HOLMBERG: Theory of evolution should be challenged – scientifically

Posted on: 12:26 am, January 15, 2014, by

Why does the apple fall from the tree to the ground?

The 325 year old law of gravity explains it.

In science, a  law is a theory that has been proven, without a shadow of a doubt.

A century and a half after Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution, it remains a theory.

It hasn’t been proven, despite vast  excavations for fossils or amazing advances in unlocking the building blocks of life through chemistry and magnification.

Currently,  we have a new legislative challenge to teaching  evolution as fact in Virginia schools. (State Delegate Richard “Dickie” Bell (R) pre-filed House Bill 207.)

It’s a social and philosophical tug-of-war as old as Darwin’s theory.

Even Darwin himself, 155 years ago, wondered why there are no  transitional fossils – missing links – between not only man and ape but between dog and cats, fish and amphibian.

In fact, all the animals alive today can be found in the most distant fossil records, although many have slowly changed over time to adapt to changing environments.

But nothing showing one species turning into another.

And yet, this theory of evolution is considered a law by many. It’s often taught in schools as a law. It is widely believed as a law.

Typically, anyone who doesn’t believe it is branded as a religious kook or an idiot.

Richard Neves, a Virginia Tech professior emeritus, has long fought this battle, despite being a nationally recognized scientist with an expertise in mussels.

“Those who are in charge of science in this country,” he said in a telephone interview, “from the National Academy of Sciences on down, they will not allow alternative hypothesis to be presented because their philosophical view is as strong as their scientific view.”

Almost religious in nature?

“It is,” Neves replied. “ . . . just as strong as any other typical religion we can think of. . .  they need to have a more open mind and look at the lack of evidence that does not support the neo-Darwinian theory.”

I’ll be that kook too. (Something I’m sure many of you had concluded long ago.) The holes in the theory are just too glaring.

Me, I have a bachelor of science in biology, and have a lifelong fascination with this study of life.

I am constantly amazed at the absolute certainty of peole who, armed with maybe one high school biology class, believe so completely and passionatey in the theory that man evolved from apes.

Of course, there is a lot of scientific support for the theory we can find in gene  maps, embryos and hair, scales and fingernails.

But no proof. We might yet find it under the oceans, or in a microscope slide.

But until then, why do so many cling so passionately to this theory?

You see the Darwin bumper stickers, the Darwin dog eating the creationism fish, and vice-versa.

Why – I mean, really – why are we set up in a simple, linear cultural war over this?  On one side we have the creationists, on the other the evolutonaries . . . tonight – a fight to the death!

Why just those two choices?

Darwin reportedly commented about the religious-like passion of those clinging to his theory shortly before his death..

There are those who say – with some accuracy – that it takes as much faith to believe in Darwinism as it does a divine creator.

Me, I have no idea what the answer is.

I don’t think a Biblical creationism should be taught in science classes.

I just wish evolution was taught as a theory – with some pretty glaring holes – instead of a law, and leave the door wide open for other possibilities so students could ponder where we come from and the resulting larger question: why are we here?

Ask yourself – why is it so important for you to believe in evolution?

Why are these words making many of you so  angry? (Please spend a moment examining the actual knowledge you have on this subject and measure that against your passion of your conviction. Take a breath. C’mon, a nice big one.)

Does the theory of evolution make you feel safe? Does it afford you  a fairly straightforward explanation for this thing called life, as direct and mathematical as explaining why the apple falls?

Maybe, just maybe, there’s something else – something we haven’t thought about, something we may not even be capable of thinking about.

What that is, I have no idea.

But one thing is for certain . . .  we won’t find it if we’re not looking for it.

63 comments

  • marcus says:

    I write noting your passion, diligence and concern in the article and the legitimate nature of the question you posited. Nothing is above question and you have asserted that notion.

    I just want to say that Evolution is/has been/will continue to be questioned day in, day out, by scientists themselves! There is no secret agenda going on here. But whats beautiful about evolution is its just right – its the underpinning of medicine, biology, genetics (darwin didn’t even know about DNA when he wrote his observations but DNA and genetics fit perfectly)….and whats interesting about that is that the theory’s predictive power. Its ‘right’ about things that are not even discovered at the time of the theory. Whats more is you can use evolution principles in industry, to develop better aerodynamics and things like that.

    Evolution is responsible for providing us a proper tree of life. It re-wrote everything, giving rise to classification systems that better represent nature. You should look into it sometime, its incredible the amount of work done on this. And yes, with the millions of species they fit harmoniously in with evolution, and biology, and match up and sit exactly where they should on the tree of life — and whats more DNA confirms the relations between them. 100% of the time.

    Hows that, a theory that can predict, describe and be usuable 100% of the time? Evolution is the breakthrough of not just the century (then) but all time. Its changed everything.

    Evolution is no longer “just a theory” as you put it. Darwins version was a theory perhaps as you mean it but progress is not stuck in time. Evolution is not a theory, its a fact. A theory is an explanation based on facts. The facts of evolution do not change, and since darwin’s time we have discovered more. Darwin posited that he did not have definitive proof when he wrote the theory – he had a lot of evidence, but no proof. This is predictive power here: he said for it to be true we would need to find a missing relative on the tree of life. A few years later they found that missing relative. But note that the tree has been further populated since then. Those were early days.

    Darwin was not the only one working on such a theory at the time. Whats amazing about darwin is that he did years and years of work (several decades) and was mostly right. Not every single thing in his original book Origin of species was 100% correct, granted, but we have pushed ahead since then.

    Really, Evolution is a fact. It is NOT a religion – it has no god, and does not require a god. Thats where evolution and religion end, they have no business in each others pockets unless people make it so.

    In fact we know now that modern life is not possible without a solid understanding of evolution. Its the basis for modern medicine, cures, its the basis in agriculture and looking after animals, our understanding of the world and its cycles. The reason is not because evolution came in and stole religious thunder, its because its the reality.

    It should not be used to segregate peoples, but bring them together, for we are all related, through us to animals. You can take a human being and trace him back to one animal.

    Did you know that many of the genes in us and used in other creatures? For instance, a type of gene in us makes our limbs as they are and turns the early form of the limb into an arm with a hand —-well those EXACT same genes do the same thing in fish, except it turns them into fins.

    Look at Tiktaalik, the fossil that was found to have limbs roughly half way between feet and fins. Fossils exist out there that show “transitions”; but everyone is held-up on transitions. The truth is that every creature, at all times, even Humans, is in a state of transitions.

