Transgenic Cows and the Odds Against the Darwin Theory

The mathematics against the origin of life arising by the interaction of normally occurring natural forces are easily understood, but the probabilities of naturally occurring mutations that result in entirely new species are not as simple to measure. However, recent news about the failure to mix human and cow DNA in transgenic cows provides a small window into the problem. The evidence shows that each species’ DNA is so awesomely complex that it is not malleable; it is not naturally mutable.

29_fransiscrickWhile one of the co-discoverers of DNA, Francis Crick, believed the odds were so stacked against life originating by the operation of natural forces that alien intervention would be at least as reasonable to assume, the complexity of  variables in DNA and epigenetics makes similar computations for the relationship between species extraordinarily complex. Nevertheless, the failure of top scientific intellects to design a blend of the DNA between two species, human and bovine, show how intensely the odds are stacked against evolutionary theory.

Recently, GE Free New Zealand released a report covering 15 years of AgResearch trials using 60 cows bred to express certain transgenic proteins, including a human protein, in their milk. The report is based on information obtained from New Zealand’s form of the United States FOIA request called an Official Information Act request or OIA. After fifteen years of experimentation, from the many thousands of transgenic embryos the cows have carried, the average live birth rate has ranged from 0 – 7%.

Starting with Crick, modern genetic engineering itself represents a developing communal intelligence of over fifty years. This communal intelligence has made many genetic breakthroughs. For instance, the New Zealand genetic engineers have achieved solid success in developing species specific bovine traits that benefit the beef industry. However, when endeavoring to handle transgenic bovine-human DNA, genetic engineers have experienced nothing but failure.

Consider the significance of this for the Darwin theory. The intelligence these labs represent intervenes into the treenatural environment and accomplishes in hours what Darwin speculated might happen over the course of thousands and thousands of years. That is, these scientists introduce a new, genetically diverse bovine DNA code into the “evolutionary cycle.” They introduce something like a transitional species such as is needed in the phylogenetic trees essential to the Darwin theory’s explanation of the fossil record.

This millennial “time lapse” occurs each time a scientist generates a single embryo. These New Zealand scientists generated thousands of embryos with diverse DNA. In addition, these scientists endeavored to generate compatible strands of DNA. They were not randomly mutating genes. These scientists had a specific “evolutionary” goal in mind and extensive experience in genetic mapping. Furthermore, the genetic goal was not even an “intermediate” species or hybrid between cow and human. The goal was a slight expansion or alteration of bovine specific DNA beyond a cow’s natural species specific genetics.

The experiments were utter disasters. AgResearch’s annual reports cataloged “a sad and profoundly disturbing cowstory of illness, reproductive failure and birth deformities.” Even worse for the Darwin theory, most of the transgenic cows were not able to reproduce past the first generation. Sterility resulting from genetic transformations, no matter how profitable the new adaptation might be for the survival of the species (and none were at all profitable for adaptation), is death to evolution. Even more ruinous for Darwinism is that the transgenic cows which did produce a second generation all bore sterile offspring.

In Darwinian evolutionary terminology, thousands upon thousands of years finally produced a single alternate form of Bovine DNA, but the embryo couldn’t survive until birth. Multiply this failure by thousands of thousands of years of failures until a single embryo survives. Then that embryo is sterile. Then repeat the millennium again and again until, at last, an embryo survives that can breed… but… but… its offspring… all sterile, as sterile as the Darwin theory.

Perhaps some day, heaven forbid, mankind will be able to generate mutant species, monsters that can survive and breed. It won’t be by chance. It will only be by intelligent design.

If twisting a species’ DNA requires intelligent design. How much more intelligence must it take to originate a species. How much more intelligence must it take to engineer all of the teeming multitude of living things that swim, fly and walk the earth, surviving and interacting in ways more intricate than the human mind can fully comprehend, let alone express. Now think about the Planner Who is the only possible explanation for the Universe. That’s not church. That’s logic.

 

Top Evolutionary Scientists Concede Darwin Makes About as Much Sense as Space Aliens

The theory is called “directed panspermia.” It was first proposed by Nobel Prize winning evolutionary

Crickscientist Francis Crick in a 1973 paper he co-authored with biochemist Leslie Orgel. Basically, these two say that man didn’t come from apes (well not entirely); mankind came from space aliens!

The question is, why did these top scientists reject the gradualism of neo-Darwinism in favor of a theory that sounds, well, silly?

Crick was a thorough, dedicated scientist and mathematician who was, with James Watson, one of the co-discoverers of the DNA molecule. Crick, though, realized that the DNA molecule was too perfect to have arisen by chance. Even given the eons of time postulated by the big bang theory of the origin of the universe, the complexity of a single cell makes its appearance by chance combinations of inert chemicals and proteins utterly impossible.

Thirty years after his discovery of DNA Crick wrote this about the most plausible explanation of the spontaneous generation of DNA from RNA: “What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely (my emphasis) sequence of events.”

If gradualism, one of the theoretical elements of evolutionary change in the reconstructed Darwinism of the 1960’s, is inadequate in explaining the origin of life, then another force, besides undirected materialistic ones, must be in play throughout the history of life on earth. If there is another, non-materialistic, force involved in the history of life, the Darwin theory is incomplete, and, therefore, inadequate. But wait! What if there were aliens who seeded earth with life? This theory solves the origin of life issue and accounts for the missing non-materialistic force that would, otherwise, render neo-Darwinism utterly incoherent.

Likewise, Leslie Orgel, the co-author of the theory of “directed panspermia” and a pioneer in the study of RNA as the evolutionary precursor toaliens DNA, was also not satisfied with any contemporary theory of life’s origin. Orgel’s last comment on the subject was that “almost everything else about the origin of life (except a timeline) remains obscure.” For Orgel and Crick, space aliens were as likely an explanation for life on earth as the reconstructed Darwin theory of the 1960’s that we teach our kids.

Essentially, in supposing extra-terrestrial sources for human life, Crick and Orgel threw in the towel on Darwinism and the neo-Darwinism of the 1960’s. In other words, for those who care little for scientific jargon, over thirty years ago, two top scientists, Crick and Orgel blew off the scientific theories of cellular origin found in virtually every high school textbook word-wide. If you haven’t been in school for a while, see this very same debunked theory is proudly spun on page 31 of this international biology textbook.

While there are a number of “fringe” groups that bring this inconvenient truth up before the public once in a while, for the most part all of this breaking news three decades later!

