Re: Article: The Evolutionist Campaign to Suppress the Truth


JPG wrote:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=6623

The Evolutionist Campaign to Suppress the Truth
Kazmer Ujvarosy


Kazmer Ujvarosy is the founder of Frontline Science, an independent
think tank, based in San Francisco. He is dedicated to the analysis of
complex problems, and the development of realistic, concrete proposals
on issues of global concern. His stance is independent,
interdisciplinary, with an analytical rigor, and a view to the future.
He is uniquely qualified to help you understand what makes scientific
sense, and what does not, based on cause-and-effect and systems
principles. His writings can help you learn how to expose
misconceptions that plague both science and religion, and how to arrive
at an enlightened world view by purging the misconceptions that keep
science and religion separate. His goal is to provide readers with a
solid knowledge base to ensure enlightened thinking on global issues.


Kazmer Ujvarosy
March 7, 2006

The truth is that the evolutionist explanations for cosmic

So now cosmologists and physicists are "evolutionists" are they?

and
biological development from a simple beginning do not square with the
facts. Only development from a most complex universal common ancestor
agrees with the data we have.

Nonsense. Evolution from a more simple ancestor agrees with the data we
have.


Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science
Education, is dedicated to keep the Darwinian doctrine's

It ain't "doctrine" and it ain't "Darwinian"

judicially
imposed monopoly

The "monopoly" consists of not having religion taught as science in
spite of illegal attempts to impose it on the science curriculum.

in our public schools alive, to the best of her
abilities, and at the expense of generations of students.

That "expense" being educated in scientific matters, and not confused
by religious assertions masquerading as science.

According to
Ken Miller, professor of biology at Brown University, what evolution
really means is summed up in the conclusion of Charles Darwin's On
the Origin of Species: "There is grandeur in this view of life ...
from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most
wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

What we are not being told by either Scott or Miller, and what is being
criminally dismissed or suppressed by the entrenched Darwinian
establishment, is the fact that experts in the field failed to find
evidence that the mechanisms proposed by Darwin can produce new kinds
of living organisms.

An outright falsehood, as speciation has been observed.

For example as early as 1922

1922! Wow!

the Russian
ichthyologist and zoogeographer Leo S. Berg made public his finding
that what is believed to be evolution is indistinguishable from the
process of development from a fertilized ovum, in which zygote or
genotype the phenotype organism has its origin.

In discussing the remarkable relationship between development and what
evolutionists assume to be evolution, Berg wrote: "The laws of the
organic world are the same whether we are dealing with the development
of an individual (ontogeny) or that of a paleontological series
(phylogeny). Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for
chance." (Berg, L. Nomogenesis; or, Evolution Determined by Law. M.
I. T. Press, Cambridge, 1969, p. 134.)


This sounds like "Ontogeny recapitualates phylogeny all over again. He
was wrong, of course and has been forgotten by most mainstream
scientists.
What on earth is the relevance of this to the argument?


Thus, rejecting the Darwinian doctrine of evolution from a simple
beginning, Berg argued that an organism's qualities are determined
entirely by the orderly unfolding of sequences that characterizes
embryonic development. In other words in Berg's judgment development
and what is believed to be evolution are, strictly speaking, one thing.


And this is relevant to modern biology why, exactly?

His finding is most significant because if what is believed to be
evolution is in fact development, then the "endless forms most
beautiful and most wonderful" are not unfolding from a simple
beginning, as Darwin proposed, but rather from a most complex genome,
zygote, genotype, or universal common ancestor.

This is just a word salad. Moreover, the evidence does not support the
assertion of a complex universal common ancestor.


Building on the findings of Berg, Otto Schindewolf, Richard B.
Goldschmidt, William Bateson, Robert Broom, and Pierre Grassé, in 1984
John A. Davison from the Department of Biology at the University of
Vermont presented the semi-meiotic hypothesis of organic evolution.
(Davison, J. A. Semi-meiosis as an evolutionary mechanism. J. Theor.
Biol., 111: 725-735.) His papers, in his own words, "expose the
complete failure of virtually every aspect of the Darwinian model."

The essence of Davison's hypothesis is that the formation of new
species (speciation) results not from new genetic information generated
by evolutionary mechanisms, but rather from an enormous potential
supply of information already present in the genome or preexisting
information. "Thus," he writes, "what has been described as
convergent evolution is not that at all but the expression from
preformed sources of virtually identical morphologies."