    In fact fossils are the least reliable evidence of evolution – you can’t always find them, and not every species fossilized. They do kind of show evolution – but what shows it readily anywhere you want to look, is DNA, genes and the predictive quantity of evolution.

    We understand Evolution very well and how it works, but we don’t know every single mechanism yet.

    One final point — lots is made about how darwin is supposed to have confessed on his death-bed and said it was all a lie, ect – they are just stories. Darwin may have expressed doubt about the theory, but never did he say “this theory is wrong, just plain wrong!” He never said that. As a scientist he continued his search, and he did have doubts about various things, but they should not be misconstrued as he had no trust in his theory.

    Like I said – Evolution is analysed every day by the very community that gave rise to it – because science is being doubtful – no one thing is to hold sway ‘just because’; though you will never find evolution thrown out – its real, it happened, it works, it fits, its used right now to give you the life you enjoy.

    We are one with the universe, came from the stars, and those very atoms which were formed in Super Nova’s, went on to be arranged in us, and like a massive universal recycling, they will just keep going on getting rearranged. They did not just start as in creation – for the Singularity that existed before the Big Expansion (big bag) was pure energy, prior to quarks and particles and atoms. Elements had their own Evolution, before biological evolution happened. And thats the point – its not a religion, its facts, and evolution is really just a mechanism. The evolution of sport, the evolution of the car, ect. As such we can’t think of evolution as Darwin did — he may have been right about a lot of it, but he never intended for it to be a final version — that was 150+ years ago now — we’ve come a long way. And its not a religion, but no matter your beliefs, evolution is real.

    I ask you to look again at my first paragraph, because you have the right attitude to doubt it — however its been put to the test many times, and your level of doubt is not in line with current thinking. Those doubts have been answered. I can only add — that its *not* a religion, so the argument does not boil down to whether it is or not, or if its real or not, its real, it happened. Agenda in science never holds weight – because science is doubt and questions. Evolution also is not a theory – its a fact, of which, is undeniable.

    Thats right – I said it, its undeniable. No matter how much we try, we can’t get around evolution. And believe me, we as humans have tried time and time again – nothing gives scientists more pleasure than unproving something thats been proven.

    Now, if you or anyone else can disprove evolution, for real, be my guest. That would advance human understanding. But you won’t be able to, and thats not an idle remark – thats the reality. Its been tried.

    • RAS says:

      It is YOUR religion.

    • stevebee92653 says:

      I hate to tell you Marcus, but you have been indoctrinated to believe this fake science, and you do so without question.The evidence ISN’T there, but your argument is the usual: “there is overwhelming evidence”. There isn’t. Not at all. The fossil record shows little to no evolution, species existed for hundreds of millions of years without much change. Evolution can’t account for human intelligence and consciousness, animal instinct, or even a simple blood vessel. In fact it can’t account for any biological systems. Have you ever tried to think out the steps evolution might have taken to form a simple blood vessel? There is no pathway, no steps even imaginable. You will gloss this over, not even consider the problems, because you have been indoctrinated, and once that is the case, you lose your ability to question. Sorry. The real answer to origins was given by the writer of this article. Humans aren’t close to figuring out this Puzzle. With evolution in the way of real science, the Puzzle will never be solved.

    • tal says:

      i study biology and i think i have very strong evidence for design in nature

      a) we know that a self replicate robot that made from dna need a designer

      b) from a material prespective the ape is more complex then this kind of robot

      a+b= the ape need a designer

      or even a self replicat watch .the evolutionist always says that a watch need a designer because it cant self rplicat. so if we will find a self replicat watch we need to say that is made by itself

      scientist even find a motor in bacteria called bacterial flagellum:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-j5kKSk_6U

      plus: if a self replicate car cant evolve into an airplan, how can a bacteria can evolve into human ?

      the evolution say that small steps for milions years become a big steps. but according to this a lots of small steps in self replicat car (with dna) will evolve into a airplan.

      but there is no step wise from car to airplan

      accordint to the evolution even a car can evolve in a close room. bebcause a bacteria in the room can evolve into a human and make a

      evolution say that common similarity is evidence for common descent. but according to this 2 similar self replicat car are evolve from each other

      check this site

      http://creation.com/

      what you think? have a nice day

    • Stever says:

      I do not think your characterization that scientists who believe the Theory of Evolution is accurate really question it at all. They may question how it works, but never the general premise of that molecules, given the proper conditions, can morph themselves into every living organism on the planet.

  • marcus says:

    Its just not possible to write it all in one post, and also not have a wall of text.

    You said in the video that there’s nothing showing transitional species (which I addressed above)…but the truth is thats not the only thing wrong with the video

    You cant just say “evolution still hasn’t been proven” That is false, its been proven.

    Lets tackle it from a different angle. There is only one other competing thing to rival evolution – creation. Now, IF creation were true – to use one example, we would find Rabbits next to Lions, dinosaurs and humans at certain levels of strata. But we don’t.

    What we do find instead is deep down we find dinosaurs and things like them (all the ‘saurs’ ect), then there is a separation, and we find humans.

    When we date the rocks, the gap is about 60 million years.

    Now, evolution and the dating and the fossils ALL match up. We never find humans next to dinosaurs, we never find modern creatures like they are now back then.

    Its hard to give a picture of the intricacies of this, so I will but try..

    Did you know that birds are directly related to Dinosaurs? The genes inside of a chicken are very similar to those inside of a Tyranosaurus Rex? Look at a crude side profile of both chicken and Tyranosaur and they will look remarkably similar.

    That genes of chickens contain the genes to make teeth and a tail? They have just been deactivated. But no one came in and deactivated them, they evolved.

    Did you know that we think many dinosaurs (many of the “saurs creatures) had feathers, or an early type of feather.

    Look at the Australian Emu. Thats the kind of feathers we are almost certain they had. The feathers almost certainly did not appear so to make them fly, but probably for warmth. Of course dinosaurs and modern birds both lay eggs.

    You can give a chicken in the egg teeth and make it start to grow a tail (the creature then dies, its biological programming broken), but !they !still! start to grow.

    Same with whales who have vestiges of hind legs, and in the female human embryo – she has in the first days of pregnancy a sack thats intended for yolk. There’s more vestigal things besides that, and who can forget the Human-Tail.

