Daily Campus

Your comment that you "...couldn't explain the entirety of evolutionary biology or physical anthropology in 15 min" is very telling. You couldn't accomplish this feat if you were given 15 lifetimes because a lie can never in the end be adequately explained. Evolutionists are like tiddlywinks in that they never commit to anything regarding their theories except that evolution must be a fact. Venture beyond that vacuous claim, and there is nothing but hazy incongruities galore. By slyly conflating micro and marco evolution, proponents of this alleged theory claim that proof of one is ipso facto proof of the other. One might as well claim that if a weight lifter could bench press 250 lbs that with sufficient time the same person could lift the earth if given enough time, chance and massive infusions of HGH. On its face macroevolution is ludicrous. It makes no predictions, defies scientific falsification, and offers elaborate fables about alleged events that no one witnessed or assessed scientifically via direct observation, repetition, and quantification with clearly defined independent and dependent variables.

It is academically, scientifically and morally reprehensible to teach the general theory as fact because it remains untested, unproven, and therefore unfounded. I welcome you to cite a single scientific experiment that validates the central claim of the general theory, i.e., all life originated from a single cell by means of random mutation combined with an unintelligent selection process. A search of the scientific literature reveals that no such study exists, and for good reason: The general theory deals with historically discreet, isolated events that are not directly observable, repeatedly, or quantifiable. Given these limitations, the scientific method is powerless to falsify claims advanced by the general theory as this would require:

· Making a specific prediction based on the theory that may be scientifically tested and found to be true or false
· A structured scientific experiment with carefully defined dependent and independent variables
· Directly observable variables and outcomes
· Quantifiable variables and outcomes
· Repeatable variables and outcomes

In contrast to the general theory of evolution, the theory of gravity easily satisfies the above criteria because it allows for specific predictions that may be directly tested, observed, quantified, and repeated to confirm the results. For example, if I predict when I let go of an apple in my hand that it will fall to the ground, a scientific experiment testing the validity of this hypothesis may be structured and carried out. The independent variable is releasing the apple from my grasp, and the dependent variable is how gravity causes the apple to fall. Moreover, very specific and quantifiable predictions about the apple's rate of acceleration towards the ground may be tested in the course of such an experiment. Different types of objects may also be used to compare rates of acceleration and arrive at a reasonable scientific conclusion about the theory of gravity, and what role friction from the atmosphere plays on different types of objects (e.g., a feather versus a bowling ball). In contrast, the general theory of evolution is bereft of any testable predictions, and is consequently beyond the reach of scientific testing or validation. Absent the ability to test predictions derived from the theory, the general theory of evolution is strictly speaking unscientific. Without the imprimatur of science, it is not a theory at all and raises the question why it is ever included in any science curriculum.

Sadly the popularity of the general theory of evolution has fueled some of the most nefarious ideologies and atrocities of the 20th century, i.e., Marxist-Leninism, Communism, Social Darwinism, National Socialism, Nazism, and Eugenics. Evolution theory is a bizarre paradox that was intentionally and intelligently created yet proposes all life is unintentional and accidental. Setting aside the dearth of scientific validity, the genesis of the general theory contains the seeds of its own refutation on the grounds of intellectual dishonesty. In other words, it is a very elaborate lie disturbingly reminiscent of Adolf Hitler's "big lie" theory: Tell a lie big enough, and people are more likely to believe it. A good example is telling people that they descended from apes. The last time I checked, my parents, grandparents, ad nauseum are homo sapiens, not apes. The cell laws articulated by Shleidan, Schwann and Virchow also refute the most absurd claim of the general theory, i.e., cells evolved mirabile dictu from inorganic matter. The last time I checked, scientific laws trump theory. Evolution is not a law, and fails as a theory. Q.E.D.

Unfortunately this virulent strain of intellectual dishonesty at the core of evolution theory's formulation continues unabated to this day as shown by the continuing use of well-documented frauds and forgeries in standard textbooks as "proof" of evolution. These frauds and forgeries range from the staged peppered moth experiments, Haeckel's faked drawings of embryos, Darwin's finches, the Miller-Urey experiment, and creative "Tree of Life" drawings. One would think that after 150 years the proponents of evolution would come up with more convincing proofs than faked and forged evidence. Honest academics should be asking themselves why some continue to defend a theory that relies on phony evidence to sustain its waning relevance. Unfortunately, political and legal forces shaped by the dominant social philosophies of secular humanism, functionalism and relativism are better served by embracing the general theory than in candidly acknowledging it for what is truly is: A cosmogenic myth masquerading as science. An excellent article detailing some of the fakes and forgeries commonly found in textbooks as "proof" of evolution is attached for your review. You will find the section regarding Darwin's finches to be informative as it confirms that beak variations in Galapagos finches during droughts returned to normal after rains returned. In other words, no net evolution took place. Moreover, several finch species appear to be merging through a process of hybridization rather than diverging into distinct species as required by evolution theory. Teaching children that beak variations in finches "proves" that the general theory of evolution is true is intellectually dishonest and borders on scientific misconduct.

In the history of science no other theory has suffered from so many shortcomings while enjoying so many defenders in the scientific community indoctrinated from their youth in its tenants except for perhaps Ptolemaic theory. I suspect that when historians look back at this era and wonder why so many failed to grasp the obvious (i.e., the general theory of evolution is a colossal blunder akin to Ptolemaic theory), some will conclude that our education system played a crucial role in stifling genuine scientific inquiry and a healthy level of skepticism by indoctrinating impressionable young with an unscientific myth dressed up as a proven theory. When a society politicizes science, academic standards decline in proportion to critical thinking skills that succumb to socially and politically correct platitudes. That is why it comes as no surprise so some that while school grades show improvement, independent test scores show a general decline over the past decade despite unprecedented infusions of capital.

