Sunday 26 July 2015

Science Versus Evolution p.3 - Some Telling Symptoms

What are my options?
The astonishing thing then, is that despite all the propaganda, the theory of evolution can be shown to be false and easily disproved by the average person in the street who has even the slightest interest in biology, physics, chemistry or the information sciences.
Yet we are so often told that evolution is proven science, but belief in a Creator is merely religion.

This was highlighted in a recent debate with the Rt. Honourable Mr Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education about the proposed teaching of evolution to primary school children. The Government ignored the scientific questions raised to them and tried to reduce the argument to 'evolution vs. faith', saying: 'The [Education] department accepts that faith may give rise to personal misgivings about including this topic in the primary curriculum for the first time'. In other words, anything that challenges the dogma of evolution is a matter of personal faith! Why was it the government didn't address a single scientific objection raised to them? Because quite simply, on the ground of science, they would lose.

The Education Secretary was asked to give just one piece of scientific evidence, something that doesn't have to be taken by faith. Just one thing that is observable, testable, repeatable; just one piece of evidence that would warrant teaching this to primary school children as part of a science lesson. The Rt. Honourable Mr Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education could not provide a single piece of evidence, but simply replied saying "The government is very frm in its position. I am sorry but there is nothing more the department can say on the matter"5 (Correspondence reference 2013/0049695). Or to put it another way, 'Our mind is made up, don't confuse us with the facts!'

Why then, is evolution so popular and so promoted? Because evolutionists and the government recognise that the only other option is that 'in the beginning God... ' (Genesis 1:1), and that is something 'educated' scientists, governments and the media are unwilling to face. Francis Crick, one of the two men who discovered DNA, made this telling statement: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind what they see was not designed, but evolved" 11. If everything looks like it was designed, if all the evidence points clearly in that direction, why is scientific enquiry not allowed to consider the possibility? The reality is, that if God can be done away with, then governments are the highest power, scientists are the highest intelligence and the media are accountable to no-one.

The Bible speaks of those who would one day scoff at its teaching; of these people the Bible says they are 'wilfully ignorant'. In other words, they can see the truth for themselves, but they refuse to accept it. The apostle Paul, in writing to the Christians in Rome said: "For the invisible things of [God] from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20). Further, Paul
launches a damming indictment on `man's wisdom' saying; "Where is the wise? where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" (i Corinthians 1:20). "Because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man — and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things" (Romans 1:21-23).
Ancient cultures worshipped idols made of wood and stone; however, whist this must have been insulting to the one true God, today's academia has invented an even more insulting idol, and has attributed all the beauty, symmetry, order, design, scientific laws and the wonder of creation to... nothing!

No longer is it 'In the beginning God created...'. The mantra of today's schools, colleges and universities is 'in the beginning Nothing...' Then they call the Biblical explanation, with a beginning (verified by science), a universe that has been stretched out (verified by science), an Earth that is a globe (verified by science) hanging on nothing in space (verified by science), a Sun and Moon that exist to enable life on Earth and mark seasons (observable), life that suddenly appears on Earth (observable in the fossil record), creatures that reproduce only after their kind (verified by science and observation), a human race that is degenerating (verified by science), a world-wide flood (observable), a world that once had a uniform climate (verified by science), an ocean with 'pathways' (verified by science), the hydro cycle (verified by science) etc. etc... they call all of this, ' myth' or`religious belief', but nothing exploding and defying countless laws of nature and violating unnumbered Scientific facts, this they call "scientific knowledge, supported by extensive, robust evidence"
Again we ask the Rt. Honourable Mr Michael Gove, or any evolutionist, for just one piece of your 'extensive, robust evidence'. Please? Pretty please? Why has it gone quiet? Why have you 'nothing more to say'?

It may come as a surprise to many, that the theory of evolution is not so quickly embraced as assume.
For example, Serbia's government ordered schools to stop teaching the theory of evolution, sa evolution left many questions unanswered and was at best "dogmatic". Serbia's Education MiniStE Colic, decided that the teaching of evolution should be suspended. The Cabinet of Serbian PrimE Vojislav Kostunica backed the decision saying it was clear that the evolutionary explanation for " and development of man is full of voids". Colic added that science cannot be true science unless it i all possibilities, whereas most academic authorities, which are controlled by evolutionists, dc students to consider anything other than their theory.'?
"a way of getting a glimpse of God's mind." 11
As a believer himself, Collins finds exploring nature to be
said: "40 pe- Cent o working scientists claim to be believers".
Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project

The Evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link  except the fact that  it is missing - G.K. Chesterton