And this has been pretty thoroughly refuted by the advances in
knowledge of genetics over the intervening 20 years or so.


Although Davison is still asking, "What is the origin of the
preexisting information?", he's convinced his "model provides a
rational explanation for the absence of intermediates both in
contemporary and in fossil species." On top of that Davison argues
that if laws govern both evolution and development, and not chance,
then "The existence of laws presumes a law maker or makers. That in
turn suggests purpose."

Needless to say, Davison had to pay a price for his dissent from the
Darwinian doctrine. He was subjected to harassments by various members
of the faculty, and his salary remained frozen at the 1995 level.
Eventually he retaliated by publishing "What It Means to Be an
AntiDarwinian at the University of Vermont."


This brings us back to Eugenie Scott, who in her presentations and
debates keeps referring to Charles Darwin's brainchild as the
"theory of evolution." Without her blinder she could see what
Davison wrote in his "Do We Have an Evolutionary Theory?"

Davison points out that a theory "is an hypothesis which, having been
tested, has achieved a degree of support, thereby enabling it to make
certain predictions." However in Darwin's model allegedly nature
selects random changes in genetic composition resulting from assumed
undirected mutations. So Darwin's brainchild clearly cannot be tested
because if the evolutionary mechanism he proposed is without purpose,
its result cannot be predicted.

Utter nonsense! One may as well argue that because the mechanism of
gravity is "without purpose" that its result cannot be predicted.


To illustrate, if we travel without a goal in mind, the prediction of
our destination is impossible. The only prediction a person can make is
that our wanderings are unpredictable, or that we can't get lost
because we have no destination in mind. Similarly, if the evolutionary
mechanism is without purpose, no prediction can be made, except that
the result of evolution is unpredictable.

....which is a false analogy of course...

But to remain rational,

HA!

a
process without purpose is necessarily endless and can have no result.

So that gets rid of virtually all science. Ah well, it was fun while it
lasted.
As a matter of curiosity, why should we abandon a method of enquiry
which has proved its value for centuries in place of unfounded
assertion?

By definition result means a desired consequence or outcome.

Emm, no. Result means outcome. Desire doesn't come into it.

So if
indeed Darwin is correct that from a simple beginning "endless forms
most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved,"
for no purpose whatsoever, then his model can yield no result or
outcome, and therefore cannot be predictive.

And if this argument were logically constructed it might have some
value.


Also let me note that in the absence of purpose no action of any kind
makes sense.

I see. So the falling of a brick "makes no sense" because gravity has
no purpose.

If the process Darwin labeled "natural selection" is
indeed purposeless, how can selection take place in the absence of a
goal?

If the process labelled "gravity" is indeed purposeless, how can a
brick fall in the absence of a goal?

Selection implies choosing in preference to another or others for
some purpose.

Wrong! Selection does not require purpose.

If there is no purpose, there is no need for selection,
be it natural or human.

If there is no purpose, there is no need for a brick to fall..

Thus the very act of selection implies a
purpose,

but Darwin and his disciples irrationally insist that the
process of evolution is purposeless.

The very action of a brick falling implies a purpose, but physicists
irrationally insist that the process of gravitational action is
purposeless.



In light of the fact that it is impossible to make predictions based on
the evolutionary mechanism proposed by Darwin,

False. The model proposed by Darwin makes quite specific predictions.

Davison correctly
concludes that "the Darwinian model does not qualify even as an
hypothesis, a curious status for a view still widely accepted by the
evolutionary establishment."

He was wrong, of course.


But to give credit to where it belongs, Eugenie Scott is correct in
insisting that explanations which are not predictive, and cannot be
tested scientifically, have no place in science. For these very reasons
the Darwinian model has no place in science.

But the "Darwinian model" IS predictive, and has been tested by
experiment and observation.


As by now it should be evident, the Darwinian model is not predictive,
because the result of any purposeless process is unpredictable.

... As by now it should be evident, the Newtonian model is not
predictive, because the result of any purposeless process is
unpredictable...

Moreover it is not testable scientifically because Darwin's claim
that natural selection managed to yield human life automatically
disqualifies human involvement in the testing of that absurdity.

Does anyone else have a clue what the author means by this? Is he
arguing that because human beings are the outcome of evolutionary
processes we are disqualified from investigating our evolutionary
ancestry?

Wierd!