Even more amazingly, guess what the buried lead is? Sure, Crick and Orgel decided that space aliens provided a more likely scenario for the origin of cellular life than our kids’ evolution-based science curricula, but the real headline is that, in contrast to the random selection involved in the Darwin theory, these two top scientists chose Intelligent Design as the best possible explanation for life on earth. Here is the abstract from Crick and Orgel’s original paper:

“It now seems unlikely that alien01extraterrestrial living organisms could have reached the earth either as spores driven by the radiation pressure from another star or as living organisms embedded in a meteorite. As an alternative to these nineteenth-century mechanisms, we have considered Directed Panspermia, the theory that organisms were deliberately (my emphasis) transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings (my emphasis) on another planet…”

That’s correct. The intelligent designer these top scientists postulate isn’t God… No… no…. it’s space aliens… But the buried lead is that these scientists endorsed an intelligent design theory for the development of life on earth over thirty years ago, and no one has said a word. Instead, scientists have been fired and or vilified for proposing such a scandalous notion. Courts have broken their gavels decrying any curriculum that even suggests an intelligent designer for life.

In the end, no one makes fun of the audacity of suggesting that space aliens designed life on earth as opposed to the traditional world wide belief in a Creator. That’s because modern Western culture prefers to believe in space aliens than in an Omnipotent Creator.

It hasn’t always been this way. Western culture for victorious generation after victorious generation with eyescientists as bold as Francis Bacon, as ingenious as Gregor Mendel, and as magnificent as Sir Isaac Newton, accepted and extolled a munificent Creator. The West has become a tragically perfect illustration of that which was written: “professing themselves to be wise they became fools.”  Today, from the Hubble telescope to the electron microscope, we can see the wonders of creation as no other people ever dreamt and what do we choose to believe in? Space aliens.

 

Global Warming was NEVER Scientific

A Philosophy of Science: Part I

All anyone has to do to get an American to believe any absurd lie is to hire some “scientist” with alphabet soup behind his name, put him in a white lab coat, and have him utter: “Science conclusively shows that…” Then name the absurdity: “the sky is green,” “toothpaste causes tooth decay,” or “fungi have an I.Q. equal to baboons.” The idiot American will wander off marveling and willing to vote for more limited economic conditions or to have fungi teach in the public schools.

Americans, and the West in general, can be excused to an extent for this naiveté about the claims of “science” because thelab1y are surrounded on every side with evidence of the power of science. From personal gardening, to cell phones, to manufacturing three dimensional plastic commodities of every possible shape, technology is advancing constantly in every category of life. Why shouldn’t Americans be utterly impressed with its claims? On the other hand, being so surrounded by science, it’s pathetically ironic that so many don’t understand the first thing about the nature of scientific claims. The blame for this, however, doesn’t rest solely with the modern moronic American. The fundamental issues of his confusion arise from a failure of public education that, in turn, can be traced back to the highest academic circles.

The primary culprit is failure in the field of scientific philosophy. The modern trend has been to count every field that wants to name itself scientific as scientific. This horror is a direct function of another aspect of idiotic American culture in which no one is allowed to say “no” to any other living creature. In a judicial retreat from such an obstinate enemy of reason, it seems reasonable not to be judgmental even concerning scientific judgments. Instead, it seems better to sort the fields of science into their kinds rather than to declassify branches of human study as non-science. Global warming can then be recognized as significantly different from the experimental or natural sciences in its methods, truth claims, and in the nature of the certainty it can provide.

Consider, as examples, the following categories of human study as elements that contrast with the natural sciences:

The study of man’s actions historic and current: This is the area of the greatest certainty. Words such as “true” and “false” can be applied in this area. This is the area of written history, law, and legal applications. This area does not include the science of archaeology except in so far as archaeology is involved with establishing the testimony of once living witnesses by application to written records. Causes are certain. People took actions or did not take actions that had certain specific results. Just because an event cannot be proven, someone, somewhere, past or present, dead or alive, knows or knew, what really happened. The words “cause” and “effect” have real meaning and statements are true to the events or they are less than true.

Antarctica Icebound Ship (1)

Dec. 2013: This Russian ship, researching vanishing polar ice, is, ironically, trapped in thick Antarctic ice.

The study of logical functions: This includes mathematics, linguistics, computer science, and logic itself. Here “true” and “false” do not apply. Although we often use these words colloquially, technically, we mean “valid” or “invalid.” To some extent a philosophical system can be judged as valid or invalid. Likewise, an utter lie can be valid or invalid. Great lies, like great literature, are internally valid.

Finally, in contrast to this brief context, consider the study of the natural sciences, those concerned with accurate descriptions of regularity. The more accurate the descriptions, the more immediately the regularities can be tested and the more powerful their predictive capabilities will be. The natural sciences, then, according to this definition, do not make truth claims. Validity is not as important in the natural sciences as it is in math. While certain aspects of a definition may not be perfectly logical, as long as the description allows scientists to measure regularity within a valid mathematical paradigm, the system of natural science developed is relevant and useful.

Cause and effect do not have “truth” values in the natural sciences because they are always open to revision. In the natural sciences a scientific theory may have an internal consistency or validity, but it cannot be said to be true, for it also is always, by its very nature, open to revision. Only insofar as a natural “law” or regularity is described accurately can it serve as a “cause” in a scientific theory.

The natural sciences describe what man has not done. They describe what all humanity experiences collectively. This is a shared experience exactly because it is what humanity finds, not what humanity has done. At times the natural sciences define a world that is amazingly orderly. Although this orderliness suggests truth values for ideas like “cause” and “effect” or “law” and “design,” such conclusions are not part of the study of the natural sciences at all. Instead, the truth value of these ideas are part of the study of philosophy of which every human partakes and of which more can be said elsewhere.

This open-ended, rough copy, descriptive and testable “causal feature” is unique to the natural sciences. It is, also, therefore, critically important in separating natural sciences from other branches of study. The causal features of true natural sciences must be immediately and directly testable. Therefore, the causal claim of a natural science is not “true” or “false” but “provable” or “not provable.” If it is not provable by an immediate test, the causal feature is simply irrelevant. Because an absurd causal theory must come from a human mind rather than from a regularity found in nature, descriptions of such theories as “false” are acceptable. Descriptions of false theories as “fraudulent” or “lunatic” are equally acceptable. However, natural science itself only discovers and then accurately describes regularities in the natural realm.

