Dear Editors of Scientific American,
This is an open letter; it will be posted on my web site, www.creationism.org. It is written as a response to your weak defense of evolution from your July 2002 issue, in the article titled: “15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense.” You claim that “more education” is needed to get more Americans to believe in evolution.
I used to believe in evolution. I mean, how could the vast consensus of modern scientists be so wrong? Peer review though can be akin to peer pressure when your personal career is at stake. Consensus has momentum. Journal committees decide from their ivory towers what not to allow others to “scientifically” consider in the first place. Such pre-screening can have a negative effect on true academic discourse. Committees have been known to block theories that they don’t favor; scientists are only human after all. That happened to Einstein when he first proposed relativity. Louis Pasteur was also mocked when he had rocked the boat spurning spontaneous generation (a previous version of modern evolution’s abiogenesis). Human instincts and resistance to the unknown can trump logic and dispassionate reason. And recall that for over 1,000 years, from Ptolemy (about 200 A.D.) down till Copernicus & Galileo the consensus of Western scientists was wrong about belief that the rest of the universe revolved around the Earth. (Maybe Galileo just needed “more education”?) The scientists had also convinced others of course like their educated colleagues running the church-state governments of the day. Surely the vast consensus of scientists cannot be wrong on such a fundamental issue, they errantly thought.
Evolution from amoebas to “Adam” requires a belief in cumulative changes and vast sustainable improvements down through time. If true then we should see evidence of this. But the transitional fossils aren’t there. You know this. (So do we.) And please, don’t even bring up the latest hopeful monster (e.g. punctuated equilibrium) theory that you’re cooking up in order to keep hiding from God. Admit that you have no fossil evidence to support your atheistic/anti-theistic religious beliefs. Say it. Publish it. Even if you don’t care about the souls of your readers – care about your own souls.
You see, if you’re wrong about our God being weak and bumbling (which
you are, per the evidence) and you teach others such things (blatantly
ignoring the logic and scientific evidence against evolution) it would
be better for you personally if a millstone was tied around your neck and
you were then thrown into the sea. In the first place – there are
still zero transitional fossils between kinds. If you got ‘em – let’s
“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be asked to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?”
Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist, British Museum, in a letter, April 10, 1979
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
Stephen Jay Gould (Deceased - Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University),
"Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?"
Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127
But there is tremendous variability within kinds (like variable beak sizes on finches) indicating built-in complexity and pre-designed variability – thank the Maker! An automobile with headlights (for at night) and wipers (for rain) shows design characteristics in the evident built-in variability. The headlights and windshield wipers are not (per evolution) somehow “further proof that the car fell together all by chance.” Please consider this scientifically. (…you’re hiding!...) Your false religious beliefs (anti-Creator) are both unscientific and they are hurting Americans. Please change your magazine’s name from “Scientific American” to “False Religion-Promoting Unamerican” or something else that more properly reflects your blind faith in evolution. In #13 (per your article) you cited Archaeopteryx again. Tsk, tsk. It’s a bird or a fraud; get used to the idea. Is that still your grand example after we helped you dispense with the long succession of evolutionary frauds over the years? You’re grasping for straws. You are guilty of bait-and-switch when you construe built-in variability (like beak variations or feather lengths) to prop up (zero evidence for) macro-evolutionary beliefs. Why would you teach such blatant falsehoods to children? Back to the point – firstly, there are still zero transitional fossils between the basic kinds of life.
Secondly, evolution has no known mechanism, correct? There is still no known means by which it could have occurred. Increased coded (DNA) information at each successive step, for no known reason, increasing complexity “because it wanted to” or learning to breath air, flying without that first hard landing, interlocking feather barbicels, the formation of the first brain cells, … all magically occurring without a “higher intelligence” so you blindly believe, but where is any physical evidence to support your evolutionary beliefs? In this it certainly appears that creationists are the ones standing on the side of science. It is only logical to postulate the existence of some Creator. Creationists can logically face the facts and recognize the Hand of a Designer when we see it; evolutionists though cling to magical unscientific beliefs in “automatic improvements” happening down through time for no good reason. Admit that mutations are merely variations of the pre-existing complexity that the Creator built in from the start. Holding your breath and covering your eyes really, really hard like won't make the reality that human understanding is not at the center of the universe go away.
I used to believe in evolution. But of course that meant that my conception of God was all wrong. Evolution means that a weak-bumbling-god or none at all is responsible for the pain and mess of this world. It took “Him” a long time to get things this good, according to evolutionary teachings about the universe around us. Evolution means that god (i.e. not the God of Scriptures) needed pain and death to effect slow improvements upon life forms. He couldn’t get it right the first time. (No need to repent before that kind of god!) In this way belief in evolution has extreme theological ramifications, besides its fundamental scientific nonviability (as discussed herein). Evolution as science – falsely so-called – originated for reasons other than science.
