Untold Stories
Silent Exodus
The title of my last entry used the word "designed". This was not an oversight on my part. One of the profound things I have discovered over the years, is that the current state of affairs in the medical world (as in all other areas of life) is largely determined by the world view of its participants. The topic of human origins is always a central component of any worldview.
What interests me is the number of scientists today who have abandoned the theory of evolution as a viable explanation for our existence. Even more fascinating, is the almost total silence on this subject in academia and the media. I guess this should expected, given the strong liberal bias that exists in both these quarters. Never-the-less, it is fascinating to observe that while the theory of evolution is steadily eroding under continuous waves of scientific evidence, the general public is largely oblivious to these changes and our two largest information outlets refuse to recognize and communicate what is happening under our very noses. At best, the real evidence indicates that the theory is highly improbable - more likely, totally impossible.
Where's The Proof?
Here is a brief summary of what I have learned in my research (using sources other than academia and the media). First, after a century of the most intense research in almost every
field of science, no compelling evidence has been presented in clear support of the theory of macro evolution. (That is, microbe to man origin by virtue of random mutation). Secondly, during this same period, a number of compelling holes have been punched in the essential skeleton of evolutionary theory.
Yes, many articles have been written which appear, on the surface, to support macro evolution. However, when the facts are sifted from the very soft extrapolations of the authors, no real scientific proof is ultimately found to exist. Most of this "supposed evidence" comes from paleontology. An example would include the discovery in China of an extinct mammal in size and appearance similar to a small whale but with short "forearms". This is touted as compelling evidence of a "transitional form". When one digs a little deeper, it is discovered that the bones of these "forearms" were not attached to the skeleton and therefore incapable of carrying sufficient weight to assist with land mobility. Other scientists, viewing the same fossil are immediately convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that these appendages are simply flippers - a common enough appendage for aquatic mobility. It definitely provides no evidence of a transitional form.
Abetting The Crime
Newspapers love this stuff. It is fodder for the "info grist mills" across the western world. In the example above, an article appeared in my local newspaper describing this incredible "evidence" in the most glowing of terms. This was despite the fact that the so called evidence had been heartily debunked by reputable scientists more than 6 years prior! Apparently, it is assumed that anything written by a scientist that appears in print does not require scrutiny or critical thinking skills. I have noticed that such articles are circulated for years, often appearing more than once and each time giving the impression that this is late breaking news.
The title of my last entry used the word "designed". This was not an oversight on my part. One of the profound things I have discovered over the years, is that the current state of affairs in the medical world (as in all other areas of life) is largely determined by the world view of its participants. The topic of human origins is always a central component of any worldview.
What interests me is the number of scientists today who have abandoned the theory of evolution as a viable explanation for our existence. Even more fascinating, is the almost total silence on this subject in academia and the media. I guess this should expected, given the strong liberal bias that exists in both these quarters. Never-the-less, it is fascinating to observe that while the theory of evolution is steadily eroding under continuous waves of scientific evidence, the general public is largely oblivious to these changes and our two largest information outlets refuse to recognize and communicate what is happening under our very noses. At best, the real evidence indicates that the theory is highly improbable - more likely, totally impossible.
Where's The Proof?
Here is a brief summary of what I have learned in my research (using sources other than academia and the media). First, after a century of the most intense research in almost every
field of science, no compelling evidence has been presented in clear support of the theory of macro evolution. (That is, microbe to man origin by virtue of random mutation). Secondly, during this same period, a number of compelling holes have been punched in the essential skeleton of evolutionary theory.
Yes, many articles have been written which appear, on the surface, to support macro evolution. However, when the facts are sifted from the very soft extrapolations of the authors, no real scientific proof is ultimately found to exist. Most of this "supposed evidence" comes from paleontology. An example would include the discovery in China of an extinct mammal in size and appearance similar to a small whale but with short "forearms". This is touted as compelling evidence of a "transitional form". When one digs a little deeper, it is discovered that the bones of these "forearms" were not attached to the skeleton and therefore incapable of carrying sufficient weight to assist with land mobility. Other scientists, viewing the same fossil are immediately convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that these appendages are simply flippers - a common enough appendage for aquatic mobility. It definitely provides no evidence of a transitional form.
Abetting The Crime
Newspapers love this stuff. It is fodder for the "info grist mills" across the western world. In the example above, an article appeared in my local newspaper describing this incredible "evidence" in the most glowing of terms. This was despite the fact that the so called evidence had been heartily debunked by reputable scientists more than 6 years prior! Apparently, it is assumed that anything written by a scientist that appears in print does not require scrutiny or critical thinking skills. I have noticed that such articles are circulated for years, often appearing more than once and each time giving the impression that this is late breaking news.
posted by Unknown | 11:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home