By accurate I mean Newton’s gravitational constant. While Newton’s causal claim seems almost self-evident to us today, itscientist took humanity thousands of years of studying the heavens before the accuracy of this scientific definition changed the world. In fact each of the four fundamental forces of physics exemplifies mathematically accurate causal definitions. Lavoisier, the father of the modern periodic table, murdered irrationally by the aggrieved, miserable ones of the French Revolution, named hydrogen and oxygen because they were testable causes. “Oxy-gen” means “acid maker” and “hydro-gen” means “water-maker” (See Lavoisier). The periodic table is a symphony of scientifically precise, immediately testable “causes.” The elements explain why certain compounds react and then change into others. By the way, the gravitational constant and atomic theory have been subject to change and revision throughout the last century. Science’s power is not in the immutability of its causal definitions.

Science’s power is in the application of its immediately testable first principles. The application of Newtonian physics allows us to hit the moon with a rocket. The application of the testable causes in chemistry has transformed the modern world.

Compare this now to the Theory of Global Warming. While the theories of natural science and chemistry have minutely accurate mathematical definitions as fundamental “causes,” where are such causes and constants anywhere in the Theory of Global Warming? They simply don’t exist. Where the natural sciences build citadels of mathematically valid superstructures, superstructures established by successful application to a wide range of phenomenon, there are absolutely no such mathematical ratios or equations anywhere in the Theory of Global Warming. Does the Theory of Global Warming utilize the scientific method? How could it? The effects of greenhouse gasses, the “cause” in this theory, can only be measured effectively in a closed space, yet Global Warming Theory must measure the interactions of heat and gasses on a massive, world-wide scale, enclosed only by gravity.

Is global warming unscientific? Despite the title of this article, this would be very difficult to argue in the muddled world of scientific philosophy; however, it is very much unlike the natural sciences, and that should be enough. The natural sciences, the sciences most Americans consider as the agents of “scientific progress,” depend on predicting repeatable, testable phenomenon. The arc of a cannonball doesn’t vary; that allows science to learn and predict.

So if global warming’s causes are not at all like those of natural science, then what about the knowledge claims it makes for its outcomes? No, these too are very unlike those of the natural sciences. Global warming theorists are interested in predicting a single outcome, an unprecedented outcome that depends on the agency of mankind and fossil fuels. Instead of describing a regularity, Global Warming is attempting to describe, as true, a single event. Global warming theory has no interest in reproducing regularities that occur in nature.  Hence, as to causal claims and as to the outcomes it claims to predict, Global Warming Theory is very much unlike the natural sciences.

While most Americans equate “scientific” with the natural sciences, there are other branches of widely accepted fields of science that, like global warming theory, are very different from the natural sciences in either the description of their causes or in the outcomes they seek to predict or demonstrate. Many of these fields acknowledge some of their differences with the natural sciences and have come to refer to their disciplines as “historical sciences.” This however is a misnomer for these fields seek to explain prehistory. Such fields must be filled with conjecture because one can never return to the world of prehistory in order to test the predictive capability of the scientific causes involved and there are no eye witnesses whose testimony can be evaluated. All such sciences, historic sciences,  are, like global warming, very different than the natural sciences. Everyone should say so loudly and often.

Darwinism is NOT a Natural Science

CEyU6aXVEAIpBjf

This Living Fossil Speaks Against Darwinism: http://newsrescue.com/a-80-million-year-old-rare-frilled-shark-fossil-found-in-australia-speaks-against-darwinism/#ixzz3a4OuCgeb

Whether or not Megalodon lives or is indeed extinct, Darwinism is NOT a Natural Science. The whole point of evolutionary science is different than that of the natural or experimental sciences. Evolutionary science, like the theory of man-made climate change (see Part I), seeks to explain singular natural occurrence while the natural sciences seek to explain constantly recurring natural phenomenon. Without saying whether evolution is right or if it only an extinct relic of a dying culture, it is plain from thinking about science, that the point of experimental sciences and evolutionary sciences are different. This is a gentle way of saying that evolution not a science. If evolution or neo-Darwinism is fundamentally not like experimental sciences, it’s findings can’t be what we commonly call scientific.

Despite trying to claim Mendel’s law as its province, evolution really doesn’t try to explain constantly recurring processes. This is all the natural sciences, or experimental sciences care about, but evolution wants little to do with the recurring phenomenon studied in experimental sciences. Evolution may rely on naturally repeating processes as evidence for its conclusions, but that’s just the point. Evolution is always trying to take another step past the findings of the natural sciences. In so doing, its conclusions are always beyond the sphere of the experimental sciences. In other words, evolution’s conclusions, cannot be scientific.

Evolution’s primary purposes are to answer some of the same questions that philosophy must answer in order to accomplish philosophy’s object of explaining man’s identity and his relationship to the world. That’s why, since evolutionary science shares many of the same goals, claims, and challenges as philosophy, and since evolution is clearly separate from the natural sciences, evolutionary science should be considered a branch of philosophy. Evolution should be part of the departments of philosophy, and not of science.

Because the aims, goals, or purposes of evolutionary science are different from those of the natural sciences, the knowledge claims or conclusions of evolutionary science must also be different in quality.

While evolutionary scientists seek to explain what really did or what really did not happen, the natural sciences’ only value is in explaining what will happen based on what is happening. As in the discussion of any historic event, evolutionary biologists seek to establish a truth value for their conclusions or claims while a natural science’s value is only in the accuracy and precision of the description of changes in natural processes. While, yes, it is important that the chemist establish that two parts hydrogen and two parts oxygen really did combine to form water at a certain time or place according to a certain ratio; scientifically, what really happened that day is constantly on the laboratory table. The scientific reality behind what happened on a certain day when a certain scientist combined two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen and got water is what the natural scientist is all about. These two branches of science differ in this regard as much as the natural sciences differ from the study of human actions historic and present (see Part I). In the study of human actions historic and present, just like in the study of “evolutionary events,” what really did happen is all that matters. A human did or did not make a choice that did or did not have a direct effect.

In the nature of its goals, challenges, and conclusions, evolutionary science is somewhere between the natural sciences and the study of humans actions. Like the study of human actions, the truth value of what did or did not happen is of supreme importance to the evolutionary scientist. Like the study of human actions, the focus of the evolutionary scientist is on singular, unique, one-time occurrences in the past; specifically, the origins of each modern species. The events of these origins either really did or really did not happen. On the other hand, like a natural scientist, the evolutionary scientist seeks ongoing evolutionary processes as causes leading to the origin of the species. Like the natural scientist, evolutionary science may continually revise its hypotheses as ongoing genetic phenomena are more fully understood. To the extent that evolutionary scientists do not seek ongoing processes to explain the origins of the species, but rely only on the fossil record, they are in a position regarding certainty as difficult as geologists who study prehistory.