So let’s make this a “3 strikes – you’re out” letter for the sake of brevity. Then will you stop indoctrinating the American public with your wishful anti-Creator religious beliefs? You wish that our Maker was weak (or nonexistent) so that repentance can be considered an option. Evolution helps to obscure our responsibilities as created beings. Stop. Cease and desist, please. You’ve still got zero transitional fossils and no valid mechanism. Evolution just didn’t happen; it’s a spiritual deception that you ignorantly bought into when you were young and didn’t know any better. Just like me; I too used to believe in evolution when I was young, but I continued learning and later had to admit that I was wrong. The scientific consensus on this matter is incorrect, just like the scientific consensus was recently proved wrong in thinking (for over 1,000 years) that the rest of the universe revolves around the Earth. Admit these things and then let’s move forward. Belief in evolution (and away from "God fearing") actually pulls a society downward. But that's so obvious that you didn't need this mentioned here ... or did you?
Dangling grant monies in front of professors who seek media attention
by bolstering evolutionary claims (in spite of all the evidence) adds temptation.
And temptation when one is less “God fearing” is a bad combination.
Again though – overly obvious to anyone with a modicum of wisdom.
Many professors, having gone straight from graduate school to doctoral programs, et
cetera, have never left academia in their lives. Narrowly educated
(and thus sometimes unable to see the big picture) their careers are chained
to peer led institutions. “Publish or perish” and … what
you publish in your field – will it be respected by peers or honest instead?
Concerning the religion of evolution – there is a difference:
"A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib, ...He [Dr. T. White] puts the incident on par with two other embarrassing [sic] faux pas by fossil hunters: Hesperopithecus, the fossil pig's tooth that was cited as evidence of very early man in North America, and Eoanthropus or 'Piltdown Man,' the jaw of an orangutan and the skull of a modern human that were claimed to be the 'earliest Englishman'.
"The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.'"Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley).
As quoted by Ian Anderson "Hominoid collarbone exposed as
dolphin's rib", in New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199
Check the boxes – admit human fallibility – come clean and repent
|| There are still zero bona fide transitional fossils
between the distinct kinds of life forms.
Evolution lacks any kind of mechanism for magical “automatic improvement”
Evolutionary dating methods don’t work; scientific evidence shows that the Earth is young
In discussing the third item – we can show with C14 dating that dinosaur (i.e. dragon) bones are only thousands of years old. The believed millions of years never happened. The Earth major rivers and waterfalls (studying their rates of erosion and deposition) just aren’t old enough. None of them are even 1 million (myth-ion) years old. The … myth-ions and myth-ions of years are a modern fairy tale like “once upon a time” and should be taken with a grain of salt. Speaking of salt – the salinity of the oceans is increasing at a slow predictable rate each year; the Earth’s rotation is slowing by 1 second every 1 ½ years; the planet’s magnetic field is decaying quickly. We live on a dynamic, not static, planet. It’s clearly not some 4.5 billion years old; that wishful notion is scientifically untenable! There is however good scientific evidence that the Earth is young, perhaps even less than 10,000 years old. Scientifically speaking, there were just no oodles of time when evolution could have supposedly happened.
In your July 2002 article, “15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense” (in #3 and #7) you mention that belief in advanced aliens would also be alternatively preferable to biblical creation theory. No surprise there. “Aliens” posing as our “older brothers” who seeded ancient life on Earth from afar (insert dreamy “sigh” here). Panspermia. Yep, frighteningly that is the direction that the demons appear to be pointing modern humans. They want to be worshipped, even if in disguise like the false gods of Old Testament times or as “advanced space aliens.”
Evolution then was but a stepping stone on the road to further spiritual corruption. The point here being that when creationists clearly show that evolution has no scientific merit please don’t leap in the wrong direction (e.g. towards “aliens” as our saviors). Instead: repent. That’s the logical action to take. We are each only on Earth for but a while, then comes the judgment. This is a time of learning and testing. Don’t be a part of the problem in willfully deceiving people. Don’t harden your hearts.
To recap: For over 20 years (see the 2 quotes on first page) evolutionism experts from Harvard University, the British Museum and other leading institutions have admitted to the fact that there is a severe lack of transitional fossils. Yet in the July 2002 article, Scientific American pontificates that there are lots of transitional fossils; just look how strongly we believe that they must be there. (...but I see you … you’re hiding from even the “possibility” of our God. Repent or you will go to hell based on your personal thoughts and actions.) Dr. Gould, Dr. Patterson and many others have admitted that they just aren’t there. So were you lying? Would you really stoop to half-truths or open deception to prop up your wishful notions of evolutionist nonsense? Visiting an airport recently I saw some Boeing 727, 737 & 747 aircraft. It was so clear that one must have evolved to the second and then the third model - down through time - all by themselves. No one could have designed them. To contend a common designer (as evidenced by their interchangeable parts) would be inherently unscientific. I sure am thankful how you’ve helped me to think more scientifically. I wondered how many of the jets have gone 40 or 50 years without major maintenance? Hmmm … I guess that would be an unreasonable expectation. And yet there are many humans who have gone 40 or 50 years without major maintenance/surgery. But supposedly humans fell together only by time and chance, at least that’s what you want taught to impressionable children.
Your July 2002 article stated repeatedly that “more education” is needed. No, instead of more indoctrination please consider the scientific alternative to the religion of evolutionism. Other than artists’ conceptions, a long series of frauds, and sinful, wishful thinking – there is still no physical scientific evidence which truly supports evolutionist nonsense over creation science. Quit hiding from our universe’s Designer and for your souls’ sake you’d best quit deceiving the general public and spiritually abusing America’s children.
P.O. Box (moved)
Berkeley, CA. 94---(moved)
Editor of: www.creationism.org