Welcome to the home of "The Question Evolution Project". There is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution. Evidence refuting evolution is suppressed by the scientific establishment, which is against the true spirit of scientific inquiry. Using an unregistered assault keyboard, articles and links to creation science resources are presented so people can obtain evidence that is not materialistic propaganda. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Lack of Morality in Evolution "Education"

When the cause is "right", then it does not matter how one goes about achieving a goal, yes? Misleading people, outright lying, shading the truth — those are acceptable, yes? For the most part, the philosophy of "the end justifies the means" is frowned upon. But apparently, indoctrination in evolutionism is an exception. In that case, go ahead and lie to students; they must be compelled to believe in evolution (and use the equivocation fallacy to refer to this philosophy about the past as "science") at all costs. Don't forget to leave the mistakes, frauds, errors and reclassifications in the textbooks! When these sidewinders lie, they are being consistent with their fundamentally flawed worldview.
There have been many examples of evolutionary falsehoods used to indoctrinate students into evolution. The list includes
  • Forged Haeckel embryo pictures, still used in many textbooks
  • Staged photos of peppered moths which wouldn’t even prove goo-to-you evolution anyway but merely the creationist-invented theory of natural selection.
  • Misleading analogies that cars and airplanes evolved when of course they were designed (Intelligent Design leader Phillip E. Johnson calls this ‘Berra’s Blunder’, and Ian Plimer committed this blunder too).
  • Claiming that creationists believe that God must have created cave fish as blind.
  • Insinuating that creationists deny natural selection and variation.
  • Piltdown Man, an obvious forgery not exposed for 40 years, and the peccary tooth dubbed ‘Nebraska man’
  • Archaeoraptor , the Piltdown Bird.

Teaching lies to kids is OK!

But at least one evolutionist is happy to use falsehood, as long as the end result is more students believing in evolution. An evolutionary True Believer and educator, one Bora Zivkovic, Online Community Manager at PLoS-ONE, proudly stated:
You can find out what was stated and read the rest by clicking on "Evolutionist: it’s OK to deceive students to believe evolution".

Monday, February 27, 2012

Darwin Day was a Yawner

Despite the efforts of atheist and evolutionists to get religious celebrations in honor of Papa Darwin and to have their philosophies into the churches, "Darwin Day" (February 12), it seemed to go largely unnoticed. There were individuals who used the day as an excuse to assert their opinions as fact and to present bad science as conclusive proof of evolution, and there were those of us who stated that we have the right to disbelieve in the alleged "science" of evolution. People did not really care.
Charles Darwin was born February 12, 1809, but not many people celebrated "Darwin Day" on February 12 this year. One Texas columnist lamented this lack of festivity, as well as polls showing that 40 percent of Americans believe in creationism and about a third of Texans believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.
In an opinion piece for the San Marcos Mercury, Lamar Hankins wrote: 
I look to the consensus among experts to decide what is true…. Evolutionary biologists and those in related fields understand that the theory of evolution is indeed proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Since I am not a biologist, I think it is rational to accept the scientific consensus that evolution is true.
You can read Lamar's opinion, and the rest of "Why 'Darwin Day' Passed without Fanfare", here.      

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Audio Saturday 8: Logic, Evolutionist and Miller-Urey

Here is an audio of creationist Mike Riddle taking a call from a fundamentalist evolutionist who appears to want to set him straight on a few things. Unfortunately for "Ross", the kid who called, he did not know much about the discredited Miller-Urey experiment, science, logic &c.

So, he resorted to the same nonsense that I have encountered when I corner evolutionists and atheists: Insults, accusations of dishonesty, statements of faith, presuppositions, distractions and so forth. Mike Riddle kept to the subject and did not fall for the silliness of the evolutionist.

This just in, a comment to me on Facebook before this article was published:
The Miller experiment is such a joke! As a chemist I am appalled that anyone thinks it can be used as evidence for abiogenesis. Such a lack of clear thinking on their behalf. I can't imagine anyone who is a scientist would rely on that experiment to "prove" that life can be made in a lab. Ahh! And what of the racemic mixture problem and the chirality of life? The answer they give: some clays can arrange themselves so that is possible. How did the molecules that are necessary climb on top of these clays to be synthesized into the proper chiral form to react with other chiral molecules to produce the correctly chiral large chain biopolymer to come together with more of the same!!! Such nonsense!
Do not use the URL given in the audio, it's defunct. In fact, the new owners of the domain have made it into a marketing trap. Here is the link, and you can hear the kid shoot himself in the foot all by his lonesome. Full audio source is on the October 19, 2004 "The Orign of Life"link, "Ross" is at the 12 minute 25 second mark.



Friday, February 24, 2012

Chemical Evolution: False

Another evolutionary myth to devastate is "chemical evolution". People still cling to the infamously bad "Miller-Urey Experiment" (which Chandra Wickramasinghe referred to as "cheating") as "proof" of abiogenesis, and make other desperate attempts to cling to the fantasy that life originated by time, chance and random processes without a Creator — or a mechanism.
The ancient Greeks believed in the spontaneous generation of life. More recently, Louis Pasteur showed that life did not arise from non-living material. Yet those who deny the Creator's existence must believe it happened once upon a time. Evolutionists estimate the earth to be 4.6 billion years old and the earliest fossils about 3.8 billion years old. An initially hot Earth might take, say, 0.3 billion years to become "user friendly," so the first life took only about half a billion years to arrive from abiotic (non-living) starting materials. If it is as easy as just having the right conditions, one might think that life should have evolved many times before the advent of photosynthesis produced an oxygen concentration which made conditions unfavorable. Yet all life rides upon the same biomolecules, metabolic pathways, and genetic information, so life had but one origin, either created or evolved.
Modern theories of the origin of life date back to the Soviet scientist Oparin in 1924. His ideas of a Primeval Soup were promoted in the West by fellow communist J.D.S. Haldane of Cambridge. In 1953 Urey & Miller published results of some simple experiments in organic chemistry which seemed to lend credence to the soup theory. Interestingly, forty years later, Miller admitted that the question of the origin of life is much more difficult than he, or anyone else, had thought. Clutching at straws, others have suggested mid-ocean ridges (with their cocktail of hot chemicals) as the cradle of life, while others have postulated an extraterrestrial seeding of the Earth. This latter suggestion still does not offer a mechanism for abiogenesis.
Read the rest of "The Myth of Chemical Evolution" here.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Everything in Biology Makes Sense WITHOUT the Darkness of Evolution

In the last post, we examined how evolution is the modern-day mythology of creation. Now, we'll see that the old Dobzhansky saying, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" is false.


Sure, it's quoted seven ways from sundown by Darwin's cheerleaders like Nye, Tyson, Dawkins, and others, of course. But their constant assertions do not create reality. The following article effectively destroys that nonsense.
Darwinists commonly claim that evolution is the foundation of all of the sciences, especially the life sciences and that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” To evaluate this claim I reviewed both the textbooks used for life science classes at the college where I teach and those that I used in my past university course work. I concluded from my survey that Darwinism was rarely mentioned. I also reviewed my course work and that of another researcher and came to the same conclusions. From this survey I concluded that the claim “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” is false.
Click here to read the rest of "An Evaluation of the Myth That 'Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution'".
    

Monday, February 20, 2012

The Evolution Mythology

What do you call a story that has historical underpinnings, believers, defenders, promoters, fanatical devotion — without any empirical evidence? I would be tempted to say that it sounds like a myth.
In 1999 Phillip Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial, said on CNN: "I think we should teach a lot about evolution. In fact, I think we should teach more than the evolutionary science teachers want the students to know. The problem is what we're getting is a philosophy that's claimed to be scientific fact, a lot of distortion in the textbooks, and all the difficult problems left out, because they don't want people to ask tough questions."
But in the ensuing dozen years, how much has really changed in science classrooms?
What follows is a partial list of questions that could be used to critically examine and evaluate evolution. They would make good classroom discussions, initiated by either teacher or student, or research assignments.
You can read the rest of "Evolution: The Creation Myth of Our Culture" here.

Friday, February 17, 2012

Baffled by "Question Evolution"

This site is a year old. I missed the anniversary because I was so wrapped up in the "Question Evolution Day" campaign (which is not affiliated with Creation Ministries International, even though I use their materials). My focus for this site is still evolving (heh!) and sharpening.




I have not made any secret over the fact that I am a Biblical creationist. The purpose of this site was to keep Biblical materials to a minimum so that scientific evidence against evolution and for creation can be prominent. Since I am not ashamed of the gospel, I am not going to weed out articles that say, for instance, "Here is a Biblical model and the evidence supports it". Those with intellectual honesty will realize that we are presenting our models and interpretations, just as evolutionists are presenting their own. After all, that is what true scientific inquiry is about, yes?


In the intervening year, I have encountered some particularly antagonistic atheists who are interested in attacking God, the Bible, Christianity itself, me and whatever else they could set their sights on. Also, I have encountered a few evolutionists who want to discuss the science, but they were few and far between, eventually showing their true colors and going on the attack.


Interesting.


I have learned several things:

  • These people are welded to their presuppositions
  • They do not do their homework about creationists and ID proponents, ignorant of what is really taught (i.e., accusing us of simply saying, "Goddidit", or that we use the Bible exclusively) and ignorant of the credentials of scientists who present views contrary to evolutionism
  • Many are extremely angry and full of hate, policing what they consider "science"; hate "stupidifies" people (that word is a "Slickism") and feel that they are protecting "science" from "religious" people
  • Logical fallacies run rampant
  • Surprisingly common to use outdated "science" as well as tendentious interpretations of facts in desperate attempts to cling to the evolutionist faith
  • It is difficult to engage in a discussion when hate, presuppositions, ignorance, bad "science" and lack of logic are the dominant factors
  • The need is indeed very great to counteract the (let's be blunt here) brainwashing of evolutionism
The following article shows some of what I have experienced (except that the skeptic writing to CMI is actually civil).
Sam B. emailed us, having spent some hours reading articles on creation.com, after being alerted to CMI’s Question Evolution campaign by an atheist blog site. Sam’s email is presented in its entirety and then Philip Bell responds.
To read Sam's questions and remarks followed by Philip Bell's response, click here for "Skeptic puzzled by ‘Question Evolution’ campaign".

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Where is the Logic?



In the media and especially on the Internet, we see some startling displays of "thinking" that makes me wonder if some people are employable. As I pointed out in my recent podcast experience, the self-appointed defenders of evolution use appeal to emotion, ad hominem, genetic fallacies, poisoning the well, false dilemma, appeal to ridicule, appeal to the majority and so much more. They should be embarrassed by their straw man arguments against creationists and ID proponents, since they clearly have no understanding of what is actually taught and believed.


What goes on in the real world for the day-to-day evolutionary scientist?
Since evolutionism rests upon premises and inductive and deductive arguments, it may be useful to test them against the principles of logic. In relation to the principle of non-contradiction, one finds numerous contradictory affirmations (continuity and discontinuity, gradualism and saltationism, and, above all, extrapolation from observation to the contrary of what has been observed). In relation to the identity principle, one notes shifts of meaning (as between macro and microevolution). Many authors have mentioned the frequent use of circulus vitiosus; to this will be added here the refusal to make a decision, to follow the thought process to its natural end by affirming as true or at least most probable the contrary of what has been shown to be false. Finally, several premises have proven to be factually questionable, such as the progressive nature of evolution or the attribution to time of a causative power. So many logical anomalies call into question the scientific status of the evolutionary hypothesis.
Read the rest of "Evolutionism and Logic" here. 

Monday, February 13, 2012

Afterward and Forward

‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. 
‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’
— Michael Ruse
For people who think for themselves, every day is "Question Evolution Day"!


Wow! The "Question Evolution Day" project has been a great deal of work. It would have been a bit less work if I had started sooner, but hey, I'm new to this kind of thing. Lots of time spent writing, contacting people, working on visuals, making a Facebook Page (and helping my co-admins put up material as well as run off the trolls) and so on.

In honor of Charles Darwin and his imagined evolutionary ancestors, we had banana cream pie and watched creation science videos.


I was hoping that Creation Ministries International
would take my suggestion and spearhead the project. After all, I got the idea from them with their "Question Evolution" information and their "15 Questions to Ask Evolutionists" tract. Even after I made their tract into a text-video with their permission, they did not reply to my suggestion. So, I decided that it was important enough to do it myself.

It has been a good learning experience, and I have ideas to not only keep the project growing, but to make it bigger and better next year. My list of contacts will be larger, and I will be contacting them sooner. And I'm going to do my part to make it bigger and better.

Thanks to:

There are some other things I wanted to add.

When I make remarks about evolution being a religion [1,2,3]
, the typical response is, "No, you idiot! Evolution is science!" No, it's a belief system about the past by people who were not there. It cannot be tested, falsified, repeated, measured and all those other things that real operational science can do. Evolution is the creation myth of our culture.

Someone has to break it to you: Evolutionary science and creation science are equally religious and both have their biases.


Do you think I'm just talking through my cowboy hat
? Do a search for "Darwin's birthday" and see all the celebrations and observances at museums and so on. For what? He popularized a pagan belief and made a pseudoscience out of it. Big deal.

Big religious deal. Hey, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, poops like a duck...

There are many more scientists who have actually contributed to the betterment of mankind that deserve celebrations. But then, their inventions, theories, discoveries and so forth were actually practical.


I said that I will be working on making "Question Evolution Day" bigger and better. In fact, it is now "The Question Evolution Project", but still emphasizing QE Day on February 12. Maybe I should work on turning it into "Question Evolution Week".
Yeah, that could work!

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Russel Up a Heretic



The faithful are celebrating the birthday of Charles Darwin today. They are cheering about his "wonderful discovery", and proclaiming that he was such a wonderful scientist, so it is only fitting that people with their massive intellects should accept the "fact" of evolution.


Not really.


Darwin was not a "great scientist" — his formal schooling resulted in a mediocre theology student. Evolution itself was not something that he came up with. (Instead, he popularized and science-ized pagan mythology.) As a matter of fact, Alfred Russel Wallace came up with a very similar theory of origins, so Darwin hurried his own work to the publisher.


Presenting "Darwin's Heretic":
One of the most renowned biologists of the nineteenth century, Alfred Russel Wallace shares credit with Charles Darwin for developing the theory of evolution by natural selection. Yet one part of Wallace’s remarkable life and career has been completely ignored: His embrace of intelligent design. Darwin’s Heretic is a 21-minute documentary that explores Wallace’s fascinating intellectual journey and how it sheds light on current debates. The documentary features University of Alabama at Birmingham Professor Michael Flannery, author of the acclaimed biography, Alfred Russel Wallace: A Rediscovered Life.
You can watch this 21-minute documentary online (embedded below), or purchase it and get additional material that is not legally available online. Also, Greg Koukl of "Stand to Reason" interviewed Michael Flannery in this MP3, about 1 hr. 54 min. into the show.

Friday, February 10, 2012

Preconceptions and Radiometric Dating

February 12 is Question Evolution Day!


Paleontologists interpret data through their evolutionary presuppositions and worldview. Doesn't everyone? But when discarded evidence piles up and difficulties with dating methods worsen (such as realizing that there are too many assumptions and bad reasoning), that should cause some red flags for researches and prompt them to reevaluate their tendentious interpretations. But that would mean going in a direction that is unthinkable to them.
Many people think that radiometric dating has proved the Earth is millions of years old. That’s understandable, given the image that surrounds the method. Even the way dates are reported (e.g. 200.4 ± 3.2 million years) gives the impression that the method is precise and reliable.
However, although we can measure many things about a rock, we cannot directly measure its age. For example, we can measure its mass, its volume, its colour, the minerals in it, their size and the way they are arranged. We can crush the rock and measure its chemical composition and the radioactive elements it contains. But we do not have an instrument that directly measures age.
Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed. And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like.
Read the rest of "The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating" here.

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Creation: Science and Theology

Nathan Schumaker and Cowboy Bob Sorensen on the Theopologetics podcast discussing theology, evolution and the age of the earth.
Also posted at "Stormbringer's Thunder".


This is a different kind of article for me, because it was a new experience. I pestered Chris Date to let me be on his "Theopologetics" podcast to talk about creation science. He was interested, and said he had someone else in mind so that all three of us could do the podcast. This would be great in the lead-up to "Question Evolution Day".

It was scheduled several weeks away. We got the outline of questions he was going to ask, and shared it online to create our responses. Finally, the evening of February 7, 2012 arrived. This was my first conference call on Skype, and only about the fifth time I've used it at all, so I was a bit awkward with it.

Chris is experienced not only with technological things, but able to develop the interview questions to bring out the strengths of his guests. He is also serious about theology itself, and takes the Bible very seriously (I recall asking him if he tends to over-think some things), so I knew we were in good hands.

After e-mail communications and sharing the outline online, I finally "met" Nathan Schumaker. I quickly learned that he takes his subject and studies seriously as well, and is quite knowledgeable. Some of what he presented, I had known from previous years (pretty sure I was the oldest guy there), but he also taught me a few things.

Chris projected a session time of two hours. Wrong-o! Three and a half hours. It was time well spent, however.

Frankly (mind if I call you Frank?), I wasn't all that thrilled with my part of the discussion. Chris was able to edit out things like connection drop-outs and restarts, but also those annoying times when I was talking and the dry air in this place got to my throat; I had to mute Skype, cough, take a swallow of water and come back. Those kinds of things are to be expected. I think my main problem was that I was trying to do too much, as if I'd never have another podcast experience or something. Since I had time to prepare the extensive notes, I kept going back and adding golden thought nuggets. Some of those were repetitious. Also, since I had so much that I thought was oh-so-vital to say, I did some tangential things. And I got lost in the notes on occasion.

When I gave live talks in churches, I did reasonably well, but this was different. Still, I don't give myself failing grades. This was a learning experience. I expect to do better next time, whenever that is.

Edit: Forgot to mention that I kiddingly wrote to Chris, "Hope you took all my stupid stuff out!" He kidded back, "Nope, I left your stupid stuff in :-)".

"So, what do we have, Cowboy Bob?"

We have a podcast in three parts that was recorded in one evening. It has science for creation, including the age of the Earth and the days of Genesis (Nathan Schumacher will give you quite a bit to ponder). Also, theology and a defense for the days of Genesis. I was able to spend some time discussing logical fallacies, as well as the way people use them outright to lie.

Part 1 is here.
Part 2 is here.
Part 3 is here.

 

More About Dinosaur Extinction

February 12 is Question Evolution Day!

In the previous post, I mentioned that there are many theories about the extinction of the dinosaurs. The reason for this is that scientists find different theories (dino)sorely lacking. Some of them are so ridiculous, they are probably put forth as jokes. Part of the problem is that these scientists are operating from an evolutionary worldview. Perhaps they should be acting like scientists and examining the evidence without their presuppositional blinders?


Like their secular counterparts, creationists posit their models as well. The flood model seems to answer quite a few questions without playing fast and loose with the facts.
Dinosaur extinction is still a major enigma of earth history. In this review article, extinctions in the geological record will be briefly mentioned. Many of the imaginative theories for the extinction of the dinosaurs will also be presented. Within the uniformitarian paradigm, the meteorite impact theory, once considered ‘outrageous’, now is the dominant theory. However, the volcanic theory is still believed by a majority of palaeontologists. Both theories have their strengths and weaknesses. The unscientific behaviour of those involved in the meteorite paradigm change will be briefly explored. Evidence that the dinosaurs died in a cataclysm of global proportions will be presented, such as the huge water-laid dinosaur graveyards found over the earth. Occasional monospecific bone-beds and the rarity of fossils of very young dinosaurs suggest a catastrophic death and burial. The billions of dinosaur tracks recently discovered provide testimony to unusual, stressful conditions. Nests, eggs, and babies are a challenge to a Flood model, but there are enough unknowns associated with the data that solid conclusions are difficult to draw. The part that impacts and volcanism play in a Flood paradigm will be briefly discussed. The question of whether the K/T boundary and the extinction of the dinosaurs should be considered a synchronous event within the Flood will be considered.
You can read the rest of "The Extinction of the Dinosaurs" here.

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Dino-Sorely Extinct

"Question Evolution Day" is February 12!


The most common theory for the extinction of the dinosaurs is that they died. Case closed. Oh, more specifically? The second most common theory for the extinction of the dinosaurs is that an asteroid impacted the Earth 65-70 million years ago. Scientists are not unified on this, however, because it does not explain why other reptiles still lived. Other theories have been put forward, including parasites, blindness and chronic constipation.


Most theories about dinosaur extinction are based on uniformitarian assumptions that the earth is ancient,  life evolved and their extinction was long, long ago.


What happens when C-14 is used on dinosaur collagen, a substance that should not exist after such a huge period of time?
The discovery of collagen in a Tyrannosaurus-rex dinosaur femur bone was recently reported in the journal Science. Its geologic location was the Hell Creek Formation in the State of Montana, United States of America. When it was learned in 2005 that Triceratops and Hadrosaur femur bones in excellent condition were discovered by the Glendive (MT) Dinosaur & Fossil Museum, Hugh Miller asked and received permission to saw them in half and collect samples for C-14 testing of any bone collagen that might be extracted. Indeed both bones contained collagen and conventional dates of 30,890 ± 380 radiocarbon years (RC) for the Triceratops and 23,170 ±170 RC years for the Hadrosaur were obtained using the Accelerated Mass Spectrometer (AMS). Total organic carbon and/or dinosaur bone bio-apatite was then extracted and pretreated to remove potential contaminants and concordant radiocarbon dates were obtained, all of which were similar to radiocarbon dates for megafauna.
Read the rest of "Recent C-14 Dating of Fossils including Dinosaur Bone Collagen" here.

Monday, February 6, 2012

Sediment and Stratigraphy

One of the largest flaws in evolutionists' "logic" is the circular reasoning of the fossil record. How old is the fossil? You can tell because of the rock layers that contained it. How can you tell how old the rock layers are? Because of the fossils in them.

The so-called geologic column only exists in textbooks, not in nature.

Aside from the blatant question begging, this method of dating fossils also makes unwarranted assumptions about the uniformity of original conditions.
Stratigraphy, the basis of geological dating, was founded in the seventeenth century on three principles proposed by Nicolas Steno: superposition, continuity, and original horizontality. Successive observations and experiments show that his stratigraphic model was not in line with experimental data, because it overlooked the major variable factor of sedimentation: the current and its chronological effects. Experiments simulating the formation of sedimentary layers at variable current velocities using different-sized particles show that Steno’s principles apply only to the case of deposition at zero current velocity. Since sedimentary processes affect stratigraphy and geological dating, paleohydraulic conditions must be considered in any stratigraphic analysis. The estimated time of deposition is often the crucial factor in developing a local timescale, and the paleohydraulic approach links deposition to the critical transport velocity of current as determined by particle size. From this velocity, the corresponding transport capacity in units of volume and time is calculated. The time of sedimentation is the quotient obtained from dividing the volume of sedimentary rocks by the transport capacity. A team of Russian sedimentologists have applied this method to geological formations of the Crimean Peninsula and of the Northwest Russian Plateau in the St. Petersburg region. They discovered that the time required for sedimentation was only 0.01% of the corresponding period of the geological timescale. This is at variance with the time required for species to evolve.
You can read the rest of this PDF, "Time Required for Sedimentation Contradicts the Evolutionary Hypothesis" here.

Friday, February 3, 2012

What, ANOTHER Missing Link Hoax?


Evolutionists seem to be so determined to prove that evolution is true that not only will they resort to fraud, but they will fall for hoaxes. This should not happen if scientists used due diligence instead of ideology. Or is it the desire for continued funding? Anyway, it keeps happening...
It was only a short time ago that Ida was being hailed as the eight wonder of the world!  [Emphasis added]. Sir Richard Attenborough of Jurassic Park fame gushed, “Darwin would have been thrilled” and “This little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of the mammals.” Sir Richard went on to say, “Now people can say ‘okay we are primates’ show us the link” and “The link we have said up to now is missing – well it’s no longer missing.”
Why am I not surprised that we are saying goodbye to Ida?  The title of my rebuttal article concerning this much heralded discovery of an extinct lemur nicknamed Ida says it all. It was titled The New Missing Link: The Next in a Long Line of Hoaxes and Misrepresentations. So when an article by the Associated Press’s science writer, Malcolm Ritter, on October 21, 2009 ran with the title “Primate Fossil Called Only a Distant Relative,” neither I, nor any other Bible-believing person on planet Earth was really surprised.
The only difference between this failed missing link and all the others is that it only took five months for this piece of propaganda to be debunked. I think we should be thankful for the internet.  In more antiquated times, the ability to examine, comment upon, and refute, the work of and conclusions of others might have taken years.
Read the rest of "Say Goodbye to Ida" here.

Labels