The Triops longicaudatus is a living fossil that hasn’t evolved in the last 220 million years.

However, unlike the study of human actions, the evolutionary scientist has no words of testimony to evaluate and, unlike the natural scientist, observing recurring phenomena is the smallest part of his science. While there are ongoing processes that he may seek and refine as causes or explanations, the fundamentals of the theory of evolution itself preclude the study of recurring phenomenon. For instance, each evolution, even within a species, according to evolutionary assumptions, occurs by chance. Hence, these cannot recur. Likewise, evolutionary scientists, by the precepts of their discipline itself, can make no predictions of future events by which they might test their axioms. Stranded between these two fields of human study, evolutionary science has not the comfort of the certainty found either in the study of human actions or in the natural sciences. What then is the fitting description for this discipline?

It ought to seem strangely vexing to evolutionary science to be thus uncertain while eternally wed to that branch of the natural sciences endowed with, in many respects, the highest degree of certainty; for the idea of evolutionary forces cannot be extricated from the study of living organisms, from biology. In many regards biology is the spoiled darling of the natural sciences, for she reveals absolutely indisputable causes and effects. Sight is the result of the eye, circulation of the heart, breath of the lungs, and hearing of the ear. The more biologists study, the more perfect the causal connections woven into living creatures prove themselves to be, for the human body is plainly a machine of almost unimaginable complexity and perfection. In physics scientists must speculate that the world is mechanical and that there are absolute physical laws by which everything can be explained. In chemistry too, the causes must be supplied by a philosophical faith in the orderliness of the universe; but in biology, in the study of living creatures, design screams from every cell via an intricacy that transcends human language.

From such wonders springs philosophy. While natural scientists surely pause in their work and marvel at what they’ve learned, and while such marvels must surely inspire them to further research, the goal of the natural sciences has nothing to do with the wonders they behold. Their field seeks certainty by accurately describing repeating phenomena and predicting their recurrence. Likewise, even if the inspiration to study evolution springs from the philosophersremarkable diversity of living things past and present, evolutionary science would claim that an accurate knowledge of the origins modern species is its only goal. While philosophy seeks the meaning of the cosmos, evolutionary theory, like the natural sciences, seeks the definition of this world. However, like philosophy, evolutionary science, seeks to identify what really did or did not happen in a past about which other people can tell us nothing. Philosophy wants these answers as part of understanding the nature of man and his relationship to the natural world. Hence, while the ultimate aims are different in philosophy and evolutionary science, both fields must, in part, cover the same ground. Hence, as is also the case with philosophy, evolutionary science must rely primarily on what evidence suggests. Philosophy and evolutionary science each have only circumstantial cases for their conclusions. The natural sciences, on the other hand, are forever producing the eye witness testimony of their causes or culprits for everyone to see. Even modern trials with video evidence lack the certainty of the natural sciences. Philosophy and evolutionary science would both be thrilled to produce a smoking gun, but the natural sciences reproduce the actual crime in minute, painstakingly slow motion detail for every jury they ever face.

The interest in tales of a Megalodon still living today is an example of how much people love imagining things that no human eye has ever seen. But this isn’t the field of the natural sciences, it is the field of philosophy and of philosophical science. It’s not that there isn’t a science to reconstructing how a Megalodon would appear. There mayshark-prehistotric-460x252 even be natural sciences involved in reconstructing such a creature realistically. However, ultimately, the natural sciences do not care, nor can they show with their usual certainty, whether or not we’ve gotten the recreation correct.

Again, both philosophers and evolutionary scientists must study things about which no other people can inform us, and they must form conclusions about events that do not recur. Although we tend to think of philosophers as old Greek guys in togas, those old Greek guys based much of their conjecture on the science, such as it was, of their times. Today, like evolutionary scientists, philosophers may generalize the universe based on modern scientific discoveries (see Clarke’s discussion of Liebniz).

Based then on the clear, clear differences between evolutionary science and the natural sciences, and recognizing philosophy as the branch of study most similar to evolutionary science in object, truth claims, and in their challenges to certainty, it seems reasonable to put evolutionary science into a group of sciences most properly call the “philosophic sciences.” While some, including Jay Gould himself, who recognize many of these differences in the fields of science enumerated above, call these fields “historical sciences,” this categorization is really a misnomer, for it is far too euphemistic.  Many elements of historical sciences can abide within the safety of the realm of having human eye witnesses who have left written testimony; however, so called historical sciences are really after subjects about which no human testimony exists. Calling evolutionary science and elements of paleontology, astronomy, and geology that fall into these categories merely “historical” sciences does the challenge and significance of their fields little justice. On the other hand, these key distinctions of which Gould and others whisper in their symposiums or delineate in their personal publications, should be broadcast with every new discovery and pounded into high school textbooks everywhere. The sciences that have changed the Western world are the natural sciences NOT the philosophic ones.

The Marxist Sciences: Evolution and Global Warming

A Philosophy of Science Part III

Despite significant evidence that the last decade has seen almost no rise (New York Times 6/11) in global temperatures, the United States president passionately endorsed the G-8 position that global warming is an issue more pressing as ever. Despite recent evidence that global cooling is taking place while green house gasses are emitted in volumes much greater than used in climate change computer models, former Vice President Al Gore has complained that the Obama administration’s new rules effectively raising the cost of carbon energy, are insufficient.

Graph

Climatologists all know what these numbers represent. The science behind global warming has been falling apart for a decade; however, instead of admitting the failure of their computer projections, they realign the models according to the new baselines (see IAEA projections).  Most recently, faced with the reality that no one believed the science, world leaders, despite a lack of evidence, persuaded the premier non-scientist in the world, the Roman Catholic Pope, to use his “Divine Authority” to command Roman Catholics accept economic ruin in the name of climate change science.

This problem doesn’t arise from epistemological or methodological problems in the historical sciences. Instead, the circumstantial nature of the evidence in the historical sciences allows for the psychological or philosophical power of the ideas embodied in some of these “historical sciences” to distort reality.

For instance, the study of global warming theory is, itself, not observable, and since its evidence is non-experimental, or of a nature that can be repeated in many different laboratories at will, it is tempting for some adherents to view the circumstantial evidence establishing the theory one way while those who don’t believe in the theory see the evidence differently. Recently, life-long environmentalist Tony Heller set the absolutely contradictory sets of evidence in opposition in the following chart:
ScreenHunter_10009-Jul.-27-12.16

Are these conflicting evidentiary patterns the result of fraud or of bias? Either way,  the influence of powerful philosophic ideas will blur the interpretation of evidence and even the recognition of certain types of evidence. Laboratory results are far less susceptible to these kinds of human weakness than are the historical sciences, for the first requires only an eyewitness while the historical sciences must rely so heavily on circumstantial evidence, inference, and good judgment.

Hence, sciences that study past events and embody ideals that encompass philosophic questions about humanity’s identity and mankind’s relationship to the world  should be called  philosophical sciences.

Of course, political and economic factors play into the illogical stubbornness with which scientists refuse to be directed by the evidence, but these factors, in turn, are representative of the ideological power of the ideas embodied in global warming theory.

The ideas global warming science embodies work on human pride. People want to believe that they have the power to both predict and prevent climate events on a global scale. The idea that we don’t have this kind of power has an emotional impact. Additionally, the idea of man made climate change introduces the idea that mankind, without a powerfully restraining government, is dangerously evil and that only a powerfully restraining government can offer hope for humanity. Both of these ideologies are elements of a progressive philosophy. The former Vice President continues to make incendiary claims about global warming and only laments that he doesn’t have the scientific evidence to show what he knows is really important politically: that global warming will destroy us all with floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes. No one doubts the former Vice President’s  progressive, socialist ideology.

While scientists properly recognize the problems of scientific methodology and ultimate certainty (see Part II) when michaels-img1they distinguish between “historical sciences” and “experimental sciences,” the term “historical science” fails to recognize the psychological power of the ideas represented in these fields of study. Global warming should, based on its methods, aims, and knowledge claims, be associated with the historical sciences (see Part I), but it rarely is. On the other hand, evolutionary science is often placed in this category. Like global warming, evolutionary science embodies powerful philosophic ideas, the acceptance or rejection of which has a powerful impact on the psyche.

Evolution as a Philosophical Science

If Global Warming’s philosophic nature finds expression politically, she is but a young second cousin of the Marxist science that has dominated the political world for over 150 years. Marxism, a historic fiction based on humanity evolving into a workers’ paradise, piggybacks on the kraken of Darwinism and neo-Darwinism. Darwinian philosophy is in direct conflict with the Blessings of Liberty that is the foundation of the American Idea.

No matter with which view of the modern evolutionary debate one sides, it’s been plain that the posturing and defaming evident in the “scientific” exchanges on these topics have gone far beyond the usual squabbles of scientists passionate about their experimental theories. Even worse, because the evidence of purely historical sciences is only ever circumstantial at best, there would seem to be far less reason for the vicious recriminations that take place when an evolutionary theorist steps out of line and rejects Darwinism. What causes the intense emotional exchanges on these subjects? Philosophical ideas. Philosophy is strong drink. Discussions of the origin of humanity and mankind’s relationship to the natural world have tremendous philosophical implications in every category of life and government. This is not an excuse for “scientists” firing, lying about, and attempting to disgrace others who don’t agree with them (like Richard Sternberg of the Smithsonian Institute), but it is, instead, a kind of evidence that evolution, like global warming, is far different than many branches of scientific study.

Recent breakthroughs in genetics have pointed out complexities, even at the cellular level, that basically run out the cambrianexplosionclock on the claims of evolutionary science. Even by the geological clock of immense eons passing since the beginning, there is no mathematical way random coincidence can explain the complexity and diversity of the biological life that surrounds us (see my earlier article: “A Scientific Consensus: Darwinism is Dead”). But like global warming alarmists, instead of placidly dismissing Darwinism, evolutionary scientists protect the theory with a passion that transcends the grave. For instance, Jay Gould, noted paleontologist and evolutionary thinker, proposed an update to Darwin’s theory based on the fossil record. Gould’s theory still makes for lively debate (see “The Nature and Mechanisms of Evolution”) among evolutionary scientists, and is illustrative of the psychological power the philosophic ideas contained in evolutionary claims.

First, Gould’s example is illustrative because as is often the case in the study of the philosophical sciences, rather than simply proclaiming that Darwin’s theory does not measure up to the fossil record, Gould evolved Darwin’s theory into a slightly different one. In the philosophical science the the tendency to cling to a theory is greater than in other areas of study. Faced with irreconcilable new evidence, revise, but never surrender!  The power of the idea of a distant, unfeeling, Creator; or of only a vague “force” propelling creation, was an idea as important to Gould as the science itself.toast

Secondly, the spooky, ironic response of Gould’s evolutionary colleagues also shows the power of the philosophic ideas in these areas of study. In response to the mathematical problems of classical evolution in explaining the fossil record, Gould changed the neo-Darwinian explanation by focusing on group or species dynamics rather than on variations on individual life forms. Gould and Eldrege’s theory of “punctuated equilibrium” actually explains the fossil record better than neo-Darwinism, and it works well in explaining micro-evolutionary diversity among species all over the world. However, because Gould and Eldrege changed neo-Darwinism, their statistical explanation received such a beating from their evolutionary colleagues that Gould eventually retreated to more classical explanations of the fossil record. Why is this ironic? It’s ironic because Gould and Edredge’s colleagues could do the statistical math on the new theories of punctuated equilibrium that threatened the old hierarchy, but when it came to evaluating the statistical failures of neo-Darwinism, the very same math they’d just been so proficient at….crickets.

The congressional investigation Richard Sternberg’s workplace harassment revealed that the hubbub was because Steven Meyer’s article was the first pro-intelligent design article to be published in a refereed, peer reviewed publication. This raised concern, consternation, and furor among some scientists because having a peer reviewed article might be used to enhance the academic argument for intelligent design. They didn’t want to talk about it! Nothing could be allowed to challenge the shrine of the goddess.

In conclusion, it would be wise to separate the historical sciences into those that are philosophical and into those that do not involve ideas so toxic to human logic.

Darwinism Deselected: Darwin’s Black Box

A scientific theory, besides being readily testable, should explain the natural environment and predict future CDKpo8OXIAAGyGdscientific discovery. As Darwin’s Black Box introduces more recent developments in biochemistry, it illuminates the utter failure of Darwinism as a scientific theory.