    Many creatures share many of the same genes, in fact we share most of our genes with chimpanzee’s. In fact our chromosomes 2 and 3 ( i think, some of this is not exact but you get the idea) are fused, but otherwise they are identical to the chromosomes in a chimpanzee. And we can look in our genes on a map and see where they fit perfectly.

    So when people say there is no evidence, or they have doubts, or whatever it is, people have already gone away and checked it out. Because they had doubts. At one point in my life I had doubts to, then I went away and checked.

    In regards to this story — I agree the kids intellectual development is at stake in this area — I want the kids to be able to check out evolution unadulterated by political, religious or agenda.

    Its entirely fascinating. I mean, just knowing that birds are directly decended from Dinosaurs (I’m tired, could be specifically Terasaurs, but same family almost, its what we think of as Dinosaurs) is amazing.

    The Australian Creature the ‘kasowary’ is almost identical to one of those creatures. A team of scientists did an autopsy on one you can find of youtbe, disecting natures giants — you are essentially looking at a dinosaur, same with any bird. Dinosaurs, scales on their legs, feathers, lay eggs, teeth are missing though.

    A chicken is essentially a dinosaur, there is no separation really. We don’t need to see fossilized forms to know this — we can extract DNA and look at Genes now. We have put together a vast tree of life, and I must say, it pretty much always matches up. In fact sometimes we go to put a creature into a specific part of the tree but it does not fit by current observation, so people go back and look again, and it fits into a different part of the tree.

    I hate to be technical, but really there is so much amazing and wonderful things in science — and much of it is happening in America, especially along with Australia and Europe, but also in Asia, ect. The big place to look next is China and India.

    But believe me, evolution has opened our eyes, and the kids deserve to hear about without meddling. When I told my girls the links between dinosaurs and current birds, they were amazed. You will never look at a comparison pic of a T-REX and a chicken again.

    The T-REX is just an oversized chicken. But you won’t find them in the same strata as each other, ever.

    Evolution is true and it matches up across geology, biology, genetics, medicine, industry, cosmosology, ect,; but nore wonderfully – its an amazing thing to look into and its 100% applicable to today.

    • joe lanyadoo says:

      Evolution is a theory based on a false premise. It assumes that elements can gather spontaneously into complex molecules, create an energy source(ATP) so it can provide the energy to write programs so complex we can barely understand, all by a series of accidents. But 50 years of laboratory experiments in the best universities throughout the world failed to reproduce any semblance of DNA letters or program writing ‘self replicating’ molecules. If evolutionists are right and billions of organisms were created by accident, given that nature is so prolific managing to create in ocean, air and land, with and without oxygen and in all kind of adverse conditions, if their theory was valid the experiments should have yielded positive results, But in fact they didn’t create life or even complex molecules, the 50 years of failed experiments proved the opposite, that life CAN NOT be created by series of accidents!!! Though DNA programs changed the cell and the letters never evolved, not in 4 billion years! How does it suggest accident is responsible? Just like our computers letters didn’t change-can’t change. If nature just mutated aimlessly and created by accident, how did nature know when to stop making letters, when to stop mutating/creating, how did aimless accidents make so many decisions ? why 46 chromosomes? why not 50 or 100? how did nature(accident) decide billions of times; this organism is done. In other words; if you don’t know where you going how do you know when you got there? Aimless evolution, aimless program writing is not a possible method of creation. The idea that nature is like a computer that was programmed to try every possible combination is not supported by any evidence- if nature really worked this way we ought to find a lot of evidence, trillions of failed attempts – but none are in evidence. This means that nature succeeded on it’s first attempt…beginners luck naturally. Finally, the assumption that nature created 4 Letters using 5 elements and then wrote programs is unimaginable, not to mention that the sequence is wrong because just like our computers, letters were created last, only after programs that can utilize those letters were written.

    • justwalkingby says:

      well done, marcus.

      keep that curiosity and awe in your kids minds and they will be happier.

      you are a good dad.

      well done.

  • Conrad Dunkerson says:

    Most of this article is false.

    A scientific law is NOT a theory which has been “proven, without a shadow of a doubt”. Indeed, Newton’s laws of motion have been proven incorrect by relativity, but are still treated as scientific laws for speeds well below that of light.

    Scientific laws are observations of universal truths. They seldom include explanations of WHY those observations happen. For example, we know from observation that objects in space attract each other relative to their respective masses and distance from each other. We call this observation ‘gravity’… but we have only speculative hypotheses as to WHY this happens.

    Evolution is also an observed reality. We can see that the DNA of each creature comes from the DNA of its progenitors and that random mutations pop up all the time. We can see how this leads to survival traits being passed on to future generations while creatures without those traits die and don’t pass on their DNA. We call these observations ‘evolution’. We also have a theory explaining why and how all this happens… which is VASTLY stronger than our understanding of how gravity works, but since we don’t know for certain that we understand ALL the details of how evolution works it remains a theory.

    Various claims in the article about ‘no transitional fossils’, ‘all creatures alive today being found in the fossil record’, et cetera are all pure nonsense. None of it is true. People who want to dispute evolution should learn what it IS first.

    • stevebee92653 says:

      DNA and protein synthesis has eliminated evolution as its source Darwin had no idea what genes, or DNA, or proteins were. If he did he would have smartly killed his own theory. We modern humans also have that opportunity. Evolution should go on the scrap heap of failed theories. It will some day. As of now, there are too many zealoted believers who can somehow keep it going. Unfortunately..

  • Harry from Hunton says:

    What we have here is more delusional, psycho-babble nonsense from the drunk biker turned wanna-be journalist. Holmgren: Take a freaking bath every now and then and lay off the booze, OK?

  • SSN666 says:

    “although many have slowly changed over time to adapt to changing environments.”

    Uh, I believe that is the basis for the theory. Is it not?

    To someone not knowing, if you put a Great Dane alongside a Dachsund would they consider them as the same species or even of the same original source? How about alongside a wolf? Yet all three are from the same root.

    Have not found a common link? How many millions of years has it taken to get to this point? And you expect remains to be queued up just waiting to be found?

    • stevebee92653 says:

      Your problem is you gloss over the real nightmare for evolution. Everyone agrees that organisms can change over time. The real nightmare is the origination and design of complex systems. “Change over time” isn’t capable of originating the systems that changed. What did originate those systems? It would sure be fun to know, but we humans never will, unfortunately. Evolution is just another gawd awful attempt at explaining what we cannot yet explain. Evolution is just another run of the mill creator or god, created by people with immense imaginations but no grip on reality.

  • Steve Greene says:

    There are a number of egregious errors in your essay, and the errors are what make your argument crumble.

    The “law” of gravity by Newton from 325 years ago or whenever does not explain gravity but instead is a description of the motion caused by the gravitational force – and, moreoever, this “law” was changed/revised by Einstein in the theory of general relativity. In regard to explaining gravity itself, physicists are still working on the problem, and the recent discovery of the Higgs Boson is one of the links in this chain of research.

    In fact, all the animals alive today canNOT be found in the most distant fossil records. Just as some few examples, briefly, there were no whales in the Cretaceous, no rabbits or elephants (or, rather, the proboscideans) in the Jurassic, no birds in the Triassic, no amphibians in the Ordovician, and no trilobites in the Proterozoic. Your assertion demonstrates that you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

    Furthermore, your assertion that there are no transitional fossils is also completely wrong, there are thousands of examples of transitional fossils, small and large, with specimens such as the Tiktaalik roseae (fish with primitive legs) and Sinosauropteryx (small dinosaur with feathers) being a couple of prominent examples. (See *Evolution: What the Fosssils Say and Why It Matters*, by paleontologist Donald R. Prothero, published 2007.) It’s rather curious that paleontologists have been doing a lot of research in the last 155 years since Darwin’s statement, and yet you sit here and pretend paleontological research has done absolutely nothing at all since 1859.

    The reason anyone who doesn’t accept evolution is branded as a religious kook or an idiot is because when they open their mouths to make bold proclamations about the subject they demonstrate that their scientific illiteracy on the subject (such as pretending there has been zero research on the fossil record since 1859), and typically also demonstrate that they make their false proclamations based on ignorance so boldly because of their particular religious beliefs (though in regard to this latter point, many creationists deliberately use rhetoric designed to try to hide their religious motivations).

    And we thank you for demonstrating this fact for us.

  • waldteufel says:

    Hey Holmberg, maybe you should actually learn some biology before spewing more ignorant verbiage about the subject. And while you’re at it, maybe learn something about general science and its history.

    • Leslie Wray says:

      You must have missed the part where he said, “I have a Bachelor of Science in Biology…” C’mon, don’t be so closed-minded. The only way we have ever advanced as a species is to question what we already consider fact. Ease up a bit.

      • waldteufel says:

        I did see that he has an undergrad degree in biology, but his writing here nonetheless displays incredible ignorance of the subject and science in general.

      • Spector567 says:

        So you are saying Leslie that his errors are purposeful and deliberate?
        After all you suggest that he has an undergrad in biology but has still managed to make several major errors and purposeful misunderstandings.

        I was content to believe that these were based on his lack of knowledge and study but you are right he doesn’t have that excuse.

  • RAS says:

    gO FLACK YOUR DOG

  • Steven Bower says:

    Holmberg, FYI, this took me two minutes to google:

    Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.

    Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

    Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

    Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
    Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

    Source
    The Role of Theory in Advancing 21st Century Biology, National Academy of Sciences

  • Tallgrass05 says:

    “In science, a law is a theory that has been proven, without a shadow of a doubt.”

    “…wondered why there are no transitional fossils – missing links…”

    “It hasn’t been proven…”

    Wow, so much ignorance about evolution and science in general is on display here.

  • AMW says:

    What a shame that writing whilst under the influence isn’t an arrestable offence. From which diploma mill did you buy your BS? The same a Kent Hovind?
    Other posters here have already debunked your lies, so there is no need for me to do so.

  • Morning Dew says:

    I don’t see why evolution and creation can’t coexist. I buy everything about evolution except that it all started with a big bang. Tell me where the big bang came from and I’ll buy evolution 100%. If you can’t explain the big bang, I buy evolution 90% and creation 10%.

    • Conrad Dunkerson says:

      Morning Dew wrote: “I buy everything about evolution except that it all started with a big bang.”

      Facepalm

      The big bang has NOTHING to do with evolution. They’re completely different theories in completely different branches of science. The big bang is a theory attempting to explain the observed expansion of the universe. Evolution is a theory attempting to explain the observed change of life-forms over time. If the big bang theory turned out to be completely false it would not impact the theory of evolution at all… because there is no connection between the two.

      “Tell me where the big bang came from…”

      Presumably, the same place ‘God’ came from. :]

  • Thomas B. Jones says:

    Error in the first few sentences.

    Gravity is a theory — not a law. Gravitational Theory predicts the falling of the apple, it does not explain it. Repeated observations confirm the accuracy of the predictions. Hence, the theory of gravity is a useful model to predict the course of events in the universe. That said, it has been shown to be false. Ever hear of Einstein? There are subtle differences of motion that can be observed within the universe that cannot be explained by conventional gravitational theory. Hence, the theory was modified by Einstein’s theory of relativity.

    Biological evolution is a theory drawn from observations in the natural word. The pattern of those observations allows for predictions on the course of life’s pathways. These basic predictive models have been in use long before Darwin. Ever hear of agriculture?

    Nonetheless, evolutionary theory should be challenged scientifically. Like the title of the essays says. But, then, it is. Just like every other scientific theory. That is what scientists do.

    AND, for the record, the Bible supports evolution! Evolution as defined by scientists is descent with modification. What we see today is a slight change (modification) of what we saw yesterday. The story of creation in Genesis was story of evolution. God did not create the universe all at once. It was created in six days. Each “day” being a modification of what existed the day before. An all powerful God could have created the universe as it currently exists in a single instance. But, according to Genesis, that is not what God did. God chose to evolve the universe. Therefore, if you reject evolution then you reject the Bible.

  • Marie says:

    Mark- I enjoy your stories and think they are thought provoking. While some of the people that have commented so far have seem to taken some personal offense to your story, I applaud you for being so willing to write openly about your thoughts. Your stories are thought provoking and encourage people to think deeper about things they may not have otherwise questioned. Freedom of speech and thought is a wonderful thing, and it is unfortunate that so many on here have chosen to take offense and come out attacking. When people respond in such manner, it speaks volumes as to what their character and integrity is (or is not).
    Thank you for your bravery to share your thoughts with us, and to the others who chose to go on the attack- may they learn to accept and love others regardless of whether their opinions/feelings match their own or not.
    Have a wonderful day

    • Andrew says:

      With respect Marie, Mr Holmberg claims to be a Bachelor of Science but in his opening remarks he shows a breathtaking ignorance of scientific methodology and terminology, not to mention Newtonian physics. Either he is being untruthful about his credentials or, if he truly has the qualification, then he is deliberately setting out to deceive..
      It is not a matter of his bravery or our feelings being hurt or our so-called opinions being questioned. What is at issue here is that he and his kind would seek by deliberate falsehoods and twisted sophistry to pervert the education of the young.
      Quite why they should have this agenda is beyond me. All I can say is ‘follow the money’.

    • While some have attacked Mark, not all responses are attacks. Some are reasoned arguments against his theories/arguments in his article. That is discussion, not attacking.

  • Andrew says:

    Here we go again, the same old recycled ignorance masquerading as erudition.

    As others have pointed out, your very first sentence exposes your mendacity.

    What makes many of us so angry is that charlatans like you want to propagate your lies and fabrications especially among the young..

    Meanwhile, of course, you happily make full use of all the benefits of modern science = like using the internet to spread your garbage,

  • Steve says:

    “In science, a law is a theory that has been proven, without a shadow of a doubt.”

    Quit reading after that. I’m sure there wasn’t anything else written in this piece of any value.

  • Chris Weiss says:

    The original author is showing a false semantic problem and using false definitions.

    Let me start with his example of gravity. It turns out that Newton’s “law” of gravity fails in many contexts, and we are required to use Einstein’s Theory of gravitation to account for conditions under which Newton’s “law” fails. This idea that a “law” is more strongly “true” than a theory is wrong right out of the gate. The rest of the argument is based on this false set of definitions, making the whole article junk from start to finish.

    A scientific theory is a model of explanation that is considered true based on the weight of the evidence. It starts as a hypothesis or set of hypotheses, which when sufficiently supported becomes a theory. For example, scientists have hypotheses for how life started on earth, but none of these hypotheses has sufficient support to become a theory. Contrast this with evolution, which is a theory like Einstein’s theory of gravitation, and you have the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.

    The original story told by Darwin has been significantly expanded and corrected. Darwin lacked an understanding of genetics and DNA (discovered in the 20th century), he had no access to molecular biology, and he did not have access to the incredible amount of comparative morphological data available today. Of course Darwin’s version of evolution was off, but the central ideas were not.

    A theory is never static. New data creates new principles and new hypotheses that must be established. Consider quantum mechanics. New discoveries are made every year that add the body of knowledge rather than replacing existing portions of the theory. Even current hypotheses surrounding any theory are shown to be wrong in light of new data. This is true of evolutionary biology when looking at development paths of individual or groups of species. However, the core mechanisms of evolution – mutation, natural selection, common descent, etc., are mores strongly established today because of things like genomics than they were even in Darwin’s time.

  • Diogenes says:

    There are no arguments against evolution that do not involve either falsification of the evidence, as in this letter, or redefinitions of the scientific method. This letter is a perfect example of how anti-evolutionists must falsify scientific evidence.

    For example, the letter writer says, “Even Darwin himself… wondered why there are no transitional fossils – missing links – between not only man and ape but between dog and cats, fish and amphibian. In fact, all the animals alive today can be found in the most distant fossil records.” This is patently false. The ape to man transition and the fish to amphibian transition both have mulitple examples of transitional fossils. In the last 155 years, paleontologists have found many transitional fossils.

    For a century, anti-evolutionists have repeatedly and falsely asserted that all intermediates between two species would be non-functional and impossible and would die– and yet scientists keep discovering transitional fossils with the precise intermediate characterisitics that creationists said would kill the species!

    For ape to man, there are Australopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, and Homo erectus. At just one site in Dmanisi, Georgia (the country) scientists have found 4 skulls, 5 of them well-preserved, which span the gap in brain size and shape between ape and man. They are precisely intermediate.

    In the fish to amphibian transition there is of course the famous fossil Tiktaalik. Creationists at Answers in Genesis (David Menton) lied about that fossil and said it had a small pelvis like a fish, which couldn’t be true, because that was years before the scientists even wrote any description of its pelvis– because it took years to extract the rear of the fossil from the rock! Answers in Genesis (Menton) wrote: “Essentially all fish (including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral fins”, but no such thing had even been chipped out of the rock then! Just recently the real scientists finally extracted and published a description of the Tiktaalik pelvis, and in fact it’s larger and more robust than any fish pelvis, with a big joint for a big femur (thigh) bone. Creationists at Answers in Genesis lie.

    For example, anti-evolutionists also said no intermediate was possible between a tree-dwelling animal and a flying bat (even though flying squirrels, etc. do just fine) and they imagined any intermediate would drop dead. However, scientists in 2008 found Onychonycteris, with arm bones perfectly intermediate between tree-dwelling insectivore and a flying bat.

    Consider the land animal-to-whale transition. Creationists stretched their imagination, fantasizing that a cow(!) went out into the ocean and drowned; since they imagined the dead cow in the ocean, they said that proved all land animal-to-whale transitions were impossible. Leaving aside the fact among many living animals today there are adaptations to the ocean to all sorts of intermediate stages (otters, polar bears, seals, etc.), in the fossil record also paleontologists have found several different species of transitional fossils proving that whales are descended from land animals. At the American Museum of Natural History in NYC right now they have a temporary exhibit with these specimens: Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus and Dorudon, which start out as fully land creatures with large hind limbs and end as fully aquatic creatures with very tiny vestigial hind limbs and a detached pelvis. Scientists have found the ankle bones for Pakicetus, Rodhocetus, Artiocetus and Dorudon, and their ankle bones (we are talking about the ankles of whales here!) have a structure in the astragulus bone that is identical to even-toed ungulates like the hippopotamus. Predictably, comparison of whale and hippopotamus DNA shows they are closely related, their set of endogenous retroviral (ERV) DNA sequences being nearly identical. Scientists also found the ear bones of the early, land-dwelling whales, and they’re just like the ear bones of aquatic whales.

    Anti-evolutionists also said no intermediate was possible between a lizard and a turtle, because half a shell would kill the animal (even though leatherback turtles today do OK with no back shell.) But scientists proved them wrong by finding several transitionals with incomplete shells, no beak, and mouths full of teeth, like Odnotochelys and Eunotosaurus.

