Silly Evolution Speculations Would Cease If Media Allowed Fair Debate
Evolutionists get away with ridiculous stories because Big Science and Big Media are intolerant of opposing views. Healthy science requires open debate.
Darwinians have their own blasphemy laws. Try criticizing Darwin, natural selection, universal common ancestry or any of his core precepts and you will feel the heat of wrath and mockery, if not expulsion. Darwin skeptics have been relegated to their own institutions outside of Big Science and Big Media, where many in the public never hear that answers to Darwinian claims even exist. In the vacuum of debate about the origin of life’s amazing diversity and complexity, charlatans have rushed in with no shame or conscience, presenting themselves as reliable spokespersons for ‘science.’ Take a look at these recent examples out of hundreds we have reported over the years.
Evolution might favor ‘survival of the laziest’ (Science Daily). So malleable is Darwin’s Stuff Happens Law (i.e., “whatever happens, it evolved”), anything can count as ‘fitness,’ even laziness. Look how this article begins: “If you’ve got an unemployed, 30-year-old adult child still living in the basement, fear not.” Whoever wrote this has just given slackers a new excuse for irresponsibility: ‘Darwin made me this way.’ According to champion Darwin storytellers at the University of Kansas, lazy slackers are just as fit as cheetahs, peregrine falcons and pronghorns— maybe more so!
“Maybe in the long term the best evolutionary strategy for animals is to be lassitudinous and sluggish — the lower the metabolic rate, the more likely the species you belong to will survive,” Lieberman said. “Instead of ‘survival of the fittest,’ maybe a better metaphor for the history of life is ‘survival of the laziest’ or at least ‘survival of the sluggish.'”
Laziness May Have Driven Homo Erectus to Extinction (Live Science). This article illustrates how Darwinians can use their vacuous theory to ‘explain’ opposite things. We just heard one argue for survival of the laziest, and now another argues for extinction of the laziest. Stuff happens! What kind of ‘law of nature’ is this? A house divided against itself cannot stand. Can we laugh out loud at this writer’s folly, or will that risk arrest by the Darwin enforcers?
It turns out laziness existed long before couches and takeout. The “why bother?” attitude not only existed hundreds of thousands of years ago, but may also have led to the decline of an ancient human ancestor.
The illogic of this explanation presents itself if you ask the question, “Did natural selection make Homo erectus lazy, or did they choose laziness by intelligent design and free will?” If the former, then natural selection not only evolved extinction (the opposite of survival); it also evolved the lazy reporter who believes it. If the latter, then how could natural selection come up with its opposite, intelligent design? That’s not the only illogical aspect of the story. Are we to accept the either-or fallacy that every individual in the H. erectus population was lazy, and every individual in the modern human population was not? That is clearly not the case by observation of modern humans today. The story also commits the fallacies of glittering generalities, post hoc, non-sequitur, and other blunders (see Baloney Detector). Where are the peer reviewers who should have tossed this idea into the circular file, or submitted it to the IgNobel Prize contest?
Why war evolved to be a man’s game – and why that’s only now changing (The Conversation). This politically-correct argument by Alberto Micheletti (PhD Candidate in Evolutionary Biology, University of St Andrews) may please liberals who decry ‘toxic masculinity’ but deserves laughter, not serious consideration. Why? Because if “the evolution of war” is a result of evolutionary biology instead of mental activity, free will or intelligent design, so is “the evolution of evolutionary just-so storytelling.” Short circuit!
Evolution and the concrete jungle (Phys.org). Evolutionists from the University of Toronto are finding that birds or plants that inhabit cities show variations from those in the wild. That much is not controversial; even the most ardent young-earth creationists accept variation within kinds. But these evolutionary biologists bring in Darwin:
“These papers greatly advance our knowledge of urban evolutionary biology,” says Marc Johnson, an associate professor of biology at UTM and director of the Centre for Urban Environments. “These are the same evolutionary mechanisms first identified by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago and the findings from these studies will be increasingly important as more and more of the world’s population flocks to urban environments.
“It’s pretty remarkable. For years, biologists ignored cities, seeing them as ‘anti-life’, and only recently biologists began to realize that cities are agents of change, driving evolution of organisms living around us and even some living on us.”
Clarity about terms is essential for seeing through this equivocation fallacy, which confuses microevolution with macroevolution. Darwin argued that the entirety of life, from bacteria to humans, arose by natural selection. Creationists back to Adam have known about small-scale changes, such as in flower color or plant height. There is no Darwinian evolution or ‘origin of species’ then or now. Notice:
- The clovers are still clovers.
- The Daphnia are still Daphnia.
- The burrowing owls are still burrowing owls.
- The Brachypodium sylvaticum grass is still the same species.
Nothing has ‘evolved’ in a Darwinian sense. The evolutionists only observed very small-scale changes within species. Ken Ham would yawn at this. He believes even greater changes have occurred in just the last few thousand years since the Flood, so much so that we might not recognize the animals that came off Noah’s Ark. If these evolutionists cannot distinguish between Darwin’s theory and creationist baraminology (variation within created kinds), the actual data could be adduced by creationists in support of their view. Unfairly, Big Science and Big Media forbid them to make their case. Readers get the impression that Darwin’s macroevolutionary theory has been vindicated by the observations.
What is nothing? Q&A with Martin Rees (The Conversation). If you don’t believe that highly-educated people can say stupid things, watch the Astronomer Royal of Great Britain flub up the definition of ‘nothing’ by making it something. This ardent materialist and evolutionist says, “empty space isn’t really empty – there’s a mysterious energy latent in it which can tell us something about the fate of the universe.” Dr Rees, please: if the vacuum of space has energy and properties, then it is not nothing. He admits, “everyone who ponders these mysteries should realise that the physicist’s empty space – vacuum – is not the same as the philosopher’s “nothing”.” OK, then answer the question: What is nothing? He commits a major sidestepping blunder by talking about something instead of nothing. A child could have noticed this.
Evolutionists would be ashamed to make such arguments if creationists had a chance at the podium. Whenever an ID advocate or creationist has a fair opportunity to debate an evolutionist (something Darwin himself stated was essential to get a fair result), the evolutionist usually gets voted down by the audience. Silliness thrives in the absence of debate. Darwinist totalitarianism, enforced by Big Science and Big Media, must be overthrown!
C.S. Lewis pulled the rug out from everything evolutionary materialists say by pointing out how it is self-refuting. The moment an evolutionist speaks or writes to ‘explain’ nature in material terms, he shoots himself in the foot. Here are Lewis’s inimitable words. Learn these ideas well.
Unless you start by believing that reality in the remotest space and the remotest time rigidly obeys the laws of logic, you have no ground for believing in any astronomy, any biology, any paleontology, any archaeology. If my own mind is the product of the irrational— if what seem my clearest reasonings are only the way in which a creature conditioned as I am is bound to feel – how shall I trust my mind when it tells me about Evolution? They say in effect ‘I will prove that what you call a proof is only the result of mental habits which result from heredity which results from bio-chemistry which results from physics.’ But this is the same as saying: ‘I will prove that proofs are irrational’: more succinctly, ‘I will prove that there are no proofs’.”
A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument which proved that no argument was sound—a proof that there are no such things as proofs.