Michael Behe’s summary of the latest in microbiology is a manageable and yet thorough read. Even college level biology students would profit by the review. Behe points out the tips of icebergs as he touches on a variety of scientific achievements, but it’s enough. The magnified view of life’s complexity at the cellular level reveals Darwinism as a drooling, infantile failure. Nothing on the cellular level could have happened accidentally, and none of the cell’s intricacies were anticipated by the evolutionary science of the 1890’s. While elements of Darwin’s Black Box are technical, Behe salts his writing with clear analogies designed to usher readers into the sparkling, jeweled caverns modern science has unearthed by delving into the nature of microbiological processes.

The Battle Against the Mousetrap

Some of Behe’s analogies, such as a mousetrap for the key concept of an irreducibly complex system, have become folk lore in the rhetorical sparing over Darwinism. Yes, there is still sparing. Though written in 1996, more than a

mousetrapdecade later, there seems to be little in the Behe’s work that has been clearly refuted or widely accepted. However, Behe, like his the mousetrap analogy, has completely moved the discussion. For instance, a number of Intelligent Design’s more vociferous opponents have all but completely abandoned Darwin in their war with Behe’s mousetrap. Rather than random mutation they have opted for notions such as self-organization (at Part 3), redundant complexity (at Part 4), or symbiosis and cooperation (Margulis). Though these alternative explanations for the irreducibly complex systems within a single cell remain riveted in naturalism, they are simply not Darwinian. If Darwin is still kicking, it’s like a hind in the jaws of a lion. In the parlance of the ready scientific mind: in the Darwin-Behe bout: “Darwin got lit up.”

Though it represents a battlefield over a decade old, Darwin’s Black Box remains an important read. Behe’s argumenmicrobets are often dismissed by an appeal to authority rather than an appeal to evidence or reason. Likewise, his detractors often truncate his arguments to the point of misrepresentation. At times too, his work is grouped with the work of others and then the examples of others are criticized while Behe’s are ignored. There is sort of a religious vehemence in the resurrect-Darwin crowd. It’s as if they seriously believe that scientific knowledge can only be produced by atheistic minds. Newton did OK. Mendel did well enough. When such emotions are engendered over any topic, it is all the more important to go to the source.

Microevolution and Macroevolution

Behe fully embraces what is known as microevolution, or evolution within a species. He does, however, reject macroevolution as an explanation for the irreducibly complex systems that are the foundation of biologic life. If the building blocks are irreducible, their combinations in complex organs are surpassingly irreducible. The likelihood, statistically, of irreducibly complex building blocks giving rise to even more irreducibly complex interactions are staggering. Some other force, reasons Behe, must be in operation besides random chance.

Of course, it is impossible not to recognize microevolution as scientific. From horse-breeding to rose hybrids, evidence for genetic change within a species is irrefutable. However, unlike many biology textbooks that, seemingly, seek to blend both microevolution and macroevolution into a single spectrum, Behe competently walks the reader through the distinctions between the two. From mammalian life to the virus, Darwin’s Black Box catalogs examples of microevolution errantly used as evidence for macroevolution.

Unlike microevolution, macroevolution has never been observed. It is the speculative part of Darwinism; it is the theoretical conclusion of Charles Darwin based on his observations of the natural world. Behe believes that the study of genetics, a field of science that has evolved since Darwin’s passing, really puts the nails in the coffin of the blurred distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. In “The Natives are Restless” section, for instance, Bmendel2ehe quotes George Macdonald of the University of Georgia who wrote: “…Those [genes] that are obviously variable within natural populations (species) do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many, if not most, major adaptive changes apparently are not variable within natural populations.”

This genetic strength within a species, this orderliness in nature, is so profound that, of the millions of forms of life in existence today, we witness no cat-dogs or mice-hares. Nor, over the century since Darwin, have we seen ought but the catfish and the horsefly as examples of macroevolution.

Behe, though, is still filled with such scientific piety that he will not willingly cast off its set traditions so easily. He yet will allow endless time for the age of the earth and eons upon eons for the spawn of chance to arrive. It is only because of the statistical impossibility of random chance giving rise to irreducibly complex systems that Behe has strayed from the flock.

Of Philosophy and Science

As a reader, I would have liked to have seen Behe take on the formulation of scientific theory. For instance, while gravity is an invisible force, its qualities are everywhere testable. Likewise, while microevolution is everywhere observable, the invisible laws of its regulation can be tested over and over. To my thinking, any scientific theory based on a definition that cannot be observed or tested is inadequate. Perhaps this, though, is more philosophy than science. Behe does, in his two sections “Acculturation” and “How Do You Know,” take on the usefulness of Darwinism as a theory in microbiology. He lists biology textbook after biology textbook with almost no index entries for evolution. He does so to show the lack of academic enthusiasm for testing Darwinian explanations, but, at least, implicitly, he also shows just how useless Darwinism has become to the actual business of science itself.

Beginning in chapter 10, Darwin’s Black Box takes on elements of natural philosophy as a guide to primitive theories of Intelligent Design. In chapter 11 this search for historic understanding of irreducibly complex systems begins to touch on the ontological and philosophical ramifications of a continued committed belief in Darwinian macroevolution. Behe does finally talk about ideas held as part of science that are not ideas formed scientifically. origin_evol_lifeLikewise, he does an adequate job surrounding the counter argument of his detractors that his conclusion that life arose by Intelligent Design is an argument from ignorance.

Behe’s casual foray into philosophy is the only place he touches on Darwinian evolution as a philosophical idea, and he does not do so directly. Darwin’s theory of evolution is, of course, plainly a philosophic notion. We would not even discuss Darwinism if the origin of life was not the question. Is such a question even in the purview of the natural sciences? Like accurate or inaccurate history, the way we answer these questions affect the way we look at ourselves, our actions and the actions of others. While Mendel’s two, very testable laws of microevolution, made no claims about the origin of life, macroevolution depends on a specific answer to this ancient philosophical debate.

Darwin’s macroevolution supposes, or potentially can be construed to suppose, no starting point. All arises from chaos. Additionally, the claims of macroevolution are that biologic life arises according to no consistent law. Instead, it arises from the principle of randomness, again from chaos itself. Even the zero in math represents the start of a period or sequence. Even the laws of probability and chance require known factors as well as unknown, variables and constants.

Conclusions

If Darwin’s answer to the origin of life is philosophical rather than scientific, then is Behe’s answer also philosophical? Ultimately, Behe’s argument for Intelligent Design contains two conclusions. The first is that Darwin is toast; microbiology cannot be explained by evolution. His second is that since chance cannot explain the natural world, only design can.

