Disclosure. of things evolutionists don t want you to know. Evolution Busted

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Disclosure. of things evolutionists don t want you to know. Evolution Busted"

Melinda McBride
5 years ago
Views:

1 Disclosure of things evolutionists don t want you to know Volume 12 Issue 7 April 2008 Evolution Busted This is our annual special issue celebrating National Theory of Evolution Day (April 1), in which we give the theory of evolution all the respect that it deserves. Don t ask us how we obtained this script for an episode of MythBusters that the Discovery Channel refused to air! Narrator: Each week on MythBusters, Adam, Jamie and their team, take apart urban myths piece by piece to get to the truth. Jamie Hyneman: What myth are we testing this month? Adam Savage: The theory of evolution. Jamie: But the theory of evolution isn t a myth it s a fact. Adam: Well, that s what lots of people think; but lots of people think it is a fact that you can blow up a gas station by talking on a cell phone. That s why we not only tell the myths, we put them to the test! Jamie: There are three parts to the myth of evolution. First, life happens. Second, life slowly transforms. Third, there is enough time for the first two things to happen. Adam: That s right; and I think we should test each part separately. Let s start with the origin of life. Jamie: That s going to be a tough one. Ever since Stanley Miller produced a few organic compounds in 1953, scientists have been trying to produce an environment that will cause life to form naturally without success. Stanley Miller himself spent his whole career of more than 50 years, right up to his death, working on the problem. He never found a plausible way life could have begun. 1 Harvard is spending one million dollars over the next few years because some mysteries about life's origins cannot be explained. 2 The Origin of Life Foundation s one million dollar prize has remained unclaimed since 1997, 3 despite all the work done by countless scientists to discover a natural process by with life could begin. It seems unlikely that we will be able to produce life from non-life in time for the next episode s air date with the puny budget the Discovery Channel gives us! Adam: But can t we at least try something involving a lot of hydrogen and methane gas and a spark? Jamie: We already did that on our Hindenburg and port-a-potty episodes. I m not sure our viewers want to see another big hydrogen or methane explosion if it doesn t produce life. Adam: But we have to produce life from non-life spontaneously, or the myth is busted right off the bat. Jamie: Not necessarily. We can just say that if we had enough time, money, and the right conditions, we could produce life naturally. Then we can go on to step 2. Adam: But isn t that cheating? Jamie: It isn t cheating when scientists do it! If we say it could happen, then it could happen. We re what you call, professionals. It s as simple as that. Adam: OK. We will skip step one and go on to step two. Let s create a new species by causing some mutations. Let s use massive doses of radiation to create new forms of life. 1 Disclosure, June 2007, Stanley Miller s Final Word 2 Disclosure, August 2005, Looking For Life 3 1

