Education News Science

Evangelicals in Trump’s Cabinet: Choice of Pruitt alarms scientists, environmentalis …

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt departs after a meeting with President-elect Donald Trump at Trump Tower in New York City on Nov. 28, 2016. Photo courtesy REUTERS/Lucas Jackson

(RNS) President-elect Donald Trump’s pick of Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency has increased concerns about science foes in the incoming president’s inner circle.

Pruitt, who is Oklahoma’s attorney general, is a climate-change denier. In the National Review last May, he and co-author Luther Strange wrote, “Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind.”

The vast majority of scientists do not disagree that global warming is linked to mankind’s use of fossil fuels. Pruitt heads a coalition of Republican state attorneys general who are suing the EPA and the Obama administration over its climate change initiatives.

The appointment, announced Wednesday (Dec. 7), has environmentalists in full alarm mode.

“Mr. Pruitt has been a consistent critic of regulations that require industries to account for the costs they impose on the environment, often justifying his position based on flawed science,” David Levine, head of the American Sustainable Business Council, said in a statement. “Climate scientists nearly unanimously find the opposite is true. Mr. Pruitt’s selection signals a roll back of policies that have stimulated innovation and progress.”

Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, was more blunt. “Having Scott Pruitt in charge of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is like putting an arsonist in charge of fighting fires,” he said in a statement. “He is a climate science denier who, as Attorney General for the state of Oklahoma, regularly conspired with the fossil fuel industry to attack EPA protections.”

Pruitt’s pick intensifies concern among science and education professionals about the impact Trump’s Cabinet picks — many of them evangelical Christians — could have on the environment, the advancement of science and teaching standards.

Vice President-elect Mike Pence and Dr. Ben Carson, Trump’s pick to head the Department of Housing and Urban Development, are both evangelical Christians and known creationists who adhere to the biblically supported belief that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

Pruitt is also an evangelical Christian — he serves as a deacon at First Baptist Church in Broken Arrow, Okla., and graduated from Georgetown College, an evangelical school. He has a record of opposing marriage equality, transgender bathroom access and abortion, and opposed a church-state separation ballot initiative on the Oklahoma ballot earlier this year.

Pruitt was also the subject of a 2014 New York Times investigation of a “secretive alliance” between Republican attorneys general and the oil industry.

Writing in Scientific American, Devin Powell quotes science education advocates warning that “the legitimization of such nonscientific views at the highest levels of government could trickle down to local policies.”

He writes that battles over how evolution and climate change should be taught are already being fought in states such as Louisiana and Texas, where there are bills in the state legislatures that would let teachers treat the subjects as controversial.

“Nearly all of this legislation has emerged in states that were won by Trump,” he wrote.

Also of concern is the appointment of Betsy DeVos, another evangelical, to head the Department of Education. DeVos is a champion of school vouchers, a program to send public money to religious or private schools. She and her husband, Dick DeVos, have framed their support for vouchers in terms of “advance(ing) God’s kingdom.”

As a candidate for governor of Indiana, Dick DeVos supported the teaching of “intelligent design,” a religion-based theory that the universe is so complex it must have had an intelligent creator. Intelligent design and creationism garner almost no support from mainstream scientists.

There is also concern over presidential support for science, technology, engineering and mathematics — STEM — curricula. Quincy Brown, program director for STEM education research at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, cited President Obama’s 2011 initiative to train 100,000 new STEM teachers.

“These kinds of initiatives motivate the educational community,” Brown told Scientific American. “If messages like that are not coming from the top, I wonder whether there will be a shift in priorities.”

Candidate Trump indicated he would like to see that shift. He repeatedly pledged to end the Common Core State Standards, a set of learning goals for students from kindergarten through 12th grade. Though the Obama administration has supported Common Core, it is states, not the federal government, that decide to adopt them.

About the author

Kimberly Winston

Kimberly Winston is a freelance religion reporter based in the San Francisco Bay Area.


