To Students: Evolutionists Bluff In Their Explanation

Eugenie Scott is finally retiring from her long 26 year mission of trying to destroy how science is being taught in the public schools. She was praised by Science Magazine as a crusader focused against “anti-evolution forces.” Which means creationism, intelligent design, or anything else even it’s naturally based (like self-organization which she believes resembles too much to intelligent design) that criticizes or questions Darwinian evolution.

She endorsed her own version of ecumenism between the Bible and evolution, in order to persuade others into her line of thinking including policymakers.  She also endorsed making an example out of those who went against her policy by punishing teachers who taught both sides of evolution (its supposed strengths and factual weaknesses). In other words, treat evolution differently from other scientific theories for the purpose of trying to sway people’s beliefs.

On celebrating the 60th anniversary of Watson and Crick’s elucidation of the DNA molecule, the world’s leading science journal when it comes to evolution, “Nature” rebukes certain scientists and there are a lot of them who are bluffing in their explanations like they have it all figured out within the evolutionary framework!  He writes…

We do not know what most of our DNA does, nor how, or to what extent it governs traits. In other words, we do not fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level…Yet, while specialists debate what the latest findings mean, the rhetoric of popular discussions of DNA, genomics and evolution remains largely unchanged, and the public continues to be fed assurances that DNA is as solipsistic a blueprint as ever.”

One has to applaud Philip Ball who wrote the article on this count, he is telling scientists to be more honest about their findings rather than hype it up with bluffs of knowing it all when in fact they don’t. Another reason for the bluffing going on, is funding. By stating pretensions which makes their work appear more important, they are attempting to sway public opinion and policymakers that their work is worth more funding!

Students should learn how to recognize what they are being fed, and if you are in a public school realize that you will be on unequal footing when it comes to evolution especially if you are a creationist or intelligent design proponent. That teacher could make or break your great or perhaps even your career! You don’t have to go along with his or her views on evolution or science but be respectful! Complete the requirements of the class, and get a good grade!

In Darwinism, it’s self-refuting, what appears to be truth now is most likely false with new discoveries. After 60 years of research of DNA, they still don’t know much about what it does! Let alone try and explain how it supposedly evolved! Learning about DNA for example, is real science which has nothing to do with evolution. Operational science is something you should embrace and feel comfortable about. It’s historical science which is troublesome because of evolution!

It’s faith vs faith. Ask tough questions, be respectful in your challenge to your professor! Learn what you can about the debate between creationism and evolution. Do not accept the idea that natural selection, which is a mindless, random, and purposeless process fulfilling God’s work in creating nature. When you learn more about its weaknesses of evolution, you realize it is not a strong as you were being taught and that is because evolutionists tend to bluff in their explanation!


11 thoughts on “To Students: Evolutionists Bluff In Their Explanation

  1. Again, Michael: “evolutionists” do not exist.
    Biologists do. The theory of evolution does. But not your made-up “evolutionists”.

  2. Give it up, Eelco. You might as well try to convince Michael that the Devil does not exist.

    Or that evolution and the Devil are not one and the same.

    It’s all part of the conspiracy, you see.

  3. Once more, Michael misses the message.

    What Philip Ball wishes to convey in his Comment[1] is that those who popularize science for the public—and even scientists themselves—put too much emphasis on what is known, That they give short shrift to the world of what remains unknown, the exciting path of new discoveries that yet lie ahead. That the known is the past, the unknown is the enticing future..

    Scientists know this. In fact, if everything were within the realm of the known, they would be out of a job. Ball’s comment is therefor aimed mostly at those who convey scientific discoveries to the public—Including some big guns, such as Richard Dawkins. Rather than simplifying for public consumption, they should emphasize the deeper insights that unknowns will yield up to us.

    A friend of mine, a patent attorney, once canceled his subscription to Scientific American. He complained that after an article described a new discovery, it would invariably end with questions that still remained unanswered by the research. My friend wanted that feeling that the work was all wrapped up, and we could sit back and rest. But that was the important part—not the new knowledge itself, but the opportunities it gives for deeper understanding.


