IS EVOLUTION REALLY "TRUE SCIENCE"?

by JOAOZINHO da S. F. A. MARTINS
(ORLIM, SALCETE, GOA, INDIA)

Obviously, theistic evolutionists expose their unholy bias towards those who differ with them by branding them as "slanderers lying for Jesus". What they have not yet come to realize is the cold fact that in defending evolution with a religious zeal they are actually guilty of "lying for Jesus". Not only that, after 'Saving Darwin' they now want to "Save God" from being accused of "lying" in Genesis 1 and 2 wherein He talks of creating Adam and Eve rather than telling the actual truth - that , He in fact, chose a "couple and named this first pair as Adam and Eve" from among those other thousands of couples having a Common Ancestor, as is now zealously taught by "Biologos" or other theistic evolutionists. Nevertheless, herein below am reproducing material relating to the Theory of Evolution from: http://www.bibleprophecyandtruth.com/creation/isEvolutionScience.aspx and hope the readers will be able to detect "lying for Jesus"!

-----------------------------
WEBMASTER'S NOTE: Mr. Martins, even on the web it is a copyright violation to post that much of another person's web site. I deleted everything that you copied. The link you gave is right there in case someone wants to read it.

Now, back to Mr. Martins comment ...
-----------------------------

Anyway, I hope and pray what is stated above will make some sense to theistic evolutionists rather than brand it as "lying for Jesus". But then, there are a good number of Christian Scientists who do a lot of "lying for Jesus" by denouncing evolution as pseudo-science. The truth is..., when once a person is drunk with the new wine of neo-Darwinian evolution, even God inspired record of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 becomes pseudo-science if not a lie or fable adopted by Moses to tell the Israelites who the true God is. Perhaps, God had to resort to "allegorical lying" because the Israelites were too dumb as compared to their intelligent "pre-adamic first parents" to understand any evolutionary theories as convincingly proclaimed today by those wearing a scientific garb.

Comments for IS EVOLUTION REALLY "TRUE SCIENCE"?

Click here to add your own comments

Mar 17, 2013

a little too much to ask
by: Thomas Robertson

Mr. Martins, I am afraid you are asking too much.
In order to read that Website from the screen, we would have to do a lot of uncomfortable reading. In order to print that Website out, we would have to use a lot of paper. Either way, it would take a lot of time.

Could you please narrow the topic down, and write a reasonably sized essay of your own? Then I might be willing to comment.

Mar 28, 2013

ALL TRUE SCIENCE IS AGREEABLE TO ALL
by: JOAOZINHO da S. F. A. MARTINS

I understand it’s uncomfortable to read and comment on what somebody else has to tell us about “evolution” by visiting any particular website refuting evolution, as such. Anyway, to be precise, those who boldly teach evolution as "True Science" seem to be coolly overlooking what some intelligent unbiased scientists themselves have to say in refuting evolution. I am not a scientist; given my ignorance and Christian bias, I may not agree evolution is "True Science". After all, it contradicts Genesis 1 account of creation. But, when some of the scientists, including atheistic scientists, themselves refute evolution and doubt Darwin and evolving Neo-Darwin, my ignorance becomes bliss. In other words, as long as scientists and evolutionists differ with each other I have no reason whatsoever to believe evolution is True Science. It will be a wise thing for lay people like me not to subscribe to any unproven evolutionary theories as long as highly qualified scientists do not wholly accept it as a true science. Let all the scientists fully agree with each other and present to lay people a common but proven Theory of Evolution and then only ‘evolution of man from some Common Ancestor’ will make scientific sense to one and all, hopefully!

Mar 29, 2013

a whale of a coincidence
by: Thomas Robertson

I hear what you are saying. Not having read the Website, I take your word for it that there is not perfect agreement among scientists.

Nevertheless, I find it significant that there is so much agreement among scientists of different disciplines.

Let's look at what scientists have to say about whales:

■ fossil succession

Paleontologists have found a series of fossils including the ambulocetus, the rodhocetus, the basilosaurus, and the zeuglodon.

■ vestigial organs

Most organisms carry “vestigial organs,” or organs which they do not need but which their ancestors needed. Ostriches have claws on their wings, inherited from their reptilian past. Male humans, as well as males of other mammal species, carry nipples as heirlooms from a time before we separated into males and females. Likewise, whales carry leg bones, inherited from their days as land animals.

■ embryology

Watching a whale embryo develop is a veritable panorama of the whale’s terrestrial past.
Whale embryos develop body hair, teeth, and olfactory lobes of the brain, which they later resorb. The nostrils begin in the usual place for mammals and migrate to where they are found as blowholes.

■ biochemistry

Biochemists have found DNA similarity between whales and land-dwelling ungulates, especially the hippopotamus. Below is a sample of studies on this subject.

