Geologist Disagrees With Darwinian Evolution

Michael Rampino is suggesting another approach in trying to understand the story of evolution. This approach could put himself at great odds with the Darwinian school of thought. Unlike creationists who acknowledge that they have made assumptions with certain models and are prepared to discuss and debate those assumptions, evolutionists do not acknowledge that they are making assumptions rather they treat their ideas as though they were part of the laws of nature, and then try attempt to silence opposition even if the opposition is based in naturalism.

In physorg

“Matthew discovered and clearly stated the idea of natural selection, applied it to the origin of species, and placed it in the context of a geologic record marked by catastrophic mass extinctions followed by relatively rapid adaptations,” says Rampino, whose research on catastrophic events includes studies on volcano eruptions and asteroid impacts.”

In light of the recent acceptance of the importance of catastrophic mass extinctions in the history of life, it may be time to reconsider the evolutionary views of Patrick Matthew as much more in line with present ideas regarding biological evolution than the Darwin view.”

Michael Rampino believes his colleagues will be receptive to this proposal, but the religious crowd in evolution (like militant atheists) most likely will see this as pointing in the direction of creationism. Because for one, some evolutionists like to argue against a global flood that happened 4,500 years ago because they say adaption is unable to create such variety of animals so quickly.

By suggesting it can, some would say that strengthens the creation position on a global flood which would bring out the Darwinian security guards for rebuke as it gives comfort to the enemy. Make no mistake about it, they are very concerned on the way they sell evolution to the public while holding to dogmatic beliefs about it.

However, viewing evolution in catastrophic events as a prime factor, and maintaining those mass extinctions doesn’t give any evidence nor understanding on how the nervous system was created for example, nor how the eyes was created or the ears, nose or even the mouth. It just assumes that evolution did it.

4 thoughts on “Geologist Disagrees With Darwinian Evolution

  1. Quoth Michael: “Unlike creationists who acknowledge that they have made assumptions with certain models and are prepared to discuss and debate those assumptions,….”


    Another adage about creationism is appropriate here: “One cannot reason with someone for whom reason does not count.” (Kurt Vonnegut, in his introduction to Scientists Confront Crerationists)

  2. ” [Darwinistas] then try attempt to silence opposition even if the opposition is based in naturalism.”

    “…the religious crowd in evolution (like militant atheists)…”

    “…which would bring out the Darwinian security guards for rebuke as it gives comfort to the enemy….”

    Michael’s siege mentality is showing through again. It’s them against us, folks. They’re out to crush us with slings of fact and arrows of logic But they will not prevail, as long as we have the bulwark of impenetrable ignorance.

    Speaking of ignorance, Michael still, 9 months after he challenged everyone else’s creds in science, still refuses to reveal his own qualifications to discuss any subject whatever.

  3. Michael’s continuing error is the logical fallacy of equivocation, followed by false dichotomy. One might think that he would recognize this after such a long time, but creationists as a flock seem to be impervious to the elementary error that causes scientists to laugh uproariously at them. With logic like theirs, no wonder creationists can’t get anything published in a reviewed journal.

    The equivocation part of the fallacy is to define evolution as encompassing that—and only that—which Darwin proffered in On the Origin of Species. This is a consequence of an inability to step out of a theological mindset. In Christianity, of course, if Jesus said something that is demonstrably false, then the entire edifice must needs come crashing down. But not so with science. Copernicus’ theory replaced Ptolomy’s; Newton’s understanding replaced Copernicus’; Einstein’s tools replaced Newton’s. Yet each was a great scientist, and offered useful insights into the gears and pulleys of nature. Einstein too will be replaced—we know this, because we know that relativity is incomplete.

    In the same way, we know that Darwin was incomplete—and he got more than a few things wrong. We say to him, “Thanks for the insights, Chuck,” and we move on.[1] Science never stands still. It is howlingly ironic that creationists ridicule science when evidence disproves a theory—and yet the creationists claim that scientists will not “follow the evidence wherever it leads.” Fortunately—for them—creationists have a dulled sense of consistency, as well as impaired logic.

    The false dichotomy is that evidence against this antiquated, incomplete portion of evolution is evidence for special creation. Michael misreads Matthews’ statement “…all living things must have reduced existence so much, that an unoccupied field would be formed for new diverging ramifications of life… these remnants, in the course of time moulding and accommodating … to the change in circumstances.” Michael’s wishes to the contrary notwithstanding, Matthews does not speak of a single catastrophe, but of many. And these were not events of destruction followed by the same life-forms springing up again, but of extinctions followed by entirely new species. How Michael could read this as endorsing a biblical account is mystifying. No–not the right word. “Desperate” would be more accurate.

    In a sweep of the sensationalism that Michael has so recently deplored, PhysOrg does not even mention that the gradualist view has become less and less favored. Eldredge & Gould posited “punctuated equilibrium” 40 years ago. Since then, studies of mass extinctions have shown increasing evidence of increased radiation following them. The reasoning is simple enough: the species went extinct, but their ecological niches remained.[2] Thus, variability was favored over stasis, and existing species split off into new ones more adapted to the vacant niches.

    Meanwhile, the advancing theory of complex systems showed how a process that proceeds entirely by small steps can produce sudden large effects. These are known as tipping points and emergent phenomena. And, to tie those findings into biology, the burgeoning field of evo-devo demonstrated how small regulatory changes in embryonic development can engender large anatomical changes,[3] some in a very short time.[4]

    So Michael’s title “Geologist Disagrees With Darwinian Evolution” provides no comfort to creationists.


    [1[] Nor does it matter that someone else may have broached the idea of selection before him. Patrick Matthew tossed off the idea briefly in an appendix to a book on another subject. Darwin spent decades gathering evidence, collating it, refining the ideas—and thinking up objections others might have had to his theory.

    [2] There is a simile in European history. The Black Death killed a third of the inhabitants of Europe, but all of their wealth and property survived. Therefore the people who remained were suddenly significantly richer. Many historians think this was a major cause of the social upheaval known as the Renaissance.

    [3] Actually, this is not a new discovery. D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson’s classic On Growth and Form” developed the concept a century ago. Since then, such transformations have been studied, such as in affine mathematics. For a compendium of recent thinking, see the 2003 collection of essays entitled On Growth, Form, and Computers. (Be prepared for a wait, however. My interlibrary loan request had to travel a thousand miles and took five weeks to find a copy.)

    [4] Such as the recently reported single gene that grew a bat’s wing from a rat’s arms at the incredible rate of 6% per generation. Thus solving the mystery of the sudden appearance of bats in the fossil record.

  4. Michael…

    Talk about outdated.

    This is old news. We all know already that the fossil record has jurks in it. Hence the punctuated equilibrium was proposed nearly 30 years ago.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s