Click here to post a comment

  • These alleged “educators” might as well stop all the hand-wringing and paranoia.
    Their beloved religion of evolution is far less threatened by Trump’s new picks, than by the grassroots “Question-Evolution” efforts that have been on the public table all through Obama’s presidency.

    Things have seriously “evolved” from a decade or so ago. The Louisiana Science Education Act (which protects science teachers’ right to question evolutionary claims if they carefully line up their scientific documentation AND follow a specific chain-of-command process of permission from local-principal to school-board and state-board), has proven to be invincible over the years — neither the Louisiana ACLU nor their new Democrat governor, can do anything against it.

    Any state that wants to do state-wide science education reform, while keeping the evolutionist censorship-gang at bay, need only copy the exact text of the LSEA and adopt it.
    Plus the Internet and Social Media are always there no matter what, so interested school-kids can find the necessary information on their own.

    Today’s science increasingly raises questions & doubts regarding snake-oiled evolution. Take a look:

  • No, evolution is very well established in the scientific community. The controversies are in the details, not the core theory. Each year the theory is strengthened as we use DNA to better understand the mechanics. Many religionists wholeheartedly believe Genesis and that is their only serious basis for denying evolution.

    In math and science proficiency by 8th graders , the US ranks 14th. Since the schools run at state and local levels I don’t know how much harm she can do. These christian states certainly don’t need any encouragement from the Feds.

  • No, evolution is a theory in crisis — including “the core theory”. No Trump needed.

    You are correct that the theory of evolution is still “well-established in the scientific community”. It also dominates the media, the courts, schools, and colleges.

    But now there’s a well-established minority of professional PhD scientists and scholars who either question evolution, support intelligent design, or even in a few cases support biblical creationism, such as creationist PhD geologists. Anti-evolution books that couldn’t be found in Public & University Libraries 25 years ago, are now on shelf. ID supporter Stephen Meyer’s book “Darwin’s Doubt” debuted at #7 on the NYT bestseller list, and exceeded 600 reviews on Amazon, that’s pretty serious.

    Like I said, things have “evolved.” As evolutionist Bill Nye suddenly found out from creationist Ken Ham, NOBODY is going back to the old days in which evolutionists could accurately proclaim that no working PhD scientists question evolution, accept intelligent design, and/or creationism.

  • If you want to disprove evolution it is easy, simply disprove a prediction of evolution. For example, simply find a fossil mammal in the precambrian, or find an organ which is for the sole benefit of another species. Why has nobody ever done that? Why do creationists merely resort to asking questions in the ridiculous belief that evolution is thrown into doubt if we are unable (yet) to answer?

    Creationism has long been disproved – creationists never even attempt to refute the great geographical evidence against creationism, for example there are no flightless mammals, freshwater fish or amphibians on oceanic islands, yet they are found on continental islands. This is totally incompatible with creationism.

  • Creationism isn’t science little fella no matter how many backward laws you keep.

    Creationism is destroying Christianity because it forcing you to associate your religion with a pack of deliberate lies. Creationism is just phony science and not the biblical creation story. No Christian is required to believe a pack of lies.

  • Again you have to link your religious beliefs to lies.

    There isn’t the slightest controversy in Science about evolution. Its has 150 year of science and evidence behind it.

    Creationism isn’t a little bit right here and there … it is entirely a bag of deliberate lies.

  • “But now there’s a well-established minority…”

    …of the same kooks and fringers that have been bleating about ID for decades, and who were bleating about Creation “Science” before that.

    “…of professional PhD scientists and scholars…”

    Who overwhelmingly don’t work in the field, so who cares? Do you go to your dentist to discuss your chest cold? Why not – they’re a medical professional, aren’t they?

    Similarly, a physicist’s opinion about biology or a biologist’s opinion about engineering are irrelevant. No one cares what the kooks like Meyer have to say unless they do the actual work, get peer-reviewed and published in the field. And one of them have had anything published that challenges evolution, while I understand that papers supporting evolutionary theory number in the thousands every year.

  • So tell me again what field of biology Bill Nye works in? Hmm? What was his degree again?