If scientists in one branch said whales were descended from a mongoose, scientists in another branch said they were descended from a cocker spaniel, and scientists in another branch said they were descended from a eucalyptus tree, I would say the whole thing is baloney.

Such is not the case, however. Rather, we see scientists in different branches, working independently of each other but arriving at the same answer.

Mar 29, 2013

Chapter 21
by: Thomas Robertson

I decieded to take your challenge after all.

The author starts lying for Jesus from the very first chapter. Evolution has been observed in our very own time. Biologist Massimo Pigliucci invited Creationist crusader Duane Gish to observe evolution taking place in his laboratory, but Gish never accepted the offer.

As for the “intermediate or transitional stage of evolutionary development of any creature” which has never been found, all you have to do is look in the mirror. Throughout the mammal class, nipples are carried over from our days in which the genders were less specified. I once asked a Creationist about this, and he merely said, “The Intelligent Designer knows more about this than you do.”

I see that the author is singing that old refrain about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which he paraphrases as “all things left to themselves will tend towards disorder and decay.” I believe that Duane Gish was the first major proponent of this argument. Apparently he thought that the scientists were either misinterpreting that law or failing to see how it could preclude evolution. But instead of discussing it with scientists, he lectured on the subject with the general public. An editor of a scientific journal invited Gish to write an article explaining exactly where the scientists have gone wrong. Gish never responded to that invitation.

I also see that the author is trotting out that quote nugget about eye evolution. Darwin seems to be saying that the what-good-is-half-an-eye question cannot be answered, but then promptly proceeds to answer it! If Creationists are such good Christians, then why don’t they observe the Ninth Commandment?

Mar 29, 2013

Chapter 22
by: Thomas Robertson

The author uses the extrapolation fallacy to prove that the earth is not 30 million years old; otherwise it would have rotated once a second at that time.

To illustration the extrapolation fallacy, here is one which I made up:

The average newborn boy in the United States is 1'9" tall and grows 9" the first year.

The average newborn girl is 1'7" tall and grows 8 1/2" the first year.

The average lifespan is 77 years.

That much is true. But let us assume that everyone continues growing at the same rate throughout the life span.

That means that the average man will grow to a height of 59'6" and the average woman will grow to a height of 56' 1 1/2".

He talks about the limitations of carbon dating, ignoring the fact that scientists recognize those limitations. Of course, there are other dating techniques which serve for older specimens, but the author doesn’t want us to know that.

Mar 29, 2013

Chapter 23
by: Thomas Robertson

I’ve heard of caveman drawings of wooly mammoths and saber tooth tigers, but this is the first I’ve heard of caveman drawings of dinosaurs. Could the author be thinking this up? Surely not!
Paleontologists say that they have hauled in:

0 Mesozoic cavemen

2100 Mesozoic dinosaurs

4000 Cenozoic cavemen

0 Cenozoic dinosaurs

The age of the dinosaurs lasted about 160 million years.

The age of the cavemen lasted about 3 million years.

But Creationists tell us that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth together. The chances against this being true must be in the trillions.

The tally should be something like:

3926 Mesozoic cavemen

2061 Mesozoic dinosaurs

74 Cenozoic cavemen

39 Cenozoic dinosaurs

I tried to work this out as a chi square problem, but my Excel program wouldn't go that high.
Creationists seem to be champions of inductive reasoning. This author provides a list of lifeforms thought to be extinct but later found to be surviving. He apparently hopes to convince the reader that dinosaurs aren’t extinct. Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Buxtehude, Bax, and Britten all have names starting with B. Does that mean that all composers have names starting with B?

Mar 29, 2013

Chapter 24
by: Thomas Robertson

“Evolutionists believe that humans will eventually evolve into all-powerful Gods”? Where does he get this idea? According to some anti-Mormons, the serpent “preached the first Mormon sermon” when he promised that “ye shall be as gods,” since the Mormon church actually does make such a promise. The author might be borrowing this idea from the anti-Mormons.

Mar 29, 2013

Chapter 27
by: Thomas Robertson

Like many Creationists, this author contends that the fossil layers were deposited by the Flood rather than by geological history. To consider this claim, there have been advanced three factors known as "sorting mechanisms."

The first is the factor of how fast an object can sink or how long it will float. Saladin, in his 1988 debate with Duane Gish, called this the "hydraulic selection hypothesis." Schadewald, in an article in Creation/Evolution in the summer of 1982, called this "hydraulic sorting." Kitcher, in his book Abusing Science, called this "hydraulic characteristics."

There are three sub-factors here. One is "particle density." McGowan asks why trees are not found in the highest layers. He also asks why corals and shells are not found in the lowest layers.

Similarly, Saladin asks why microbes are found in the lower layers and hard shells in the higher layers.

The second sub-factor is "particle sphericity." This factor explains why kites are flat. It also explains why paper airplanes fly better than paper wads.

Strahler, in his book Science and Earth History, asks why a flat organism called the graptolite is found in Paleozoic soil.

The third sub-factor is "particle diameter." Schadewald asks why smaller tribolites are not found in higher soil than larger tribolites.
Strahler asks why giant dinosaurs and giant mammals are not found in the deepest soils. For that matter, why aren't adults found in deeper soil than juveniles of the same species?

Second is the "ecological zonation hypothesis" (Saladin), "victim habitat" (Schadewald), or "habitat" (Kitcher). This hypothesis contends that organisms of higher or lower habitat will be found in higher or lower soil.

Saladin asks why marine life is often found in higher soil than land plants and animals.

Finally, there is the "upward mobility hypothesis" (Saladin), "victim mobility" (Schadewald), or "mobility" (Kitcher). According to this hypothesis, organisms which were better fit for escaping the flood waters would be found in the highest soil.

Saladin asks why no plants are found in pre-Cambrian and Cambrian soil, or why flowering plants do not seem to appear until Mesozoic times.

Mar 29, 2013

Chapter 29
by: Thomas Robertson

Those poor Creationists have gotten caught in a double bind. The more kinds they recognize, the more work they impose on Noah and his seven trusty crewman. The fewer kinds they recognize, the more evolving--excuse me, adapting--they impose on the animals, and in just 4500 years.

Did Noah take only two dogs? That's 35 species in 14 genera. Did Noah take only two bats? That's 850 species. Did Noah take only two worms? That's 28,000 species in 18 phyla, which is over half the phyla in the Animal Kingdom. How about beetles? That's half a million species.

Duane Gish claimed that the concept of kinds can be understood by "any high school student with average intelligence." However, he could not remember his own system. On page 35 of the 1978 edition of Evolution: The Fossils Say No! he assigns a slot each to gibbons, chimpanzees, and gorillas, but on page 47, he designates all apes as a "major kind."

Mar 29, 2013

Chapter 30
by: Thomas Robertson

"Maybe God just took a dipper full of water out and dumped it somewhere else. He is God, after all."

I'm sorry, I thought we were going to talk about science.

Mar 29, 2013

Chapter 31
by: Thomas Robertson

Creationists can sound all the trumpet calls they want, but that doesn’t make the Antony Flew case any more significant. Flew never was a spokesman for Evolution. Furthermore, he was and still remains a deist.
Furthermore, his change of opinion—which, incidentally, he has recanted—had to do with abiogenesis rather than Evolution. For the life of me, I can’t understand why religious fanatics are so fond of mixing up these two topics. If they want to talk about abiogenesis, they can post a Website on abiogenesis.
Our venerable scholar writes, “Some don't want to admit that they are not the most important, significant and intelligent species in the universe.” As I explained earlier, it is a Creationist misconception that one species is higher than another. Besides, I thought it was his camp which preaches that we are to “have dominion over the earth.”
Like many Creationists, our author accuses Evolutionists of immorality. And like many Creationists, he fails to offer a shred of documentation. Evolutionary theory is not only innocent of advocating immorality, it explains morality. Ask any Evolutionist, and he or she will tell you that animals of all surviving species live in an orderly society. There may have been populations which were not so orderly, but if there were, they drove themselves to extinction.
Not surprisingly, the author also hints at the three-letter S word. Either he doesn’t know, or hopes that you don’t, that most species which are susceptible to venereal disease practice monogamy. Also, most species with a long childhood practice monogamy, and our species has the longest childhood of any species. Either he doesn’t know this or he hopes that you don’t.
This shows that our species discovered morality millions of years before organized religion coined their lofty rhetoric about “holy matrimony.”
Surprise of surprises, our worthy spokesman mentions Hitler’s name, and warns us that if we don’t change our ways, we might become as evil as Hitler. Two can play this game as easily as one. In 1999, the Barna Research Group found a low divorce rate among atheists and agnostics. They also found a significantly higher rate among conservative Christians than among other religious groups

In his cross-cultural study in 1975, J. L. Prescott found that the least religious societies showed the least signs of “invidious display of wealth,” “incidence of theft,” “infant physical pain,” and “killing, torturing or mutilating the enemy,” and the greatest signs of “overall infant indulgence.”

While we're at it, do a Google search on “atheists in prison” and see what else you can find.

I appreciate the efforts of Creationists to rescue us from perdition, but no thanks.

Click here to add your own comments

Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How? Simply click here to return to lying-for-jesus.

Home

Evolution

Creation

Faith

Miscellaneous

Science & Honesty

The Author

"I have been a biologist for a long time, and I hope I never stop getting shivers in my spine when I think about the beauty of how we come to know things in biology.

Biologists make predictions, then they go out into the field or the lab to see if their predictions hold up. When hundreds of predictions of this sort are fulfilled, a theory reaches the point where it becomes certain, at least on a broad level. And that is where we are with evolution."

– Falk, Darrel. Professor of Biology. Point Loma Nazarene University. California.