    We could go on: there are now about three dozen species of feathered dinosaurs, with their feathers displaying four different intermediate stages in feather evolution, from simple to complex.

    Also, there’s DNA. Human DNA is 98.7% identical to chimp DNA, and human chromosome 2 is a fusion of ape chromomes 2a and 2b, with the same genes as the ape chromosomes, arranged in the same order.

    I repeat: stop falsifying the evidence. There are no arguments against evolution that do not involve either falsifying the evidence or redefining the scientific method.

  • I have seen so many facts that disprove evolution, it is not even funny. Here is one to ponder. The theory of evolution says that 20 proteins were used to start life. It has been proven that it would take 1 to the trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion years for one protein molecule to be created. That is the time span to create enough energy to create a protein. Darwin lost his daughter and blamed God for it and did not go into the ministry. Can’t trust a man with a grudge to remove God from his and other people’s lives. He is discredited. God made the world and that is a fact from the evidence we see like the distance from the sun of the earth, the tilt of the axis of the Earth and the composition of the atmosphere. An explosion cannot create life. Explode a stick of dynamite and see if life comes from it.

  • jami says:

    Evolution says nothing about how life started. That is a different field altogether.

  • Tom J says:

    Gravity is a theory. It’s called “Newton’s theory of gravity”.

  • Michael K says:

    Mark Holmberg, please tell me where you got your degree in Biology, because your understanding of science is sophomoric at best. I want to make sure my children never consider applying to whatever university you attended. Their biology department should be embarrassed, as should the news organization that put you on air.

    • Andrew says:

      Come on Mr Holmberg, it’s about time you responded (truthfully) to all these justifiable accusations.

  • John Dixon says:

    The beauty of Evolution is that it’s a grand story worthy of the Brothers Grimm.

    Having no evidence whatsoever and many things that are where they shouldn’t or ‘can’t’ be.

    There are no transitional fossils. There should be millions and evolutionists know this is a major problem.

    There shouldn’t be modern bird fossils found with T-Rex and other such dinosaurs but yet they are common and for some strange reason they never show up in the museum exhibits!

    There are polystrate tree trunks ‘growing’ through millions of years worth of sediments!

    There are no scientific experiments capable of demonstrating evolution!
    Bacteria mutate but remain bacteria. Generations of fruit fly experiments only turned up fruit flies- eventually leading to many serious physical defects (just like over-bred dogs).

    In fact the whole idea falls on our understanding of DNA and what really happens in Mutation.

    Mutation is a loss of information in the DNA string. Something can’t come from nothing. Those fruit flies lost DNA and were born without wings but a loss of information can’t grow an opposable thumb!

    A dog is overbred and becomes a great dane or a beagle but it develops hip disease and blindness and aggressiveness and other defects but it can’t become a cat!

    The fossil record shows animals in their full development- like the bat or the dragon fly. There are no mice with long fingers or bats with nubs of wings.

    Fraud and error!

    The evolutionist history is replete with it: Haeckel’s Embryos; Vestigial Organs; the Peppered Moth; the Piltdown Man: Whale fossils with legs (the fragments found were few and imagination made up the rest until a full skeleton was discovered demonstrating whales never had legs); Nebraska Man; Java Man; Lucy the monkey; Archaeoraptor; Horse evolution; on and on. Why the necessity of fraud if it’s all true?

    Chimp DNA
    The claim of 90+% common DNA is also specious (pun intended). Only carefully selected data (messaged) were used to get that number. Evolutionists themselves admit only about 2/3rds of chimp DNA sequences can be clearly aligned so a precise match is out of the question. In contrast Jeffery Tomkins Ph.Dpublished a research paper demonstrating chimp chromosomes that were sequentially sliced so an algorithm could accurately compare them to human chromosomes demonstrated only about a 70% similarity.
    Mind you a banana has comes in around 50%.

    Radioisotope dating involving decay rates of Argon gas are embarrassingly inaccurate. Based on an assumption argon cannot escape or enter an igneous rock since it was deposited and that the sample contains all the parent isotope this notion has been debunked by several independent tests. One test involved 23 rocks of known exact origin (volcanic and recent) and yet dated deep time. (one such test is: Snelling, 1999 Excess Argon: The Achilles heal of Potassium Argon and Argon-Argon Dating of Volcanic Rocks).

    All this demonstrates is a lot of theory and no evidence for Darwinian Evolution. Hundreds of years to prove this ‘theory’ and yet the closer we examine the structure of cells the father away science leads us from the ‘faith’. The idea of irreducible complexity was understood by Darwin and he said that it would likely disprove his theory yet many cannot let go of the idea born in an age when modern science was in it’s infancy.

    No one has ever shown any conclusive evidence from any organism transistioning from one kind to another. No not even one fossil.

    I’m not dismissing evolution because I happen to be a Christian, I
    am dismissing it because of the lack of evidence. I simply do not have enough faith to be an evolutionist, but it is a great fairytale!

  • John Dixon says:

    Even the simplest cell you can conceive of would require no less than 100,000 DNA base pairs and a minimum of about 10,000 amino acids, to form the essential protein chain. Not to mention the other things that would also be necessary for the first cell.

    Bear in mind that every single base pair in the DNA chain has to have the same molecular orientation (“left-hand” or “right hand”)? As well as that, virtually all the amino acids must have the opposite orientation. And every one must be without error.

    “Now,to randomly obtain those correct orientations, do you know your chances? It would be 1 chance in 2110,000, or 1 chance in 1033,113!

    “To put it another way, if you attempted a trillion, trillion, trillion combinations every second for 15 billion years, the odds you would achieve all the correct orientations would still only be one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion … and the trillions would continue 2755 times!

    “It would be like winning more than 4700 state lotteries in a row with a single ticket purchased for each. In other words…impossible.” -Jonathan Gray “The Forbidden Secret”

    • Spector567 says:

      Now what would happen to your analogy
      If there were over a million+ winning combinations
      that the winning numbers stayed the same
      you got to redraw keeping every right number that you receive.
      that there were over a billion people playing
      and you had several million years to play.

      Life is not static. there is more than one answer, and more then one route, with lots of players and lots of time. If life didn’t arrive at the current result it would have arrived at another.

      It is Ignorant and dishonest to simply evolution down to just chance when it says and suggest nothing of the sort.

      If you have to copy and paste silly strawman arguments in order to have a point perhaps it’s time you consider the fact that you don’t have a point at all.

  • Dave Sandman says:

    Nearly a hundred years on from the Scopes Monkey Trial, and its still the same old tripe and twallop being spouted by the willfully ignorant and proud of it.

    The next time you read in the press how American kids educational scores in science, compared to kids in other nations, are embarrassingly poor…..and wonder how a nation that once put men on the Moon now languishes down at the bottom end of the educational achievement tables in science….

    HERE is why.

    Because you allow idiots like this goof to spout their nonsense without laughing them into silence. Because companies pay idiots like this to write utter twaddle and codswallop like this article and publish them online, despite being an apparently mainstream media outlet. And because you dont shame idiots like this goof into silence.

    Only in America……

    • Dionisio says:

      Nice try, but when America put men on the moon religious beliefs were more publicly accepted and common than now.
      Perhaps the low levels in science education may have to do with many kids not being interested in pursuing science or engineering careers, which require more studying and sacrifice, because they’d rather take an easier shortcut to make money.
      Try again.
      BTW, I don’t agree necessarily with the original article.

      • Dionisio says:

        …and unfortunately materialistic consumerism seems to be an influential factor when choosing a career these days. These days even the meaning of words have been degraded. Take for example the word ‘love’ which pretty much goes for anything we like. Basically, I would not mix worldview-based scientific discussions with social factors like low levels of science education. Copernicus, Newton, and other founders of modern science had a radically different worldview than you, but still loved scientific research and deep thinking. And here is another issue these days – thinking has turned unpopular among all ages. :(

    • stevebee92653 says:

      Hey, yea. We Americans don’t test as well as them Europeans when taking tests on fantasies, like evolution. It’s so important to score well on fantasy tests, because, uh. It just is. Just think, if some poor school kid doesn’t think we arose from bacteria, then fish, then apes, well, it would just be tragic. How could anyone like that do well in biology, physics, physiology, math…..? Before any student takes any science classes, they should be forced to sign a document saying he or she BELIEVES we came from bacteria, then fish, then apes.

  • Roy says:

    What a load of misinformation. A theory NEVER becomes a law. Theories describe evidence. No theory ever gets promoted to law.

  • DennisM says:

    Mr Holmberg’s article isn’t perfect, but what confident and arrogant whoppers are written in some of the replies!
    Biological organisms are abundant with functional, interdependent systems and information — more than we can even measure, so far. Will someone identify ANY natural process that has been shown capable of generating more than a trivial amount of functional activity or information? It doesn’t have to generate gigabits of digital code with sophisticated storage and retrieval and error-correction systems (such as exist throughout biology), just a bit of functional activity that is more than a few steps of an oscillating chemical process. That’s what you need to find if you want to have evidence for naturalistic evolution.
    Anyone?

    • dlemen says:

      “Will someone identify ANY natural process that has been shown capable of generating more than a trivial amount of functional activity or information?”

      Sure. It’s called evolution. We’ve known about it and explored it for over a hundred years and it’s quite well documented. In fact, there is no competing theory that does as good a job explaining why life works the way it does. It’s quite brilliant and you really ought to read about it some day.

      • DennisM says:

        That’s called “begging the question.”
        Try again. Give me an example of one tiny, tiny part of your evolution that has generated new information or a functional structure.

      • dlemen says:

        As I said, what you’re asking for is well documented. You can start your reading here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

      • DennisM says:

        Not really. Genuine mutations only damage an existing system, although in very rare circumstances the remaining functionality may help an organism survive a particularly stressful environment. (It’s rather like cutting off your foot to survive if it is caught in a trap.) But there’s virtually no chance that a 2nd or 3rd mutation, damage-inducing as they are, will take the organism into improved functioning.

        Transferring genes among themselves is something microorganisms can do because they have the existing machinery to do it. Nothing new is being developed. They are moving existing information or functionality around.

  • DennisM says:

    (Just clarifying — I don’t mean the evolution of your own self. Give an example of any bit of evolution. We’re looking for the creation of new information or functional structures.)

  • Franny Maccy says:

    “In science, a law is a theory that has been proven, without a shadow of a doubt.”

    a) This is a flat out lie, just 100% false
    b) Newton’s law of gravity has been disproven without a shadow of doubt (it is still useful)

  • Franny Maccy says:

    BTW: Newton’s LAWS have been disproven by Einstein’s THEORY… just a layer of irony for that stupid, despicable, cowardly lie this journalist told. Utterly evil propaganda.

  • CRVP says:

    I don’t need to rehash a lot of what has already been said, but would like to point one thing out that has come up again and again with these comments.
    It seems there are several people who feel that evolution cannot be “proven” or replicated in any reliable way, so therefore the theory is flawed and is not true.
    I would suspect several of those making such claims lean more towards the creationist view of things. So I would then put the same argument to them. If evolution cannot be proven and therefore doesn’t exist, the same logic must hold true for creation theory as I have seen no hard evidence to support it.

    • DennisM says:

      You make a valid point. Do you really accept it both ways?
      Your point is better made in the context of unquided, naturalistic evolution versus the idea that living things show evidence of being designed by an intelligent agent. Intelligent Design (ID) is the moniker usually used for that, and it isn’t a religious concept nor is it accurate to call it creationism. But it and naturalistic evolution are equally unable to be proven and are equally “scientific”.
      ID has religious implications, as also does naturalistic evolution. But the implications are not the theory.

      • Stever says:

        The beliefs concerning the age of the universe has changed dramtically over time. There are both young and old earth/universe chronometers. Those who believe that abiogeneis took place some time in the distant past are operating by faith, and blind faith at that. It may take more faith to believe that life can spontaneous arise from inorganic sources by natural means than “In the beginning God created…”

  • JRVA says:

    two thoughts…
    first, the author claims to have a bachelor of science in biology. i do not doubt this is true as it is easy enough to verify or refute. i too have a bachelor of science in biology but do not claim to be an expert on evolution. yes, it was covered in intro bio, but the focus of my major was more on molecular physiology, so i wasn’t required to take any upper level courses on evolution. similarly, i wouldn’t pretend to be an expert on botany as that was not the focus of my major. don’t get me wrong – the author may have had a focus of evolution within his studies, but it is not stated in the article, and it would be foolish just to assume this is the case.

    second, in my opinion, people are arguing points that are fundamentally different. for me, religion, philosophy, etc deal more with the “why” and not really the “how.” of course there will be people who feel the bible should be taken literally, but i think the vast majority of people would agree that the bible is scientific text to explain the history of the earth. there is ample evidence that the earth really is more than 6000 year old, and anyone with at least a high school education should recognize this. science, on the other hand, explains the “how” and not the “why.” science doesn’t outright have a purpose or motive behind it – it just is. if a cell gets a mutation that makes it more advantageous, it doesn’t have a conscious to care. you can’t ask it, “why are you better?” – it just is, and as a result, it will survive compared to a similar organism without the added benefit.
    discussions about “why” are nice ones to have sitting around with friends of differing opinions who are open minded and not dogmatic in their views. people feel very passionately about these topics, but there are not clear “right” or “wrong” answers. you can believe what you feel is right and best for you, but recognize that your world view is not the only one.

    just my thoughts.

  • Nullifidian says:

    “Me, I have a bachelor of science in biology, and have a lifelong fascination with this study of life.

    “I am constantly amazed at the absolute certainty of peole who, armed with maybe one high school biology class, believe so completely and passionatey [sic] in the theory that man evolved from apes.”

    Yes, it’s clearly wrong to believe that evolution has occurred if you only have a high school biology class under your belt (never mind that one can self-educate through popularizations, textbooks, technical monographs, and even scientific papers—I’ve known lay people who could read and understand them), but having a bachelor’s degree allows you to go toe to toe with trained biologists with decades of experience on the subject of evolution. I can’t believe I just read something so positively dripping with idiocy as that.

    Perhaps you should have traded in your biology classes, which you obviously haven’t benefited from, for a few more English classes so that your articles wouldn’t turn out so incoherent and badly spelt.

    It’s also not hard to notice that for an article titled “The theory of evolution should be challenged scientifically”, you don’t actually present the scientific challenge to evolution. All you have shown is that you don’t like it and don’t understand it. But fortunately scientists are not required to convince a blowhard who thinks he’s got the number of evolutionary biologists on the strength of a few undergraduate survey courses.

    “Even Darwin himself, 155 years ago, wondered why there are no transitional fossils – missing links – between not only man and ape but between dog and cats, fish and amphibian.”

    And he answered his own question about why there might not be many transitional fossils known in his day. That’s what you can find out if you read the entirety of “On the Origin of Species” instead of just the carefully selected snippets creationists quote-mine. Furthermore, we are not obliged to cleave to Darwin’s understanding of the biological world, because a lot has happened in 155 years. Not only have we found numerous species of hominins (the transitional species between humans and our common ancestor with chimps—not between man and apes, because humans are apes), but we also have a very extensive fossil record of transitional tetrapods. Reading either Donald Prothero’s “Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters” for a general overview or Jennifer Clack’s “Gaining Ground: The Origin and Early Evolution of Tetrapods” for a specific focus on one transition will give you a much better knowledge of the current state of play in paleontology than you appear to possess.

    “In fact, all the animals alive today can be found in the most distant fossil records, although many have slowly changed over time to adapt to changing environments.”

    This is complete nonsense. It’s either a sign of such complete scientific illiteracy or such an egregious lie that you should be ashamed of yourself. We have fossil specimens that go back as far as the Paleoarchaean, roughly 3.5 Ga. So find the rabbits, find the deer, find the turtles, find the humans, find the bees, find the crickets, find the snails, etc. etc. I dare you. In fact, let’s waive three billion years and you can go find these species in 500 Ma deposits. This should be simple if you weren’t simply making it up when you claimed that “all [all, I remind you] the animals today can be found in the most distant fossil records”.

    “Darwin reportedly commented about the religious-like passion of those clinging to his theory shortly before his death..”

    The Lady Hope story? SERIOUSLY?!?! Do you not know anything about how to evaluate sources? Isn’t that rather a handicap for a journalist? Lady Hope’s story of Darwin’s deathbed conversion has been debunked ever since it was first put about, first by Darwin’s family, and one intrepid Darwin biographer, James Moore, wrote a book-length refutation called “The Darwin Legend”. Why don’t you actually start learning about evolutionary biology and the history of Darwin’s life from reliable sources BEFORE sounding off on it?

    Seriously, if this is the kind of “scientific challenge” evolutionary biologists can expect to field, they’ve got nothing to worry about.

  • “Why does the apple fall from the tree to the ground?

    The 325 year old law of gravity explains it.

    In science, a law is a theory that has been proven, without a shadow of a doubt.

    A century and a half after Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution, it remains a theory.”

    Hopelessly muddled. I can hardly believe that a Bsc does not understand the differences between “law” and “theory”, and what they mean in the scientific context. I wonder where you got your degree?

    Gravity does not _explain_ why an apple falls. It _describes_ how an apple falls. And Newtonian gravity was replaced by Einstinian gravity. So it was hardly cast in stone.

    A law is not a theory. It is not something to be proven. It is an observed regularity of nature. There is no guarantee that no exceptions to it will ever be found.

    A theory is an explanation for an observed regularity.

    And yes, evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Here is proof that chimps and humans share common ancestry, http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm

    “I don’t think a Biblical creationism should be taught in science classes.”

    Well, there is that, at least, but you should take a good hard look at the sort of kooks who are pushing “teach the controversy”. Creationist fruit-bats – every last one of them.

    • DennisM says:

      It’s interesting that no one tries to persuade us of the validity of gravity by saying it is as solid a theory as evolution. Quibbles about “how” versus “why” are beside the point. We can describe precisely how gravity works and predict its actions in advance. Nothing like that is possible with evolution — no way no how, even after 150+ years. Whatever we observe today is whatever evolved, and the stories keep getting more elaborate. Similar traits in widely different creatures are examples of “convergent” evolution, unless they are widely dissimilar traits in similar creatures, then it’s divergent. Traits are selected according to what is more fit for the environment, unless they are not, because they were selected by sexual preference. “Trees of life” built according to form vary widely from those built according to genes and even others according to proteins. No one can predict what will evolve, because whatever we see today is simply assumed to be what was most “fit.” But we know evolution happened, because… we need for it to have happened.
      You won’t be persuaded by this, but maybe you might be a little less strident in your own certainty.

  • Sandybritches@yahoo.com says:

    Gee Mark, people came out from under the rock to get you.
    Wish i knew euough to comment, i got a headache from trying
    to understand it, but you seemed to have people ranting this
    time.

Comments are closed.