2 Jamie: Well, we sort of already tried that. Remember when we tested the myth that cockroaches would be the only survivors of a nuclear war? We zapped several kinds of insects with massively lethal does of radiation. Most of them died, but a few survived. Adam: Yes, and as soon as the cameras stopped rolling, we stepped on the few surviving bugs. We didn t give them a chance to reproduce. Who knows what would have happened to their offspring? Jamie: Well, I suppose we could try again, but that s another been-there-done-that sort of thing. Scientists have been radiating generations of fruit flies. They get fruit flies with extra wings, or extra legs, and lots of stillborn fruit flies, but they have never produced a butterfly, or anything other than a defective fruit fly. But, given enough time, and the proper conditions, I m sure we could create a new species somehow. Adam: That still sounds like cheating to me. Jamie: Trust me, I m a doctor. Adam: So, are we going to prove the myth by creating a new species or not? Jamie: I don t think we can. Adam: What if we built a computer-controlled robot? We could then make random changes to its program and see if it works better. Jamie: No, there s too much design in that approach. We have to design the basic robot to begin with. Then we have to make random changes intentionally. That s nothing more than stupid design by trial and error. Adam: But there must be some way we can modify genitals to produce mutant offspring. Jamie: Do you want to do that experiment with the electric fence again? This time we could use something more conductive than a urine stream and see what electricity does to sperm cells. Adam: That s what I m talking about! The electric fence episode was so gross and vulgar that our ratings went through the roof! Jamie: Time is the problem again. We don t have nine months to see how it affects the offspring. We will have to use mice, or some other laboratory animals that reproduce rapidly. Adam: No, we can t use mice. We can do all sorts of painful things that humiliate ourselves, but the animal rights people won t let us do the same things to mice. Jamie: Then it s not looking good for this myth. It is already busted on two counts. We can t create life and we can t change living things into other 2 kinds of living things. But we have an hour show to fill, and in true MythBuster tradition, we will press on even after the myth is busted. Adam: So what do we do next? Jamie: We need to prove that the Earth is billions of years old. Adam: Well, there s David Letterman and Larry King. They are billions of years old, aren t they? Jamie: Millions, maybe, but not billions. Adam: OK, then, let s look at the salt in the oceans, helium in the air, or sediments in the Gulf of Mexico to see how old the Earth is. Jamie: We could, but there are two problems with that. Adam: Like what? Jamie: Well, first, that would be analysis rather than experimentation. Adam: What s wrong with analysis? Jamie: Nothing. We do analysis all the time on this show, but only as preparation for setting up our experiments. We do the analysis to know what to expect. But analysis isn t perfect. The accuracy is only as good as our assumptions. If we make the wrong assumptions, or overlook something, the analysis won t give us the right answer. Remember the analysis we did regarding how many ping pong balls we would have to force down into a sunken ship in order to float it to the surface? Adam: OK, so we messed up badly on that one. We used the dry weight of the ship instead of the submerged weight of the ship, and neglected buoyancy. But most of the time our analyses and small scale tests are pretty good. Jamie: Most of the time isn t good enough. That s why we do the experiments to see if our analysis is correct. But there is a second problem with analyzing the three things you suggested. Adam: What s that? Jamie: Using reasonable assumptions, the things you mentioned (salt in the sea, etc.), indicate that the Earth is nowhere near 4.6 billion years old. Measuring current processes, and extrapolating back in time, rarely, if ever, give an age of the Earth that is old enough for evolution to have taken place. Adam: Well then, why not use radioactive dating? Jamie: That s still an analysis that depends upon unverifiable assumptions. 4 4 Disclosure, July 2000, Radioactive Dating

3 Adam: It looks like the myth of evolution is going to be a hard one to confirm. For more than fifty years many outstanding scientists have tried to find environmental conditions that will produce life, without success. Scientists have seen mutation and selection produce slightly different varieties of existing species, but have never seen them produce a new kind of creature. This has had to happen countless times in the past to produce all the different kinds of creatures that have ever lived on Earth if the myth is true, and yet we ve never observed it to happen in nature or in the laboratory. Finally, there is no foolproof way to tell how old the Earth is. All age measurements depend on some assumptions that can t be verified. There s really nothing we can do. Jamie: Well, we ve got to do something for this episode. Let s drop some more Menthos candies in a Diet Coke and let it squirt on the camera man. That s always good for a laugh. Adam: This is the most disappointed I ve been since Episode 2, when we failed to blow up a gas station by chatting on a cell phone while pumping gas. Jamie: So, how do we call this myth? Adam: We can t scientifically confirm any part of the myth. I think we have to say it is totally busted! Jamie: Yes, totally busted. Evolution in the News Expelled Ben Stein s new movie says that Intelligent Design has been unfairly expelled from the U.S. public school system. Ben Stein s movie Expelled is scheduled for release on April 18. Since our newsletter is published on the third Tuesday of every month (April 15, for this newsletter), we have not seen it yet. We have, however, seen the trailer 5 and the advanced advertising which says, educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired for the crime of merely believing that there might be evidence of design in nature, and that perhaps life is not just the result of accidental, random chance. We would prefer to have seen the movie before recommending it, but the timing is bad. By the time you get the next newsletter, it may have already come to (and gone from) a theater near you. 6 It appears that Expelled will be more about censorship and political pressure than about science. We don t like to devote much space to the sad stories of persecution by evolutionists. That s why our articles about the Sternberg case 7 and Gonzales case 8 were so short. We prefer to devote most of our writing to technical arguments against the theory of evolution; but we do occasionally have to answer the question, If science is against evolution, then why do so many scientists believe in it? The short answer is that children in the public schools have been taught only one side for decades. Ben Stein s movie claims to explain why. It appears that Ben Stein will do a much more thorough job of exposing the strangle hold that evolutionists have on academia and the media than we ever could (or would ever want to). If so, then the movie will supplement our work very well. We will let Ben try to convince you that there are things that evolutionists don t want you to know, and we will continue to tell you what those things are. You are permitted (even encouraged) to copy and distribute this newsletter. Explained 5 playgroundvideo3.swf Disclosure, November 2005, Conspiracy Proof 8 Disclosure, August 2007, Why Did He Ask? 3

4 A Waste of Time We sometimes publish what evolutionists write on blogs to expose their foolishness. April is our favorite month to do that. Dennis wanted us to get involved in an argument on a discussion board. We don t do that. It is a waste of time. The evolutionists tend to do nothing more than make personal attacks because science isn t on their side. Subject: Evolution and the Social Scientist Date: 3/27/2008 1:56 PM From: Dennis Hi, My name is Dennis. Recently I read the above named article 9 on your site and posted it on a discussion board. Of course the "so called" science experts came crawling out of the woodwork immediately upon my post. I would like to answer them but would prefer to do so in your words rather than mine. I am not a scientist and could only do damage to the article[ ]s credibility in trying to answer it myself. Thank you. Post #5 1 reply Luke Smith (Cambridge) replied to your post about an hour ago. How can you possibly say the first author goes to great lengths to be as unbiased as possible? I can only assume you didn't read what you posted. It works on the assumption that evolution is false. It actually says that evolution has failed the scientific method whilst offering absolutely no evidence to back that up. It attacks evolution and says that there are no plausable [sic] naturalistic origins to life without so much as mentioning RNA or any of the other possibilities. Pretty quickly if [sic] degenerates even further into calling the American Humanist Association a communist anti-god plot to attack christian [sic] values. It does that in a large part by "reinterpreting" their manifesto to the point where it's hard to take seriously. It's funny that you mention that this was written by a scientist because it completely fails to even pretend to present any evidence and instead tries to package opinion and ad hominem attacks as science. Post #6 Jimmy Groove (Valdosta) replied to Luke's post about an hour ago. And the person making these claims isn't exactly qualified himself. The only Do-While Jones I can find (and I assume it is the right one; that name can't be common) has a BS in 9 Disclosure, February 2007, Evolution and the Social Scientist electrical engineering. He is not a biologist, geoologist [sic], paleontologist, or anyone else with formal creditials [sic] demonstrating he knows the field of evolutionary biology. Now, that itself wouldn't be an impossible hurdle to overcome. He would still be respectable if he demonstrated some knowledge of the field. But he doesn't, and yet he has the audacity to call all of us biologists, geologist[s], and members of numerous other sciences liars and members of a conspiracy. It's wrong. It's libel. It's horrible. And it is horrible that people listen to him. Notice that neither Luke nor Jimmy made any scientific argument. We never claimed to be unbiased. The corporation is named Science AGAINST Evolution. Of course we are biased. We are no different from National Geographic, Scientific American, the Discovery Channel, or PBS. They are just as biased as we are. There s nothing wrong with being biased. It is only wrong if the bias leads to incorrect conclusions. We give you the references straight from current scientific literature and let you check our conclusions. Yes, we do say there are no plausible naturalistic origins to life. We did not mention RNA or any of the other possibilities because they are not plausible. The burden is upon Luke to show that they are plausible. If the RNA world hypothesis was plausible, then evolutionists would not still be looking for other explanations. Yes, the American Humanist Association is anti-god. They are proud of being atheists. They want everyone else to be atheists, too, and advocate using the public education system to do it. We didn t reinterpret their manifesto we simply quoted large sections of it, and gave the link to it ( about/manifesto1.html). Read it for yourself. You will see that we quoted it accurately and fairly. Jimmy s comment is nothing more than an ad hominem attack against us (which is what Luke implies is a terrible thing to do). He accuses us of lying. We have pointed out where some scientists made unwarranted assumptions, used faulty reasoning, and came to wrong conclusions, but we have never said they lied. We have never said the evolutionists who were mistaken were unqualified, evil, or dishonest. We don t expect you to believe anyone simply because of qualifications. We want you to look at the facts. If we have made factual errors, then point them out to us and we will address them. Don t just make vague and untrue accusations about us. And we are very glad to know that people listen to us! It s not horrible it s wonderful! 4

