The point I’m trying to make clear is simply this: Just because many people, or even a majority of scientists, say that something must be true… It doesn’t mean that it really is so.

And that is why I feel about global warming the same way I feel about evolution.

Compare also 100 Scientists Dissent Darwinism and 100 Scientists Dissent Global Warming.

%d bloggers like this: