|email - March 2013|
Geronimo thinks we didnít make our point clearly.
Okay, I read it.
Why did you post it?
I know you run a comedy site, but where was the humor in this one?
I only saw one "smiley face", and there was not one song.
The test is: Can you state your point in 50 words or less? If not, why ramble endlessly?
If you had read the book [The Altenberg 16: An Exposť of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur], why did you not take it apart, point by point?
Maybe the humor is in the fact that you failed once again.
The important thing is if you set out to represent the TRUTH, and you only take the roads you choose, then you FAIL.
It's a choice we each make....
His email was 112 words, and we are not sure what his point was.
Of course, we should be able to state our point succinctly, and I feel we can (although the 50 word limit seems arbitrarily small to us). Let us try again.
The subheading under The Evolution of Evolution was, ďThe Altenberg 16 proposed the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) to solve evolutionís problems.Ē The point of the article was that many professional biologists find the Modern Synthesis (the reigning theory of evolution) to be an inadequate explanation for the origin and diversity of life, and some proposed the EES to address those problems. However, it has been roughly five years since the EES was proposed, and most professional biologists have not embraced the EES. The problems with the modern theory of evolution remain unsolved. (Thatís just 64 words.)
The accompanying article reported two of the problems that were raised at the 2013 Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology Annual Meeting. In particular, (1) the evolution of jaws capable of eating food on land supposedly evolved 80 million years after the first quadrupeds made the transition from water to land, and (2) jellyfish that look so similar that it is assumed they had a close common ancestor have such different nervous systems that they canít possibly be closely related. Furthermore, these two kinds of jelly fish must have evolved their remarkably complex nervous systems independently, which seems impossible.
The reason we donít just make a point in 50 words or less, and write nothing more, is because our points would then be nothing more than unsubstantiated assertions. If we claim, ďMany modern, highly intelligent and well-educated professional biologists recognize fatal flaws in the theory of evolution,Ē it is no more valid than when evolutionists assert, ďAll scientists believe the theory of evolution.Ē We cite peer reviewed professional literature to back up our assertions, unlike the immature evolutionists who could only back up their assertions by calling Jeff names (as we reported in Jeffís Sad Experience).
We did not take Mazurís book apart point by point because we were reviewing her book, not attacking it. We were trying to describe her book as truthfully as we could. Honestly, the book is just a collection of conversations Mazur had with many respected evolutionary experts, which were sometimes boring and redundant because they were unedited. Occasionally the conversations reveal the dissatisfaction many professional biologists have with the current theory of evolution. You have to dig through a lot of coal to find a diamond in it; but there are a few diamonds to be found.
Mazur subtitled her book, ďAn Exposť of the Evolution Industry,Ē presumably because she was surprised to discover that scientific research depends upon funding, which perhaps biases the results.
There isnít anything wrong with the bookóbut there isnít anything tremendously good about it, either. It is just an average book with a few interesting points.
Yes, we like to use humor to make some important points in a non-threatening way. We are perhaps immodestly proud of our award-losing video, ďEvolution for Intellectuals,Ē and ďThe Wizard of OozeĒ (which was turned into a radio drama by KRSF and broadcast for the second year in a row on Darwin Day, February 12th). The song parodies give me an excuse to get out my guitar, bass, and drum machine, and have a little fun.
Comedians made fun of President Clinton for chasing women, and President Bush for fumbling over words; but none ever made fun of Clinton for misspeaking, or Bush for fooling around, because humor has to be based on truth to be funny.
We know there is danger that sarcasm can be misinterpreted (especially when quoted out of context), so we are grateful for the invention of the smiley face, and we try not to over-do the humor.
Ironically, we arenít sure how much sarcasm is in Geronimoís email. In some of his other emails, he seems to be defending evolution. In some, he seems to be praising us for pointing out the errors in the theory. We donít really know what he believes.
Our goal is to disclose things in the professional scientific literature that are not consistent with the belief that all living things are the result of evolution from a common ancestor; and we try to do it in an understandable and entertaining way. We know we canít convince anyone to believe anything with our silver tongues. All we can do is present thought-provoking information which may help sincere seekers for truth to make an informed decision.
The American public school system presents a one-sided argument which ignores all the science against evolution. Organizations like the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Center for Science Education use judicial and political pressure to maintain that monopoly of thought because the theory of evolution will not stand up to honest, scientific investigation. As Suzan Mazur discovered, there are religious and financial reasons why the theory of evolution has to be propped up this way.
We arenít trying to be argumentative, and we donít want you to take our word for it. We just want you to investigate for yourself because we are confident that any sincere seeker for truth will discover that science is against evolution.
|Quick links to|
|Science Against Evolution
|Back issues of
of the Month