His first thesis is certainly correct. The second will be up to each reader. For some there will never be enough evidence. But for the first conclusion is more than enough scientific evidence for anyone interested in purely scientific knowledge. Darwin has been deselected in the evolution of humanity’s knowledge of the universe.

Let each high school student see that the Darwin theory is insufficient, and let the question of our origins boil within each heart. Think of the inspiration for further discovery that will result.

For other readers who, like myself, need little prompting to believe that spring rains, the human family, and a waddling mallard with her ducklings all mean this old world couldn’t have happened accidentally, Darwin’s Black Box represents the start of a great excursion. What was once the purview of personal observation has is now also the dominion of man’s greatest observational tools in math and science. The recognition of science’s power to magnify the amazing wonder of creation represents an amazing adventure. Our increased ability to observe Design through the lens of science is dramatic. We can go from seeing the dim outlines of a great lion in the distance to suddenly having a telescopic lens detailing his blood shot eyes and shaking mane as he roars upon the prey.

Oddly, where philosophers have haggled themselves hoarse on the matter of the evidence of the divine in the logic of man, Darwinism may, by being discredited as a science, allow science to bear new and powerful witness to the things of God already known to the created things from the beginning.

A Scientific Consensus: Darwinism is Dead

Stephen C. Meyer, expounding Intelligent Design in his book Signature in the Cell, makes a point he does not seem
to appreciate: for decades microbiologists have been abandoning Darwinism. Breakthrough technologies have shown nov12spreadsketchthat life at the cellular level is complex beyond anything Darwin or any 19th century biologist could have predicted. From the variety of cellular functions to the complex information transmitted in the gene, many outstanding scientists recognize that the math just doesn’t work. Intelligent Design represents only one concession to the statistical impossibility that chance caused the life of simple cells. Interrupting the following parade of microbiologists who, like Meyers, recognize that random chance alone cannot have produced the simplest cellular life, are a panoply of various conclusions flowing from a scientific consensus that Darwinism is dead.

  1. Christian de Duve, for example, a Nobel Prize winner, and in no way an advocate of Intelligent Design, has abandoned random chance as the agent of upwards evolution or the ascent of man. He envisions primordial planet earth as a chemical reaction waiting to happen. Recognizing that the odds of random chance being impossibly against the formation of a single cell, let alone man, he has ceaselessly been searching for the string of chemical reactions that, once started, must have inevitably and, without chance, led to mankind. So far… no luck.
  2. Ilya Prigogine, won his 1977 Nobel Prize for his theory that biological life self-assembled from inorganic non-life through the non-equilibrium thermodynamic processes. Again, random chance was abandoned, this time for the notion of an outside force arising in a thermodynamic process that, somehow, energized evolution. Such a force has never been identified.
  3. Manfred Eigen, won the Nobel Prize in 1967 for his work measuring extremely fast chemical reactions brought about by energy pulses. Though proud to use the term evolution, his models of the origin of life are not based on chance but on self-organizing chemical reactions that cycle to higher and higher levels. He is also the author of Eigens Paradox that explains a critical problem in positing cycles of RNA that lead to DNA.
  4. Lynn Margulis believes parasites aided random chance in the evolution of the cell.
  5. Freeman Dyson, feeling random chance and self-organizing molecular scenarios are insufficient seems to believe in a combination of Eigens self-organizing RNA cycles and Lynn Margulis sense that cellular evolution was the result of parasites.
  6. Michael Polanyi, whose interest in science often impacted his philosophic notions, rejected chance as the origin of life in Lifes Irreducible Structure.
  7. Bernd-Olaf Kppers, like Michael Polanyi, supports his notions that the whole (the living cell) is greater than the sum of its parts (chemical reactions) with evidence that random chance cannot result in the irreducible complexity of a living organism (60) nor explain the information it transmits.
  8. BerndOlaf Kppers, using methodology like that of noted Darwinian apologist Richard Dawkins, also modeled mathematical algorithms that guide randomly generated computer simulations of origin of life scenarios. Kuppers calls his theory of self-organization the molecular-Darwinistic approach. It is hard to tell what Kuppers means by statements like, inanimate matter organized itself of its own accord into animate systems (82).

Chance and randomness as the source of life is dead, as dead as Darwinism. Modern culture may have been grave  stoneconvinced by the Copernican Revolution that science can be both counter-intuitive and true. Hence, the counter-intuitive notion of chance as the author of life may have become as widely accepted as faith in the invisible electron. However, since the 1960s humanity’s knowledge of the living cell, just the living cell alone, magnifies what we have known intuitively about the order, beauty and majesty of existence: it could not have happened accidentally.

  1. Fred Hoyle, superb mathematician and astronomer who, according to some reports, deserved a Nobel Prize for his role in showing that we are all star dust, also abandoned Darwin. He was well-known for comparing the possibility of the random rise of a single cell to the chance that a tornado hitting a junkyard would produce a 747. He is not an Intelligent Design theorist in the traditional sense. Instead, he believed life came from outer space by way of Panspermia. What will they think of next?
  2. Robert Shapiro likewise abandoned random chance as the source of life as is plain from the first lines of A Simpler Origin of Life.
  3. Stuart Kauffmans work has steadily evolved. His first book The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution involves a great deal of Darwinian affirmation while it systematically demolishes any chance for a single cell to have arisen by way of random processes. However, his second book, At Home in the Universe, is much more forthright. In his more recent publication, Reinventing the Sacredhe expresses an admiration for the innate creativity of our universe. Of course his work is not religious; its all very scientific.

In the late 1950s there was a legitimate consensus of most scientists that chance gave rise to life even as Darwin’s 1249507230_1281_P576x324 celltheory predicted. This reinvigorated neo-Darwinism was well represented by scientists such as Jacques Monod, Stanley Miller, and Alexander Oparin. However, in the late 1960s this changed. As 1967 was a social crack in time for America, 1968 cracked the facade of Darwinism. The breakthrough mathematics, Darwinism’s death knell, can be found in the work of Von Neumann, Wigner, and Morowitz. Many others, like Kuppers and Polanyi, corroborated these results. Whats sad is that this was an age ago. Almost two more generations of young people have been indoctrinated into what is, today, plainly junk science about the origin of life.