Incidentally, the celebrated Big Bang model of the universe suffers of
the same predictive impotence.

That will come as news to cosmologists.

As Stephen Hawking noted in his lecture,
"The Future of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology" (Cambridge, UK,
11 January 2002), if all equations break down at a singularity, the Big
Bang cosmology does not have any predictive power because if no one can
predict what comes out of the initial singularity in which the universe
has its source, it is impossible to calculate how the universe would
evolve.


This seem to be the argument that unless we know everything in the most
minute detail, we can't make any predictions whatsoever about anything.

Curiouser and curiouser.


Just as in cosmic evolution, we are faced with the same problem in
biological evolution. If no one can tell what comes out from a simple
beginning or common ancestor, it is impossible to predict the evolution
of life.

He seems to be obsessed with some strange idea about the nature of
prediction.


Characteristically, Eugenie Scott likes to assure her listeners that
evolution isn't a belief, because "Scientists can test it and test
it and test it over again." She fails to realize that when scientists
are testing a particular process which they think is natural
selection's purposeless process, in reality they are not evaluating
natural selection's abilities, but their own abilities. Put simply,
they fool themselves repeatedly into believing that what they do is
what natural selection does, and in turn fool their students and the
public as well.


So when a scientist is testing the theory of gravity by dropping
bricks, he fails to realise that he is evaluating his own abilities,
not the theory of gravity. If he does so repeatedly, he ends up
believing in gravitation and fools not only his students but the public
as well.

In any case it is obvious that if natural selection is the cause of
human life, then natural selection is above and beyond human life -
i.e., natural selection is supernatural.

Why?

But if natural selection is
not a supernatural agent of creation, why is that entity not available
for observations and experiments? Why can't we see and touch natural
selection?

Because it's a process? We can't see and touch gravity either.


If it is true indeed that only one thing in science is not open to
change, namely its demand that every explanation be based on
observation or experiment, where is for natural selection the
observable evidence capable of being touched or tested?

Biology, morphology, genetics, the fossil record .....

Also, if indeed
from a simple beginning or universal common ancestor evolves the
richness and complexity of life, who was there to observe, touch or
test that postulated common ancestor?


So, unless someone was there to observe and touch it, it can't exist.
I guess that the dark side of the moon didn't exist until the Russians
sent that satellite round the back to take pictures.

This basic and rational demand by science

I would call it neither basic, rational, nor scientific. But then I'm
just a scientist. What do I know about science?

brings to mind the incident
reported in connection with Jesus Christ. In John 14 we find that when
Jesus was teaching his disciples about the nature of the Creator,
Philip demanded that his explanation be based on observable evidence:

Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be
satisfied." Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and
yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father;
how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?"

Also note Paul's letter to the Colossians where he identifies Christ
as our Creator:

By Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible
and invisible ...; all things were created by Him and for Him. He is
before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Is there need to make it more evident that the theory of creation meets
the demand of science?

Yes.

We are being told that Christ created the
universe for the production of human life in his own image, similarly
as a seed creates a tree for the purpose of self-reproduction. In other
words Christ identifies himself as the cosmic system's common
ancestor, seed, genome, genotype, or input and output. As he put it in
Revelation 22:13, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the
last, the beginning and the end."

To come to the point, whereas the evolutionist speculation fails to
meet the basic demand of science that an explanation must be based on
observable evidence capable of being touched or tested, the theory of
creation from Christ's body satisfies that rational requirement.

What, Christ's body can be touched and tested? Is this guy a Roman
Catholic?

After all neither Darwin's natural selection nor his imaginary simple
beginning or common ancestor is observable and capable of being touched
or tested. In contrast Christ, the actual Creator of the universe, made
himself available for observation, and was being touched and tested.
What is more, he made the prediction that in due time he's going to
live with us again.

A prediction whose fulfilment has been eagerly anticipated for 2000
years or so. At what point does a rational being start to think that
perhaps it was not intended to be treated literally?



Now, if evolutionists keep insisting that Christ is not the Creator or
universal common ancestor of the cosmic system, we should demand from
them to make available their natural selection and common ancestor for
observation, touching, and experiments.

Why?


To conclude, when next time Eugenie Scott and similarly deluded
evolutionists parrot the bold-faced lie that we have no scientific
theory of creation, remember to remind them that it is in the Bible.

Since when was the Bible considered to be scientific evidence? I doubt
that any of the many Christians who are also scientists think so.