    Yet Michael, in his stunted reading comprehension, focuses only on Ball’s lists of things that are yet unknown, as though this Ball were condemning science rather than celebrating it. As though simplicity were the goal of science.

    Of course, simplicity is the goal of creationism. Creationism has answered all the questions, and there is only one simple, easy-to-understand, answere: God did it. Michael cannot abide uncertainty. He has to know that God has securely strait-jacketed the universe, so that he need never worry about uncertainty, about not knowing.

    This is, in fact, how fundamentalism and creationism got their start. World War I had brought together for the first time soldiers from different backgrounds with different mores and different values. Many of them were unnerved; after the War, they retreated into a primitive interpretation of the Bible[2] as a bulwark against the storm of uncertainty that their wartime experiences had exposed them to. The primary driver was FEAR. Fear of the unknown, the uncertain. Fear that their long-held ideas might need to be examined. Fear that they may have to change.

    Michael’s lashing out against science is clearly driven by fear of losing his belief system.. Fear that his simplistic beliefs may have been built on shifting sand. One can discern the desperation in his strident tones of his posts.


    [1] Ball, “Celebrate the Unknowns” Nature 496:419-420.

    [2] Actually, the major bête noire of fundamentalism was not evolution, but the emerging higher-criticism movement of Bible interpretation, which had introduced uncertainty into — gasp! — the Bible itself.

  4. Michael may be interested in the cover article in the newly-arrive issue of Scientific American: “Tiny Plants that Once Ruled the Seas” (SA, June 2013, pp 40-45. The authors, a geologist from U. Delaware and a marine biologist at Texas A&M, contend that the rise of marine phytoplankton 250 Mya was the driver in the evolutionary diversification of all marine animals during that period..

    On the other hand, Michael may contend, that this contention is only a bluff. Well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

  5. Phillip Ball urged us to celebrate the unknown in science. Now, Mario Livio[1] urges us to embrace the mistakes that science has made in the past.[2]

    Mistakes and errors can be productive in formulating other theories. When science builds upon the past, it builds upon incorrect theories as well as upon correct ones.

    The report of the first exoplanet to be discovered in 1992, was later retracted as not properly compensating for the sun’s motion. Almost immediately thereafter, two other researchers found an actual exoplanet, using the same technique but a correct compensation. One of the most famous examples is Wegner’s continental drift theory. Although he was wrong in attributing drift to winds and tides, the evidence that Wegner accumulated paved the way for the later plate-tectonic theory. The more recent claim to have discovered bacteria that incorporate arsenic was incorrect. Yet it led to the discovery of the mechanism that cells employ to avoid incorporating this poison when it is abundant in the environment.

    Michael frequently reminds us that scientists err, and wields it as an indictment of science. However, creationism never admits its errors, and thus never learns from them. This is another reason that creationism has no right to sit at the table of science.


    [1] Astrophysicist on the Hubble space telescope.

    [2] Livio, “Don’t bristle at blunders” Nature 497:309-310 (16 May 2013).

  6. How do you know that which is known is fully truthful and would not in any way be modified when more of the unknown becomes known?

    How can you say that creationism never admits its error when they have discarded the canopy thesis? If all it took was “God did it” why do they not have only one webpage with “God did it”? Clearly you live in an alternative reality.

  7. Many creationists have abandoned the canopy theory. But not all —

    Many creationists attribute this to a water vapor canopy that was created by God on the second day, the “waters above the firmament” (Genesis 1:7).
    (Genesis Park, 1999-2011)

    Where did all that water come from to produce a global flood? According to many young earth creationists, there was once a thick vapor canopy that surrounded the earth.
    (Evidence for God, 2007)

    And the excuse for sweeping this canopy under the rug is that, well, it really was not Scriptural in the first place. Well, the real reason was the buildup of resounding laughter at such a dumb theory.

    Nevertheless, we must face the fact that the canopy theory was not Scripture, but rather a scientific model to aid our understanding. Scriptural analysis and modern scientific understandings both show that the canopy model is not necessary.

    Weasel, weasel, weasel.

  8. If laughter was all it took, they would not even be creationists, would they? So I guess this ‘repeated laughter’ claim of yours indicates the limit of your intelligence, which of course, elicits much laughter.

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