  1. John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, in Anthropic Cosmological Principle point out 10 steps in the course of human evolution, such as the development of the DNA base genetic code, so improbable that before it could have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star, and would have incinerated the earth.
  2. Eugene Wigner, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963, calculated the odds of chance giving rise to the first cell at zero! (Paragraph 3). According to Kuppers, Wigner associated himself with a teleological model (p. 80 ), or a belief in an unknown biological principle that differs from the mechanical laws of inanimate matter.
  3. Robert Sauer of MIT reported the odds of a functional series of amino acids arising in several of the 100 known proteins were 1 in 1063. Try the odds of getting a series of these proteins together in self-replicating chains.
  4. Harold Morowitz has also abandoned chance as the reason for the origin of life. He believes that thermodynamic energy is stored in chemical bonds of higher and higher complexity. His theory is unproven. Morowitz testified against the Creationists in 1982.
  5. Alexander Cairns-Smiths alternative to Darwinian randomness as the source of life is called the clay theory. It became an allegory for a type of self-organizing process that might have occurred in pre-biotic earth. Though his theory is not widely accepted, since the odds are zero that random chance alone generated a single cell, the search for such a pre-biotic missing link continues.
  6. Hubert P. Yockey in Self organization origin of life scenarios and information theory takes on the self-organizing theories of Shapiro, Kauffman, de Duve, and Prigogine. Although he claims not to be an I.D advocate, his denials (far down this page) are surprisingly supportive.
  7. Leslie Orgel, a classical Darwinist to the end, nevertheless took on a variety of his contemporaries’ origin of life scenarios such as self-organizing molecules arising through catalytic cycles, the contributions of meteor activity, and that life started on volcanic ocean vents. Orgel also challenged the likelihood of the pre-biotic RNA world suggested by Joyce, Szostak, and Holliger. His conclusion is that the odds against these theories are insurmountable at this time.

All of the above speculative notions arose because the scientific complexity of the cell was nothing Darwinism predicted or could explain. The scientific consensus is that there is no way chance could produce something so complex. There had to be, therefore, additional naturalistic answers. There just had to be. They’ve looked for forty gj_1 cell 3years; so far, nothing. No promised land… nothing. Have we heard about the wandering reductionists plight in our lowly high schools and state colleges? No… more’s the pity.

Like Richard Dawkins, though, Orgel would say that based on what we know now there is no chance that a single cell arose by random processes. These scientists have faith in Darwinism. This is why, at its core, the Darwin Theory is a philosophy of science. Will some breakthrough someday show that random chance caused life? That premise is not falsifiable; it is not testable. It is not scientific and cannot be disproved. However, right now the odds that random processes generated even a single living cell are zero. That is the provable, consensus science today.

If random processes cannot produce even a single cell, how much more impossible is it that they produced a daffodil, a dolphin, or a man? Darwinism is dead.

Although a number of microbiologists such as Gerald Joyce, 2009 Nobel Prize winner Jack Szostak, and Philipp Holliger profess to be inspired by Darwin’s notion of incremental evolution through random chance, their methodology is one of conscious synthesis. On the one hand, they have begun designing RNA molecules in an attempt to construct a series of incremental steps consistent with classical Darwinism. In 2009 Joyce’s group produced a self-replicating RNA strand, and recently Hollinger’s group made RNAzymes of 93 bases that self-replicate even more reliably than Joyce’s. These molecules are enzymatically active. On the other hand, Hollinger confesses the sheer joy of scientific accomplishment in finding their needle in the haystack (paragraph 6) even if by way of synthetic biology (paragraph 7).

Neither lab seems to have shown any interest in developing a statistical analysis of the odds of RNAzyme arising by chance, but, even more instructively, the choice of methodology dismisses any genuine belief in chance as an agent of molecular design. Using highly sophisticated laboratory techniques to develop previously unknown forms of RNA instead of working with billions of unaltered generations of a virus, shows recognition of the odds against chance giving rise to a cell. What is designed by man and what is natural are, almost by definition, distinct. In fact, the use of molecular design shows that intelligent design is one way the first cells could have been formed (Meyer p. 26/63).

Intelligent Design Proponents

  1. Dean H. Kenyon: Now a proponent of Intelligent Design, Kenyon began as a Self-Organization theorist who fell into heretical Creation Science in 1980. However, Kenyon’s form of Creation Science did not include a young earth or having dinosaurs on Noah’s arc.
  2. David Berlinski, philosopher, mathematician and agnostic.
  3. Robert J. Marks, II, set his career at Baylor at Risk for his convictions about Intelligent Design.
  4. Charles Thaxton, like Kenyon, Thaxton felt the need to change the vocabulary of his views to separate himself from some Creationist positions.
  5. William Demski, like Robert Marks, set his career at risk for his convictions about Intelligent Design.
  6. Douglas Axe, followed up Sauers work in greater detail. He estimated 1064 for the possibility of low functioning sequences of amino acids to arise by chance and 1077 as the possibility for a specifically functioning protein to arise. Try the odds of putting together a series of these proteins so as to be self-replicating.
  7. Paul Nelson is a critic of common descent. His critiques involve recent advances in embryology and genetic homology.
  8. Jonathan Wells has demolished another key piece of the Darwin theory in his work with advances in the understanding of genetics and homology.
  9. Michael Behes first book, Darwin’s Black Box popularized the failure of the Darwin theory to explain the origin of even a single cell. His second book, The Edge of Evolution, represents advances in the Intelligent Design philosophy of science. He delineates what mutation and chance can and can’t do along a series of frontiers while expanding what Intelligent Design can and has predicted about natural science.

Tradition dies hard in every generation. Ignorance is not a lack of information; it is willfully ignoring knowledge. Centralized bureaucratic power breeds fear even in professionals, but tenured teachers can do better. It’s time to tell the kids: it is statistically impossible that Darwin’s explanation of the origin of life is correct.

PaulI did name Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell as my reference point for “A Scientific Consensus: Darwinism is Dead”; however, I want to revisit the credit due Dr. Meyer. Stephen Meyer’s work led me to almost all of the scientists I’ve listed above. I simply checked Dr. Meyer’s sources and documented them, as well as I could, in an online environment.

I will take the heat for considering the list a scientific consensus. Dr. Meyer is simply referring to the work of others to augment studies of his own.

Some of my Libertarian friends are especially hardcore when it comes to atheism and neo-Darwinism. However, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that, apparently, “A Scientific Consensus: Darwinism is Dead” contains views not incompatible with the views of Ron Paul himself. See Ron Paul’s speech on UTube. There is no reason why a healthy American political life cannot be clearly articulated within the Jeffersonian framework of Deism, for Thomas Jefferson also believed in Intelligent Design.