Monday, January 31, 2005

Macroevolution: a smoking gun

I've had it. Between Richard Sternberg losing his position at the Smithsonian for allowing a paper that questioned atheistic accounts of origins to the ignorant ranting of non-scientists who think that science mandates philosophical naturalism, to those who have been lied to and believe that large-scale evolution by naturalistic means is scientific, I've just had it. Time to blow the lid off.

An unpublished paper by three evolutionary biologists at UC Davis admits that macroevolution --large scale evolution-- is unscientific. For obvious reasons, the paper is prefaced with this warning:

Do Not Cite In Any Context Without Permission Of Authors

Know what? I don't care anymore. Let them pursue legal action! I'd love to see them defend this, and what it says about their position, in a court of law. This amounts to taxpayer-funded deception of the public. So bring it on.

The fifth paragraph of the paper says this:

“Macroevolution” is the evolutionary biologist’s term for the large scale and long-term pattern of evolution. The contrasting term, “microevolution,” refers to generation-to-generation changes. Because much important evolutionary change takes place at macroevolutionary time scales, it is important for evolutionary theory to explain such changes. Unfortunately, while small-scale microevolutionary changes are accessible to direct observation and critical experiment, processes that act on long time scales are not.

Read that last bit again. Let it sink in. Macroevolutionary processes are not accessible to direct observation and experiment.

"Not accessible to direct observation and experiment" means not scientific! When is the last time you heard that in a court case on whether to allow ID in schools? When is the last time you heard it from Richard Dawkins or Eugenie Scott? Dawkins surely knows it, which is why he argues for macroevolution by using rhetorical tricks, not references to controlled experiments. It's deceit, pure and simple. It's the deliberate misrepresentation of an agenda. It's atheism, given the sugar coating of "science" and shoved down the throat of every child in school. It's the basis for rejection of moral absolutes as outmoded and irrational relics from a time before we "knew" that we are just another primate.

In The Creationists, Ronald Numbers relates that American schools got serious about teaching evolution during the early 1960s. Is it a coincidence that the first generation to be given such an education quickly lost its way in a drug-induced fog of anomie? Is it a coincidence that that generation, now in charge of things, includes those who lie to the public about the status of science relating to origins and use immoral, unethical means to silence dissent? Might does indeed make right, if we are merely another primate. Philosophical materialists might reject social Darwinism or euthanasia, but do so without a rational basis. They might do well to remember that as the years go by and they become infirm, and must rely on the tender mercies of those whom they raised and taught.

And when they lie to the public about science discrediting the involvement of a Creator, they ought to realize that the Creator is not thereby done away with.

This needs to be exposed. Like CBS, the scientific community will not be served, nor its reputation protected, by continued deceit. It's time to come clean.