Jerry Bergman, PhD, has compiled a list of almost 3,000 scientists and professors who reject evolution of whom hold PhDs in science. He believes that he could easily complete a list of l0,000 names.
Even a casual follower of current news stories will have heard of the controversy raging in the USA regarding the proposed teaching of 'intelligent design' alongside Evolution theory in American schools. The cry from the evolutionists is that this is mixing religion with science. Those who say such things should quietly resign as they obviously have no grasp of what science is. Science is knowledge gained by observation using one or more of our five senses.
This is irrespective of our beliefs. However, the way we interpret our observations will depend on our belief systems — either 'Nothing exploded and then it evolved', or 'In the beginning God...' They are the only two options. We should remember that even biologists, chemists and archaeologists have a bias that will shape the way they interpret their observations.Science versus Evolution p5-6

Ch. 27 - Stifling the opposition by Michael Bowden The Rise of the Evolution Fraud

A number of people, among them several scientists who oppose the theory of evolution, whether it be on Biblical or scientific grounds or both, have formed groups, written books, given lectures and done all that they could to publicize the very considerable amount of scientific evidence against evolution. How many do oppose evolution would be difficult to say, but it is certainly far larger than most people would imagine, and the number is rising.
In America, the efforts of the creationist groups and their many supporters are at last beginning to have an effect. In some States, there have been several attempts to have a law passed that where evolution is taught, then 'scientific creationism' [effectively the scientific evidence for creation without reference to the Bible] should be given an equal amount of time. This was hotly contested in the courts by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and teachers organisations who claim it is importing religion into the classroom 'by the back door'. In America and the UK today, the emphasis has shifted to the teaching of "Intelli­gent Design" (ID).
In Britain the creationist's case has rarely received any recognition.

Quite recently, however. various articles have appeared seemingly in response to the growing numbers of those who support creation and the public presentation of the evidence. What is noticeable in such articles (or programmes) is that, although they may admit that there are a few "difficulties" with the theory, they will then proceed at some length to "explain" how certain objections can be overcome. What is certain is that at no time will a creationist be given a fair chance to present serious scientific objections to the theory. Any contributions made by a creationist will be carefully edited so that the only comments published will be those dealing with the general aspects of evolution such as the theological problems of origins. Serious scientific evidence receives no publicity whatsoever for to do so may provoke awkward questions on whether the theory is factually true when for years it has been paraded before the general public as "no longer a theory but proven fact".
Numerous lectures have been given on the scientific evidence which contradicts evolution and supports Genesis. Often the question is asked why such facts are never shown on any television programme. The answer is simply that no matter how frequently or by what means the BBC are approached, the end result is always a refusal to grant creationists a fair chance to present their case. The response is the same from any of the radio authorities, larger publishers, national newspa­pers, etc. etc.
What is certain is that at no time will a creationist be given a fair chance to present serious scientific objections to the theory.

It may appear that such a jaundiced comment is only to be expected from a minority group who fail to get a hearing for their peculiar views. However, all who lecture and write against evolution can testify to the very considerable interest which the subject generates when people are presented with facts which they have never heard before, whether Christians or not.
Such is the freedom - some would call it licence - in this country to discuss openly such subjects as explicit sex, adultery, abortion, eutha­nasia and other contentious matters, but the one subject which is sacrosanct is the theory of evolution. Such a statement may appear exaggerated, but there are numerous incidents which justify such a claim.
I therefore set out just a few of the many instances which have come to my notice, or have happened to me personally. In what follows, I have refrained from deliberately searching out sensational stories, but I am sure there are many such worthy of further investigation. Gerry' Bergman is an excellent researcher and has written an extensive article on this bias against creationists in Journal of Creation 9(2):267-275 August 1995 which appears at;