In
reality the theory that Christ constitutes the seed of the universe, or
the genotype of the phenotype universe, is incomparably more scientific
and fact-based then the alternative explanations invented by
evolutionist biologists and cosmologists.

.....apart from the minor defect that it has no facts whatsoever to
support it. But hey! Who cares about such fripperies?

It identifies Christ as the
seed of the universe, and human beings as Christ's reproductions.
Because Christ is our universal common ancestor, and because he got in
touch with us, and promised to live with us in the future, Darwin's
imaginary common ancestor is a parody of Christ.

In the final analysis whereas Darwin posits common descent from a
simple beginning, the theory of creation posits common descent from the
existing highest form of intelligence. As we have no confirmable
evidence that intelligence superior to Christ's intelligence exists,
we are constrained by the available evidence

Which available evidence are we talking about here?

to accept that Christ
created the universe for the production of human life in his own image,
similarly as a seed generates a mighty tree for the purpose of
self-reproduction.

Contrary to what we are being told repeatedly, it is not science that
faces a new offensive, and it is not the theory of common descent what
we are challenging, but the irrational elements of the evolutionist
doctrine. Because descent from one universal common ancestor is the
essence of Darwin's model, the theory that Christ is the common
ancestor of the entire universe actually reinforces Darwin's main
contribution to science. But whereas Darwin proposed descent from a
simple common ancestor, the scientific theory of creation proposes
descent from the existing highest form of intelligence.

Unless the defenders of the Darwinian model acknowledge the fact that
common descent makes scientific sense only from the existing highest
form of intelligence, Darwin's idea will not sell well on the
marketplace of ideas. As Alan I. Leshner, the chief executive officer
of the American Association for the Advancement of Science realized,
"Scientists can't sell it alone." Therefore he would like to see
religious leaders get more involved in the promotion of evolution.
However that cooperation will remain a dream unless the realization
sinks in that indeed Jesus Christ constitutes the cosmic system's input
and output.

So as our Creator personally testifies, and as nature itself testifies,
and as I and other rational thinkers see it, common descent from the
existing highest form of intelligence makes a lot more sense then
descent from Darwin's imaginary simple common ancestor by the help of
an equally imaginary natural selection.

To return to the beginning:
Kazmer Ujvarosy is the founder of Frontline Science, an independent
LIE
think
LIE
tank, based in San Francisco. He is dedicated to the analysis of
complex problems,
LIE
and the development of realistic,
LIE
concrete proposals
LIE
on issues of global concern. His stance is independent,
LIE
interdisciplinary, with an analytical rigor,
ABSOLUTE CORKER OF A LIE
and a view to the future.
LIE
He is uniquely qualified
LIE
to help you understand what makes scientific
sense,
LIE
and what does not,
LIE
based on cause-and-effect
LIE
and systems principles.
LIE
His writings can help you learn how to expose
misconceptions that plague both science and religion,
LIE
and how to arrive
at an enlightened world view by purging the misconceptions that keep
science and religion separate.
LIE
His goal is to provide readers with a
solid knowledge base
LIE
to ensure enlightened thinking
LIE
on global issues.
LIE

RF


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
    ... We're talking about evolution, which is orthogonal. ... Science has shown that this is not the case. ... >>>to all life and explains everything. ... >>eukaryotes are related through a single common ancestor. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Activist judge declares that Intelligent Design is not science
    ... Phillip Johnson is known as the father of intelligent design. ... The idea in its current form appeared in the 1980s, and Johnson adopted and developed it after Darwinian evolution came up short, in his view, in explaining how all organisms, including humans, came into being. ... In this interview, hear why he feels that such evidence is "somewhere between weak and nonexistent," why he feels intelligent design is a testable science, and why he thought the Dover trial was a train wreck waiting to happen. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Five major misconceptions for evolution
    ... >> actually using science for once. ... >> Science students are taught the basic law of science that without ... >> philosophy of evolution in direct opposition to science. ... >> Chemical evolution is clearly excluded by the evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why Should Evolution be Taught as Science in Schools?
    ... of evolution. ... Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share ... Isn't science useful because it allows us to build bridges, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Aforementioned paper: Evolution and Creationism.
    ... The conflict between science and creationism in this country is not ... adults were open to the idea of creationism and evolution being taught ... of science, and so thoroughly supported by the evidence, attacks on it ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading