In today's society, evolution is no longer recognized as a theory, but a fact. Richard Goldschmidt says, "Evolution of the animal and plant world is considered by all those entitled to a judgement to be a fact for which no further proof is needed." J. Savage adds, "No serious biologist today doubts the fact of evolution... The fact of evolution is clear." Is that true? Does evolution really have enough facts that no further proof is needed? Daniel Dennett (atheist philosopher) sure thinks so. He once said this concerning parents who teach their kids anything other than evolution, "Those of us who have freedom of speech will feel free to describe your teachings as falsehoods, and will attempt to demonstrate this to your children at our earliest opportunity." Not only do atheists believe that evolution is the truth, but they believe it so much, that they are willing to tell your children that you are a liar for teaching them anything else. Let's take a look at some of these "facts" that evolution proclaims to be true, and you can just decide for yourself who is lying.
1: The English Peppered Moth. The English peppered moth is what many claim to be proof for evolution. Let me explain. Back before the industrial revolution, English peppered moths were 95% light colored, and 5% dark colored. After the industrial revolution, when chemicals darkened the tree trunks, English peppered moths became 95% dark colored, and 5% light colored. The theory goes, once the tree trunks became dark colored, English peppered moths evolved to being dark colored so they could blend in with the trees and protect themselves from predators. Many science books have pictures of these moths on tree trunks to show you just exactly what they mean. (I have a few of these pictures on PowerPoint.) This is what many claim to be proof for evolution, some even say the best evidence that they have. So what's the problem? Well, you might find this interesting. English peppered moths do not land on tree trunks. They have been studied for over forty years, and they have only ever seen two land on tree trunks, and that was at night. So how did they get pictures with them on tree trunks? Great question. They artificially put them there. Why would they do that, and why are these pictures in our schools' textbooks? Bob Ritter, a Canadian textbook writer who knew the pictures were fake but still used them, says this "You have to look at the audience. How convoluted do you want to make it for a first time learner?" "We just want to get across the idea of selective adaptation. Later on they can look at the work more critically." Wow. How many of you knew that your textbooks are lying to you? But it's okay, they're just trying to make easier for all of us first time learners. Later, they will let us look at it more critically. Well, when is later? This same drawing is used in many college textbooks. Are we supposed to get our doctorate degree in biology before the evolutionists can tell us that they lied to us?
2. Ernst Haeckel. As soon as Charles Darwin's book The Origin of Species was published in 1859, Ernst Haeckel became an immediate fan. He loved the idea of evolution, and he wanted to do anything he could to help prove this theory. So he came up with the idea of "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". This basically means that every creature goes through its evolutionary stage while it is being born. He proved this by his drawings. If you look at them, you will notice that in the first stages of life, humans look exactly like a fish, pig, rabbit, etc. This was considered proof that we all came from a common ancestor. So what's the problem? Well, the drawings are fake. A scientist who studied embryos told Haeckel that his drawings didn't even resemble what the embryos really looked like, and the theory was a bust. That was back in the 1860's. Why is this interesting? Haeckel's drawings are still being used in textbooks as proof for evolution! Here are just a few schools and school systems who use science books that proclaim Haeckel's drawings as proof for evolution; University of Western Florida, South Huntington school district, NY, University of Tennessee Martin, Central Michigan University. Stephen Jay Gould (atheist) had this to say on the subject, "“Haeckel remains most famous today as the chief architect and propagandist for a famous argument that science disproved long ago but that popular culture has never fully abandoned." “We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of those drawings in a large number, if not the majority, of modern textbooks.”
3. Eohippus. The Eohippus or the "dawn horse" is a small creature, about the size of a Boston Terrier. It is also the supposed first stage in horse evolution. If you have ever been to the American Museum of Natural History, you will have seen about a 200 thousand dollar exhibit of horse evolution. What's the problem? That's right. It's fake. Heribert-Nilsson said "The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks." Stephen Jay Gould said this, “Once ensconed in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because, as stated above, textbooks copy from previous texts. (I have written two essays on this lamentable practice: one on the amusingly perennial description of the eohippus, or “dawn horse” as the size of a fox terrier, even though most authors, including yours truly, have no idea of the dimensions or appearance of the breed.”
You want to know what bothers me about Gould's statement? He considers the description of the dawn horse as amusing. He thinks this is funny. He thinks it's just a big joke. Well, I'm sorry, but I don't think this is a joke. Why? Because this is exactly the kind of misinformation that atheist like Daniel Dennett use to tell children that their parents are liars. Call me a stick in the mud, but I just can't find the humor in that.
- Colton Scott
“There were so many fewer questions when stars were still just the holes to heaven...”- Jack Johnson
No comments:
Post a Comment