1. THE B.B.C.
(A) Dr. Gish
As a one time Director of the Institute of Creation Research, Califor‑
nia now retired, he has travelled extensively, speaking on the creation
versus evolution debate. Whilst touring in this country, he once said; "When a creationist is available they'll put him on TV. I have been interviewed many times on television in the States. I have been interviewed on nationwide TV in New Zealand and Aus­tralia. But your BBC... I think they are the worst when it comes to excluding an alternative point of view"[41 ].
128 Ch. 27 - Stifling the opposition
they could put on TV.
Thus, was our great, highly regarded and much loved institution ruthlessly taken over and used for the destruction of our national ethos. It is interesting that all BBC recruitment is now only advertised in the Left Wing Guardian newspaper, so the bias continues.
2. Local Radio
In 1978, Professor Edgar Andrews and I were interviewed by Rev. M. Hall for his weekly programme, "Christian Forum" on Radio Trent When this was duly broadcast, it generated considerable interest. A few months later it was also used by the London Broadcasting Com­pany, and again it provoked interest. In January 1980 the London Broadcasting Company re-transmitted the programme and used it to measure their "audience rating'.
The response this time was "the largest they had ever received" [consisting of twelve letters incidentally!] and I was invited by the interested producer to have an interview one Sunday afternoon for transmission later that evening. After we had met, he mentioned. "some people actually believe the world was created in six days". When I replied that I also believed this and gave lectures on the scientific evidence in its support, his lower jaw almost dented the floor. The interview, in which I challenged evolutionists to a debate, was eventually completed, and, a little to my surprise, actually transmitted.
Despite writing, telephoning and leaving messages, I did not receive any response whatsoever, neither did they forwarded any letters they may have received requesting information, or details of my books.
I subsequently met the Chairman of the Religious Advisory Board of LBC. He said he would try to arrange a debate on the subject and I suggested the name of Prof. Berry, a prominent Christian theistic evolutionist. No response was received.

This sudden silence is quite typical of an initial great interest shown by producers and editors, only to be followed by a sharp "cooling off . It seems to me that either they become aware of how 'hot' the subject is and fear ridicule from their professional colleagues, or alternatively (or additionally) they receive a direct order from senior executives that no further time or space is to be given to the topic. As a commercial firm, here was an opportunity to greatly increase their audience ratings, yet they avoided doing so. This proves to me that not publicising creation is even more important than commercial gain.
Later, in reply to two articles in The Church of England Newspaper by Prof. Berry in 1998 and 2002 1 pointed out that a number of his claims were simply untrue. In each of my replies (they were both published) I invited him to a debate [See ref. 101] but the usual silence followed. Thus the Gospel according to Theistic Evolution continues to be founded on the many lies of Evolution.
3. The Press
The same response is received when approaches are made to the National Press, periodicals, liberal Church newspapers, etc. Invariably, no matter how many letters may be received by a publication in response to a statement perhaps by the "Science Correspondent", whilst a few may be printed which criticize evolution in a general way, none will appear which give factual refutation. The usual excuse is "lack of space".

