Evolution in the News - January 1999

1998 Science Review

Science News summarized the most important stories they reported in 1998. It included some truly remarkable scientific advancements. Many of these advancements were made in biology, largely due to progress in gene sequencing and the resulting understanding of how living organisms function. This led to dramatic, and controversial, medical experiments. In other fields, chemists created a fullerene molecule smaller than a buckyball, and discovered how to make carbon nanotubes emit light. Computer scientists dramatically reduced the time necessary to decipher messages encrypted using the Data Encryption Standard, and wrote a program that can play poker well against expert poker players.

It was a good year for science, but not for evolution. Many of the 1998 articles in Science News fell into two categories:

  1. things that evolutionists used to tell us were true, but now tell us are false; and
  2. things that evolutionists used to tell us were false, but now tell us are true.
As you can imagine, it makes it difficult and frustrating for us when evolutionists debunk evolution faster than we can. But this happens every year. We are getting used to it, and we will try not to whine so much about it in 1999.

In 1998, evolutionists decided that ancient people werenít so primitive after all. They now believe Homo erectus was smart enough to sail to Indonesia 800,000 years ago, and learned to talk 400,000 years ago. Mesopotamians knew how to make artificial rock about 2000 B.C. Ancient Peruvians were expert metal workers, and prehistoric Native Americans made "sophisticated sandals and slip-on shoes." 1 But, on the other hand, they decided that Neanderthal people couldnít really play flute. Australian aborigines took longer to get out of their cave dwellings and into the suburbs than previously believed.

Evolutionists embraced the asteroid collision theory in greater numbers, and decided "the mass extinction at the end of the Permian period happened much faster than previously thought." 2 Then, "Studies of fossil teeth suggested that a drop in carbon dioxide concentrations redirected mammalian evolution." 3 (Isnít it wonderful what you can learn when inference from teeth is given equal weight with experimentation?)

Life evolved earlier than previously thought. "Fossilized soil deposits indicate that life may have colonized the continents as much as 2 billion years ago." 4 "Researchers debated whether marks on 1.1-billion-year-old sandstone were the oldest animal fossils." 5 "The discovery of feathered dinosaur fossils in China boosted the theory that birds arose from dinosaurs." 6 Some fish that went extinct 80 million years ago got new life, because some coelacanths were found alive and well swimming in Indonesian waters.

But the big news in 1998, which Science News reported on three times, is that the universe appears to be expanding at an ever-increasing rate because of some mysterious, anti-gravitational force. As a result, the cover of the January 1999 issue of Scientific American declared, "New observations have smashed the old view of our universe."

We believe the Big Bang theory is totally wrong. So, it isnít surprising to us that as we build more powerful telescopes on Earth, and put astronomical satellites in orbit, their measurements donít confirm the theory. For example, the estimated mass of all the observed objects in the universe is much smaller than that predicted by the Big Bang. So, rather than declare the Big Bang wrong, astronomers said that 90% to 99% of the matter in the universe is Dark Matter which canít be detected. But the gravity from all this imaginary matter predicts much different positions and velocities for the newly observed stars and galaxies. So,

The universe may not be governed by the gravity of ordinary matter after all. "Instead the universe may be controlled by the so-called cosmological constant, a surreal form of energy that imparts a gravitational repulsion rather than attraction. "Because physicists know so little--"nothing" would be a fair approximation--about the constant, the fate of the universe is back where it started: in the realm of uncertainty. 7

Why do evolutionists believe in the new cosmology? Probably because the old one is clearly wrong, and they know it. Why else would they embrace a new cosmology based on an anti-gravity force nobody has observed and for which nobody has proposed a mechanism?

Quick links to
Science Against Evolution
Home page
Back issues of
(our newsletter)
Web Site
of the Month
Topical Index


1 Science News, Vol. 154, December 19 & 26, 1998, page 402 (Ev)
2 ibid. page 407
3 ibid. page 409
4 ibid.
5 ibid.
6 ibid
7 George Musser, Scientific American, January 1999, page 6 (Ev)