5 Reaction to Seventy-five Theses Last month we presented seventy-five theses, just inviting a fight. This month is our annual light-hearted issue, so we haven t quoted any scientific journals. But last month was a normal issue, in which we presented seventy-five theses challenging fundamental premises of the theory of evolution. We were leading with our chin, tempting any and all comers to knock our block off. We received more than the usual amount of supportive and only one disagreeing with any part of our theses. That one disagreement was theological rather than scientific, and it didn t come from an evolutionist. Theses 3 and 4 state that life must have begun at some time in the past. There are religions that believe that life is eternal, and that living things are reincarnated when they die. They believe that life did not begin at some time in the past because life has always existed. That s a religious opinion upon which we (corporately) take no stand. Our seventy-five theses had to do with the theory of evolution as taught in American public schools. The theory of evolution is an explanation for how life originated and diversified through purely natural processes. It does not allow for reincarnation, miracles, or other supernatural phenomena. We could have come up with lots more than seventy-five theses, but we try to keep the newsletter down to six pages every month. Some people would not have read the article if it was titled One Hundred and Seventy-five Theses. We just wanted a number close to 95, and ending with 5, simply for the obvious literary allusion. We would love to see evolutionists try to come up with 75 indisputable facts supporting evolution, but we aren t holding our breath. When they try to lay out a factual argument in favor of evolution, it fails miserably. Remember when Scientific American made their feeble attempt to give 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense? 10 They won t make that mistake again! 10 Disclosure, July 2002, No Nonsense Follow Up About Us Who Writes This Stuff? Chris wrote: I've been browsing some of your website, lately, but I cannot find anything about the author(s?) of the articles. Is there any way I can find out anything about the authors themselves? Maybe they give seminars or something? As it says in the return address, this newsletter is edited by R. David Pogge (better known as Do- While Jones). The feature articles contain links in the upper-right corner that say, by Do-While Jones. The underline indicates a link. The reader is expected to click on the link to find out about the author if he wants to. So, we were somewhat puzzled by Chris inability to find out anything about the author. When we clicked on the author link, we were surprised to find the link didn t work any more! It still works on our local server, directing the browser to but didn t work on the public server. The problem turned out to be a relative path that no longer works on the public server. (Our Internet service provider changed their equipment, which also caused our web page counter not to work for several weeks.) We will fix the author link on our future articles; but it is a daunting job to go back and change the link on all the other articles published in the past 12 years, so it might take a while. Information about the officers is found at We hate to brag, so we don t. We don t rely on proof by intimidation. Don t believe us (or anyone else) because we (or they) say so. We want you to learn as much about the theory of evolution as you can, and draw your conclusions based on facts, not credentials. The officers do give lectures and/or seminars from time to time in response to local invitations. Since no officer or member has ever been paid anything (not even for travel) at Science Against Evolution, out-of-town speaking engagements are rare. But, if you happen to live somewhere near a nice vacation spot, or near one of our children or grandchildren, then we might accept the invitation. There is no set fee for lectures or seminars. We simply accept whatever donations are collected. 5

Web Site of the Month Aprli 2008 by Lothar Janetzko Top 100 April Fool s Day Hoaxes http://www.museumofhoaxes.

6 Web Site of the Month Aprli 2008 by Lothar Janetzko Top 100 April Fool s Day Hoaxes The Museum of Hoaxes This month s web site review looks at the web site of the Museum of Hoaxes. This museum is dedicated to promoting knowledge about hoaxes. Since April is the month when many hoaxes are found on the Internet, I think it is appropriate to see what this site has to say. Also many hoaxes are directly related to discussions regarding creation and evolution. The home page of the site contains a ribbon with links to the following topics: 1) Forum, 2) Register, 3) Login, 4) Hoaxipedia, 5) Top 100 April Fools, 6) College Pranks, 7) About the Curator, 8) Contact, 9) A History of Hoaxes, 10) Hoax Websites, 11) Hoax Photos, 12) Hoax Photo Tests, 13) Gullibility Tests and 14) Tall-Tale Creatures. The Top 100 April Fools link particularly points out that you should be very careful in believing what you read in the April issue of many major magazines. It seems that many people are easily fooled by what they read in magazines, view on television, or read and view on the Internet. The Gullibility Tests link allows you to test your own gullibility by pretending to be an editor at a major newspaper and deciding whether or not ten claims made by a reporter are true or false. You are asked to use common sense and whatever you know about the subject to help you in your decision. You can score your answers and also obtain the correct answers. Have fun in determining how gullible you are! The Tall-Tale Creatures link provides descriptions of fauna and flora possessing fantastic and remarkable features. There is a lot of information to explore on this web site so have fun and be careful not to be fooled into believing everything you read in magazines or on the web especially in April. Disclosure The official newsletter of P.O. Box 923 Ridgecrest, CA R. David Pogge, President, Editor Andrew S. Ritchie, Vice President Susan S. Pogge, Secretary/Treasurer 6

The Laws of Conservation

The Laws of Conservation Atheism is a lack of belief mentality which rejects the existence of anything supernatural. By default, atheists are also naturalists and evolutionists. They believe there is a natural explanation for