4. Universities
(A) Mr. Andrew Loose MSc
Mr. Loose took a B.Sc. in astronomy. The subject he chose for his dissertation was "The Age of the Universe". In researching for this, he examined all the various methods which had been used to give a date to the earth, the solar system and the universe. In every single case he found that considerable speculation was involved, and effectively the results were made to comply with evolutionary presuppositions regard­ing time scales.
When in due course he presented his paper, his was the only one that the Professor of the Department personally attended. Shortly after­wards, an instruction was issued that in future students would not be allowed to choose their own subjects, but must first confer with and receive the approval of the lecturers.
He subsequently went to another university to take his MSc. Further discussions on the subject of the age of the universe with a number of eminent astronomers — including the Astronomer Royal of the day — failed to show that his conclusions were in error.
(B) Dr. Arthur Jones
Whilst he was an undergraduate, Dr. Jones was awarded a prize for an inter-faculty essay on Communism, in which he was openly crea­tionist. When his Zoology Professor awarded him the prize, he told Dr. Jones that "No one who does not accept evolution will ever do research in my department". Undeterred, he nevertheless applied and, somewhat to his surprise, was accepted. Later, when he was being interviewed for his Ph.D., the assistant interviewer bluntly asked. "If we award you your Doctorate, how do we know you won't then use it to spread your views on creation?" The senior inter-viewer, however, interrupted and said the question was unfair and should not be answered.
Difficulties facing students
Perhaps at this point we should consider the difficult position of children and students who are creationists, when they are taught evolu­tion at schools or colleges.
Instruction in schools about evolution is invariably given as if it were a proven fact, but when teachers are challenged on this, the reply is that it is only taught as 'a theory'. But this aspect is so little referred to, if at all, that a class of young children will certainly absorb it as proven fact. How often children tell their parents that because "teacher said so" then it must be an incontrovertible fact! The absorption of evolution would of course be greatly strengthened if not a single fact or argu­ment against evolution is presented. The reason for this may be that the teacher is completely unaware of any such evidence existing. Alterna­tively they may realise that to teach anything different to the standard set of notes on evolution would be to enter fields of contention which are not conducive to a quiet life! Those who take this 'easy way out' may like to reflect what a disservice they are doing to the generation they seek to serve so conscientiously.
At universities, the situation is even more difficult. A young student may disagree with the evidence for the theory being given by a lecturer, but may be unwilling to criticize him before the whole class and thereby incur his displeasure.
Similarly, when answering questions in examinations (not necessarily on evolution), to refer to evidence which contradicts the theory could make just that difference between pass and failure, should his paper be marked by an ardent evolutionist. I am sure that such could happen and at times does. Lecturers cannot claim to be totally free of personal views when dealing with such a fundamental subject as evolution. Indeed, it is not unknown for some people to become highly emotional when doubt is expressed about the theory.
Since the first edition of this book, the mass media display exactly the same bias as they have at all times. In one TV programme, the creationist, in a local studio, was placed in a small room and instructed not to look at a monitor, so he was unable to see the opposing speakers in the main studio. In another case, the creationist could only hear the studio with a two second delay due to "technical reasons". This caused him great confusion and he appeared hesitant and uncertain in trying to comment on the discussion. There are many "tricks of the trade" that technicians and editors can use to put people at a disadvantage and give them an appearance of incoherence and confusion.
The United Kingdom
A Mori Poll of 2,000 people gave the results ‑
Creation 22%, Intelligent Design 17%, Evolution 48%, Don't know 13%. Thus, 52% did not believe in evolution! One biology teacher reported "Many of my pupils training to be biologists are creationists, and they are often the brightest pupils."
An article in the Independent, Sunday 1 June 2008, said;
"Professor Steve Jones said religious students – even those studying medicine – were becoming increasingly vocal in their opposition to evolution, saying he was 'telling lies and insulting people's religion' by teaching the subject."
"They want permission not to come to those lectures and sit those exam questions," he said. "I have been teaching genetics and evolutionary biology for 30 years and for the first 20 I think the issue arose once. That's changed." [94].
Initially, I assumed that it was Christian believers complaining about the course, but to bluntly claim that the lecturer was "telling lies" and "insulting" their religion did not quite accord with the usual British understatement and reluctance to be so condemnatory. When it was mentioned that some Muslims had complained about lectures on evolu­tion, all became clear that it was from this faith that the main com­plaints came. British reserve and fear of upsetting the tutors - and thereby failing their exams - probably prevents Christians from making such outspoken comments. Muslims seem to have no such reserva­tions!
This quotation was used at the beginning of an interview with this author on LBC Radio on 2 June 2008. The interviewer referred to the 40% who rejected evolution and said I would be pleased with this result. I agreed, but I wondered about the remaining 60%. 1 said "How many of them actually agreed with creation, but dare not mention this for fear of losing their job?" - to which he replied "You may well be right! "

In Chapter 17 I reported the 1986 Oxford Union debate in which no less than 42% of the undergraduates voted for creation! The shock to the governing body resulted in the whole debate being expunged from their records.
Thus, despite the overwhelming propaganda for evolution by all the mass media, education authorities, etc., a surprisingly high percentage of the population still accept creation as more credible of the two theories, but this is ignored and the propaganda continues unabated.
There have been a number of attempts to allow the teaching of creation in schools, but this has been fiercely resisted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
Despite the powerful forces in opposition, the growing evidence contradicting evolution is gradually reaching the public. Gallup has carried out surveys of the American public every few years and the results have been reasonably consistent. Taking their first and latest surveys for 1991 and 1997 and a CBS survey of 2006, the average of these results gave -
Creation - 49%, Theistic Evolution 35%, Evolution - 11% [93].
These are figures are surprising in view of the propaganda pressure US citizens receive from official sources - the ACLU, scientific organi­sations, school authorities, etc.
The results from scientists, however are completely different - Crea­tion 5%, Theistic Evolution 40%, Evolution 55%. This shows that many scientists bow the knee at the altar of Evolution, but the question still remains; how many agree with creation but only privately for the sake of their jobs!
The Rest of the World
One survey [93] said that broadly, Europe mainly accepted evolu­tion, whilst in the mainly Muslim Middle East, creation predominated. In Africa, most people are surprised that anyone should think that life on this earth could possibly have arisen by pure chance. They are too close to the land and see the miracle of growth every day to think that it is all an accident!
The threats against all critics
I am convinced that there are many Christian and non-Christian scientists who have studied the evidence against evolution and find it at least reasonably convincing. However, depending on the work they do and their position in their company or government organisation, they will never admit that they have reservations about evolution, for they are well aware that they will be ridiculed, and possibly ostracised - and few are prepared to accept that. They know that their promotion prospects would be damaged as this would enable them to promote their contentious views further. They could also face possible dis­missal, with all the disastrous repercussions this would have on their lives, income, career and family.

I reported the 1986 Oxford Union debate in which no less than 42% of the undergraduates voted for creation! The shock to the governing body resulted in the whole debate being expunged from their records.

It might be thought that the possibility of dismissal is a ridiculous charge to make against evolutionists who are in positions of authority, but this not so. Let me relate a few of the cases that have received some publicity. There are no doubt others that are not as well recorded as these.

Richard Sternberg
Richard Sternberg was the editor of the Proceedings of the Biologi­cal Society of Washington which was under the auspices of the Smith­sonian Institute. In 2004 he received an article that supported the case for Intelligent Design. As he was a specialist in evolutionary theory he decided to review it himself as he had often done before, but he discussed it three times with a qualified colleague and then sent it out for three peer reviews. All involved were thoroughgoing evolutionists but, nevertheless, all agreed that the paper should be published. Fol­lowing publication, complaints began to arise, mainly from federal government employees acting in concert with an outside advocacy group, the National Center for Science Education.
When the controversy blew up and attempts were made to fire him, the whole subject was investigated by two official government com­mittees who fully exonerated him. He did resign from his position but this had been arranged long before the controversy arose [91 ].
Although not successful in removing him because he allowed an article supportive of Intelligent Design to be published, it does demon­strate the forces that can be marshalled by evolutionists when they feel threatened. If nothing else, even though they were not fully successful, they know that these events will be taken as a warning to others in less prestigious levels of their professions to be sure that they do not cross the authorities to whom they are beholden for their salaries.
Michael Behe
Michael Behe is Professor of Biochemistry in the Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University. He is also a member of the Intelligent Design group and has written several books critical of evolution. His most well known illustration of "irreducible complex­ity" is a mouse trap; take any one of its components away and it will not work. In the same way, the complexity of life is such that any removal of an important component with either kill the organism or seriously impair its function. Life could not possibly have arisen by a series of small changes; it had to be right first time.
He originally accepted evolution, but gradually came to see that there were serious flaws in it. He eventually wrote against it, and was duly turned on by his professional colleagues.
He records some of the comments he has received-,
(a) One professor called him a "screwball". Behe commented "In a way it actually makes me feel good when Darwinists call me names. First, it shows that they are having a tough time coming up with actual arguments against design. It also shows that they aren't the coolly logical persons they would have everyone think they are".
(b) Asked why ID writers never appear in peer reviewed publica­tions, he replied "I've tried to publish on this topic in journals, but the editors were not receptive. So I and my colleagues have written books to explain design." His books, in fact, were more carefully reviewed and vetted than most articles in journals.
The Kansas Board decision
In 1995, The National Academy of Sciences laid down regulations for the teaching of science in the schools. A few years later, the Kansas Board of Education appointed a committee to advise on implementing these regulations. It was then discovered that the regulations insisted

that only evolution theory alone should be taught in the science classes, and that it should be used as a "unifying concept" for all science education. The board decided not to implement the more extreme evolutionary requirements of the regulations. Predictably, the reaction from evolutionists was ferocious.
The editor of Scientific American contended that the educational standards in Kansas were obviously poor. He said:
"Make it clear that in light of the newly lowered education standards in Kansas, the qualifications of any students applying from that state in the future will have to be considered very carefully. Send a clear message to the parents in Kansas that this bad decision carries consequences for their children. If kids in Kansas aren't being taught properly about science, they won't be able to keep up with children taught competently elsewhere. It's called survival of the fittest. Maybe the Board of Education needs to learn about natural selection firsthand."
Thus was the board threatened with academic isolation should it pursue its intended course. The reaction of other official organisations was equally strong.
After a campaign, the board was changed and the NAS regulations were accepted, but later a further vote placed conservatives back in power. Eventually, in 2005, by 6 votes to 4, the teaching of Intelligent Design was approved for teaching as well as evolution.
You can see the fierce reactions of evolutionists that any limitation to their propaganda provokes. Behe commented "Bureaucracies with power do not relinquish it easily."

The few examples which I have given above do indicate the variety of ways in which the dogma of evolution is carefully protected from public exposure of its scientific weaknesses. Enquiries amongst one's scientific friends would, I am sure, reveal many more instances.
In this chapter we have only briefly considered how some of our major institutions effectively block any serious criticisms of evolution from reaching the the general public. There is however one establish­ment organisation which so far exceeds these in its popular promotion of the theory that it requires a complete chapter to do justice to the investigation of its activities.
(Chapter 28 was on the natural history Museum reported in the first part)

No comments: