by Dr. Charles Jackson
“Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy.” (Charles Darwin, in “Life and Letters of Charles Darwin,” 1887, vol 2, p229)
In 2008, I surprised myself by predicting the downfall of Darwin by year’s end. Watching the “signs of the times” in the scientific community, I took comfort for my claim in many indicators, like this headline from The New York Times (6/26/2007):
“Darwin Still Rules, but Some Biologists Dream of a Paradigm Shift”
Darwinists also were being chided by those in the other branches of science:
“Evolutionists have ‘Physics Envy.” They tell the public that the science behind evolution is the same science that sent people to the moon, and cures diseases. It’s not. The science behind evolution is not empirical, but forensic … no testing, no observations, no repeatability, no falsification … what the public discerns [is] that evolution is just a bunch of just-so stories disguised as legitimate science.” (John Chaikowsky, “Geology vs Physics,” Geotimes, vol 50, Apr 2005, p6)
Things just kept getting worse, until last summer a group of renegade evolutionists got together for a conference with the purpose of coming up with “a new synthesis.” I was shocked with their proceedings. Here are quotes from the conference notes of some of the very influential leaders in evolutionary thinking.
“The structure of evolutionary theory becomes an organization of problem agendas.” (Alan Love of U Minn, Altenberg Austria 7/10-13/08)
Hmm … there’s a new train of thinking. And how did they set about these “problem agendas?” They began to make up new concepts, even far more imaginary than the original failing theories they were seeking to replace!
“The evolution of evolvability is also in the evolution of genome organization and evo-devo.” (Gunter Wagner of Yale U, Altenberg 7/10-13/08)
So, the ability to evolve … had to evolve? When they start talking out both sides of their mouths like this, you know something’s rotten in Denmark (or in this case, Austria). And I’m not just doing some sly out-taking were I managed to find silly things in their notes. This kind of warped logic was characteristic – characteristic of their new “Extended Evolutionary Synthesis,” which they intend to unveil to the world later this year of 2009!
Meanwhile, how are the standard guardians of Darwin holding off the dogs of science, data, and inquiry? Their rhetoric has never been more desperate. During the question-answer period after a debate with Intelligent Design theorist William Dembski, famous evolutionary philosopher Michael Ruse blurted out this pronounced judgment on ID theory to the audience.
“I’m not saying it’s a bad answer. I’m saying it’s not a scientific one … some answers just aren’t appropriate!” (Michael Ruse of Fla St Univ, in Sharp Music Hall, Univ of OK, 2/27/09)
In Q&A, Ruse had to admit that Intelligent Design is actually a good answer to the question of the origins. The only thing left that he could do, was to just announce that “some answers just aren’t appropriate.” That takes nerve! If a creationist had so simply written off an atheistic but logical answer as just not being “appropriate” -- think of the outrage of the “open-minded freethinking” evolutionist community!
Top prize for hypocrisy and desperation goes to world-famous God-hating blasphemer Richard Dawkins (Oxford University’s Don for the “Public Understanding of Science”). He not only says that certain answers cannot be considered. He goes so far as to say that certain questions should never be considered!
“Science answers the ‘how’ question. The ‘why’ question is just a silly question. The question is an inappropriate one.” (Richard Dawkins, Oxford U, 3/6/09, OU McCaslin Fieldhouse)
Both Ruse and Dawkins were a part of the “Dream Course Lectures” put on by U of Okla near OK City this semester. Most of the lectures were attended by Creation Truth Foundation staff. The prize for stretching the limits of the envelope the farthest, however, in order to save the godless theory of evolution, must go to Altenberg Conference speaker John Beatty who OU also brought in for the “Year of Darwin” talks.
“If outcomes are chance, then maybe the Laws are, too … Once they say the Laws evolved, we’ll realize those aren’t the Laws … We might have moved beyond the Laws of Nature!” (John Beatty of Univ British Columbia, at Noble Museum, 3/10/09)
Finally! – an evolutionist admits their theory needs to ignore the known principles discovered by the greats in mankind’s history of science! Can you believe it? This man gets paid a huge honorarium to stand up and say there are no such things as the Laws of Science? If a creationist speaker were to say that – they’d publicly laugh us to scorn. But when it’s one of their own, they marvel at the deep wisdom!
We really shouldn’t be too surprised. Half a century ago, evo’s began invoking the working of miracles, without the benefit of a Miracle-Maker. Here’s the classic quote from the mentor of at-that-time young Stephen Jay Gould (one of the most famous evolutionists of the 20th century).
“The important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of at-least-once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event … given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once … Given so much time, the ‘impossible become possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One only has to wait; time itself performs the miracles.” (George Wald, Harvard U, in book “The Physics and Chemistry of Life,” 1955, p12.)
Did you see the evo-atheist go from “impossible” to “certain” … in a single breath? Did you hear him use the word “miracle.” ‘Beyond belief. But, such is their faith.