Fortunately there are thousands of scientists who no longer find the general theory of evolution credible or useful in explaining the available evidence. The attached list cites just some of a growing number of scientists who have parted ways with Darwinism because it fails to explain the available evidence. With recent breakthroughs in microbiology, the edifice of evolutionary theory is beginning to crumble as more and more researchers begin to ask the tough questions that so many in the entrenched scientific and political establishment prefer to ignore. One would hope that public education would lead the way in instructing our children to think independently and critically without being spoon fed mythical ideas devoid of scientific content. Having a person in authority like a teacher tell young children that their ancestors were apes is an insult not only to the children and their real parents (homo sapiens), but to science and education. The next time a student commits some atrocity at a public school, you should carefully consider when you teach them that they are animals that you increase the likelihood they will actually behave like animals. You will reap what you sow in the minds of our youth because ideas have consequences.

Originally posted by

Ben Wells

Evolutionists are like tiddlywinks in that they never commit to anything regarding their theories except that evolution must be a fact.

Dear Mr. Padgett,

Please. If you would like a discussion, stop with the ad hominen attacks and strawmen. It is responses like these that behoove scientists NOT to engange debates about evolution and ID. I

f you are interested in a discussion I will be happy to discuss evolutionary theory and intelligent design. However, the condescending tone of your paper really makes me think it's not worth my (or anyone's) time.

David:

This is the basic problem with your argument.

Science is the collaboration of a community that extends beyond political ideologies and religious beliefs. The overwhelming majority of this community- liberals, conservatives, Christians, Muslims, pagans, atheists, etc.- of scientists has resoundly stated that ID is not science.

This is not a political issue. The DI politicizes this issue.

Scientists may very well be liberal.

Originally posted by

David Hardy

Interesting editorial, even though you never saw the science presented by the ID folks, which is obvious, you never offered any science of your own. That is mainly because none exist, especially those that the SMU Prof's proposed in the Dallas Morning News editorial last week which have also never been proved and have been dispelled thousands of times but yet claim to be solid science. Your hoax is exposed

So really all you have done is attack one world view by hanging on to your world view, which has no science to back it up, none. So let's cut to the chase.

You propose there is no ID and you evolved from apes and the big bang created all this amazing world by accident.

You buy into Man caused global warming with lies and flawed science and expect us to just lay down while you pick our wallets.

You believe in a womans right to choose to kill their own baby's, which has killed more human beings than in all our wars combined.

You believe the lie that Palestine was actually occupied by the Palestinians and deserve their land back (read your history)

You believe Israel is the problem in the middle east.

You believe in guy marriage and gay rights as main stream.

you believe that capital punishment should be abolished in Texas.

You do not support the war in Iraq but claim to support the troups but are willing to cut off funding. 9/11 just is no longer important, your to cowardess to fight for the freedom you enjoy in this editorial. My Son in law is doing that for you right now.

You think the terorist rights in prison are more important than the rights of our troops on the ground.

Your party hates our Presedent and they are dedicated to your liberal agenda...and you support it...

I came pretty close to your world view...did I not!!!

God have mercy on you Liberals

Originally posted by

David Hardy

Interesting editorial, even though you never saw the science presented by the ID folks, which is obvious, you never offered any science of your own. That is mainly because none exist, especially those that the SMU Prof's proposed in the Dallas Morning News editorial last week which have also never been proved and have been dispelled thousands of times but yet claim to be solid science. Your hoax is exposed

So really all you have done is attack one world view by hanging on to your world view, which has no science to back it up, none. So let's cut to the chase.

You propose there is no ID and you evolved from apes and the big bang created all this amazing world by accident.

You buy into Man caused global warming with lies and flawed science and expect us to just lay down while you pick our wallets.

You believe in a womans right to choose to kill their own baby's, which has killed more human beings than in all our wars combined.

You believe the lie that Palestine was actually occupied by the Palestinians and deserve their land back (read your history)

You believe Israel is the problem in the middle east.

You believe in guy marriage and gay rights as main stream.

you believe that capital punishment should be abolished in Texas.

You do not support the war in Iraq but claim to support the troups but are willing to cut off funding. 9/11 just is no longer important, your to cowardess to fight for the freedom you enjoy in this editorial. My Son in law is doing that for you right now.

You think the terorist rights in prison are more important than the rights of our troops on the ground.

Your party hates our Presedent and they are dedicated to your liberal agenda...and you support it...

I came pretty close to your world view...did I not!!!

God have mercy on you Liberals

Christopher,

Your probably right, there is no absolute science that will prove ID. However there is two problems. One, you still leave out the total lack of science on the design side. There also is none!!! Not even fossil records for a change in species. Second, if you look at the probability of a complex life as we have evolving from nothing is like a man finding the winning lottery ticket on the street and continues to do so every day for a hundred years. The theories are compelling in complexity of life are overwhelming.

You will meet your maker...hopefully before it is not to late...his name is Jesus Christ...look up John Wesley writings...he wrote the doctrines for your Univerisity...he would roll over in his grave if he knew you have turned the school into a GODLESS liberal university.

Good luck...because you liberal folks have taken over.

Again,

You synonymize anything you don't agree with as liberal. Science isn't liberal or conservative. You need to take more science courses to figure this one out.



God have mercy on you Liberals[/QUOTE]

"Good luck...because you liberal folks have taken over."

Again, science is not liberal or conservative. Perhaps you need to take some science courses to realize this.