    And so, using your own logic, why are you accusing evolutionist Bill Nye of “irrelevancy”?

    Extra credit: what field of biology does evolutionist Daniel Dennett (or evolutionist Michael Ruse for that matter) work in?

  • Neither are biologists. One doesn’t have to be one in order to understand basic evolution or argue with creationists. Neither, however, would likely hold their own arguing with evolution scientists and wouldn’t try.

  • You mean like a “GalapagosPete” would NOT likely hold his own against a Dr. Stephen C. Meyer and (very likely) shouldn’t try?

  • Dr. Bill Dembski of the Discovery Institute is eminently qualified to posit the theory of Intelligent Design. He holds doctorates in both Mathematics and Philosophy, as well as degrees in theology and psychology. He has a substantially well rounded education. Mathematics and Philosophy both are legitimate fields of expertise with respect to the concept of design in the universe. As to scientists commenting on fields outside their own specialty, that is a universal conceit among the scientifically inclined

  • That totally depends upon the two individuals. Creationists don’t have any true scientific legs to stand on, so galapogospete might stand a good chance of winning. Facts win out.

  • Bill Demski isn’t qualified to say squat about evolution. Lacking any formal training in biology. His background gives him no credentials to speak of here.

    Intelligent Design was already proven to be unscientific biblical creationism when evaluated in a forum where ones position has to be supported by evidence. The Dover Case highlighted how lacking in rational basis his ideas are. The only purpose of intelligent design was to hide the obvious religious origins of the same creationist arguments which were old hat by the 19th century.

    The idea that people who are commenting outside of their expertise on scientific matters is common enough for lay audiences but completely useless when trying to challenge established scientific theories. At no point does ID pose a legitimate scientific challenge to evolution or the big bang theories.

    Creationism is creative lying on behalf of one’s religion. It posits that faith is unnecessary to literal biblical belief, which is blatantly untrue. A religious belief depends on faith. In addition no creationist is willing to adhere to the rules and methodologies of scientific work. They want the credibility of science but not the inherent implications of it. That whatever one “proved” can be deprived by evidence as well. All creationists by their nature are liars and lack respect for scientific methods. They have no business in dealing with science related policies or education.

  • Doesn’t matter; they’re not denying science, they’re reporting what scientists are saying. If they were expressing a differing opinion then they’d have to back it up.

  • This is the reality of the level of compartmentalization you believers feel you need to indulge in. You are so desperate to appease your god that you are willing to deny reality. And yet at the same time, I have no doubt but that you look both ways before crossing the street. And wear a seat belt. And don’t stick your hands inside a running lawnmower, etc. You say that your god will protect you, but, will he really?

    What would you do if your god said doing so was a sin? Jesus already told you that washing your hands before eating wasn’t necessary, which is foolish on its face.

    Give irrationality an inch, and it’ll take a light-year.


  • You forget the typical Creationist dodge. Even when faced with overwhelming evidence of evolution, they just fall on the bogus argument of, “its evidence of Microevolution, not Macroevolution!!!!!”.

    Even though for all intents and purposes in the scientific community and in the realm of research, no such distinction exists

  • No. Trust me on this. “GalapagosPete” wouldn’t last 5 seconds. He might not even make it to ONE second against Dr. Meyer, quite honestly.

    Dr. Meyer has publicly debated Dr. Eugenie Scott of the NCSE, biologist Dr. Charles Marshall, and other evolutionists. Meyer holds his own with all of them. He has totally figured out how to debate PhD-level evolutionary scientists **on their own terms**. In print, on TV, in books, on the Internet, you name it.

    If you, or me, or Galapagos Pete, or even this “Devin Powell” bloke mentioned in the RNS article, were to step in the debate ring with Dr. Meyer, we’d ALL get knocked out. He’s just that good.

    So ask yourself this. Why is Meyer so good at debating the top evo’s? And on the opposite end, why DIDN’T “Bill Nye The Science Guy” totally destroy the creationist Ken Ham? (Why did the Nye-Ham debate end in an apparent “draw”, instead of Nye doing a total smashing evolutionist victory?)

    There’s only one reason, Jim. Modern science discoveries have undermined evolution and lent support to intelligent design and biblical creationism. That’s why. Evolution has betrayed you !!

  • Hey, speaking of Dr. William Dembski, I actually had an opportunity to see him debate the atheist Dr. Michael Shermer a few years ago at a secular university. Both men came armed with good PowerPoint slides and Good Manners (always helpful items, of course).

    But Dembski was absolutely SURGICAL with his intelligent design presentation. He knew exactly what to say, science-wise, and when to say it.
    Dembski effectively sliced up evolution and atheism like a machine, and he brought it all down to ordinary-lay-people level.

    Now atheist Shermer was good too, oh yes indeed. He had his own PowerPoints, but Shermer wasn’t “Ouch-Ouch-Ouch” like Dembski’s points. Dembski’s PowerPoints were crisp. And when Dembski showed an “Inside The Cell” animation video, and explained its intelligent design to all of us in just three minutes, that was THE END.

    No refutation possible. Blow-out victory on the live stage. Spuddie, you just better hope you NEVER debate against Dembski on evolution and intelligent design !!!!

  • Okay, let’s see now. You appear to be separating “Creationism” from “the biblical creation story”, for some unspecified reason. (If I’m wrong about that, please tell me. This is important.)

    You also say that Creationism is “a pack of deliberate lies” and “phony science.” (I’m just repeating all this back to you for the sake of clarity).

    So right now, I’m just curious to understand how you see things. Specifically, what are the “pack of deliberate lies” that you mentioned?

  • Dembski lost his one chance to prove in a real setting where factual arguments and evidence could be evaluated on its merits when he ran away at the Dover Trial. He was afraid to testify. So now he is stuck with theatrics with an uncritical audience.

  • You have to lie about the nature of your religious faith, pretend BS is on the same level as over a century of accumulated research and most of all pretend that religious claptrap has the same level of credibility to non-believers as scientific knowledge. It cheapens religion by denying faith dishonestly and reduces believers to making patently ridiculous apologetic arguments to cover up obvious rational problems with Biblical literalism.

  • Try reading this:

    If you bother, you will find links to evidence for numerous falsehoods peddled by creationist sources, some of which are presented in a context in which it seems inescapable that they are outright lies.

    It may not bother you that creationists are incapable of promoting their claims for scientific legitimacy honestly, but I suggest that this reflects more on your own moral values than it doses on the integrity of the science they so ignorantly and dishonestly attack.

  • Creationists have been claiming that evolution is a theory in crisis for over a century.
    It isn’t.
    In the words of one leading evolutionary biologist and devout Christian, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”.

    If creationists had any valid science to support their religious dogma, they would present it in the same way as any other scientist presents it. The fact that they promote their claims to the ill-informed public and demand that science redefines itself in a fundamental way so that they can be considered science demonstrates not some huge shadowy conspiracy of atheists to suppress their claims, but the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of their agenda.

  • I disagree in entirety. As always, I respect your right to your opinion, but I’m confident that the future will demonstrate quite correctly that the act of Creation via the methodology of Intelligent Design was God ordained. I’m perfectly happy to await that outcome. We need not argue it here beyond this brief exchange. Peace.

  • Intelligent design isn’t a coherent idea. It is a dishonest psuedoscientific gloss on the centuries old argument from design and suffers the same philosophical flaws. When trying to convince a court of its scientific basis, ID proponent Michael Behe not only admitted there was no scientific evidence for ID, but that it requires such a ridiculously loose definition of science that even astrology would be considered one.

    Mathematicians and engineers are the worst people to evaluate biology. They are trained to look for patterns and assume created structures where they are not always there. Biology is not like engineering. It is messy, inefficient, loaded with useless leftover features.

    Your faith and integrity are better served by avoiding intelligent design and creation science altogether.

    You also pretty much refuted any pretense of credibility of it by hoping for evidence which does not exist and relying on personal faith to do so.

  • All they can do is to criticize evolution and mock when science answers truthfully “we don’t know”. They ignorantly view that as a flaw or weakness.

  • Educators could use their energies by scheming how they will better teach Science to their students! The classroom is where it all happens–or doesn’! Instead they’re grabbing at straws and playing shallow political games, in light of the coming loss of the influence of teachers’ unions, when “the new sheriff comes to town!”

  • I believe enlightened Christians can assert that the Universe was indeed created by a Higher Intelligence and Power that’s far beyond us and all the scientists of all times. Then–as a starting point, we humbly admit that we don’t know HOW said Higher Intelligence and Power pulled it off! Evolution could be in the running! We’ll look at the evidence–pro and con, of all the theories . . . doing this could make the teaching of Science really fun!

  • >Trump repeatedly pledged to end the existing Common Core
    Newsflash: Common Core is not a federal program. It was commissioned by and is adopted by the states.

  • If the alternative to evolution is the Bible then people should know that the creation stories in the beginning of Genesis contradict, if taken completely literally.
    * One story says things were created in six days; the other is about the day of creation. (If a translation of Genesis 2:4 doesn’t mention the day of creation in that verse, it’s not a literal translation.)
    * The order of creation in each story is different.
    * The deity in each story is named differently. In one, God/gods (the word can bear both meanings) created the heavens and the earth; in the other YHWH God created the earth and the heaven.
    As one old cleric once said, “If you press the paps of Scripture too hard, they will yield blood, not milk.”

  • That is irrelevant. Evolution is a theory. It can make predictions which can be tested. It can even be destroyed if we find a ten million year old bunny rabbit fossil. Creationism has no body of evidence outside of the bible and this “evidence” is easily disproved. You have nothing else – nada, zip, zero. The only reason I even care is that ignorant Red states want to try to force this bullcrap on my grandson, nieces, nephews and other innocent children. Or worse, not teach evolution – handicapping their scientic education.

  • Of course Christians think that their religious creation account is the only valid one. I would say why not use the Hindu version? It has just as much validity (i.e. none).

  • If you understand science you will see that this will never happen. Unless god speaks to mankind and tells us Genesis is true. Also unlikely.

  • No Jim, the debate (and many others like it), are fully relevant and important.
    Why? Because the question of cosmic, biological and human origins is **high-stakes** for us all. (If evolution ever crashes and burns, I don’t have to tell you the catastrophic impact it would have on atheists and skeptics.)

    So the Dembski-Shermer debate was important. About 400 people watched Dembski win it. Important, long-lasting “intelligent design” seeds were planted in minds, hearts, and lives.

    And that’s how catastrophic paradigm shifts happen, Jim: one person at a time, one life at a time. In this case, potentially up to 400 lives, yes?

    Meanwhile, you say “evolution makes predictions that can be tested.” But what happens when evolution makes predictions that are FALSIFIED by science? Simple: the evolutionists entrench themselves, and insist that the theory of evolution is true no matter what. Here’s an example from 2012:

  • You wrote, “If creationists had any valid science to support their religious dogma, they would present it in the same way as any other scientist presents it.”

    But like I said, things have “evolved.” What you’re saying there has already taken place. But like so many other evolutionists, you are apparently relying on 30-year-old soundbites, instead of checking things out for yourself.

    Example: Look at these creationist PhD geologists making their scientific presentations to their secular scientist peers at the 2009 conference of the Geological Society of America:

  • There is nothing wrong with committed Christians advising Trump.
    You may not be aware of this but MOST of the founders of the constitution WERE COMMITTED CHRISTIANS.
    The progress left has managed to make Christianity equivalent to AIDS but this is nothing short of utter BS.

  • I don’t know which “old cleric” you have in mind, but I’m not too impressed with his statement.

    Meanwhile, all three of your objections have already been dealt with by Christian scholars.

    In fact, I often employ your second one myself, just to show Christians that the so-called “Theistic Evolution” belief is totally invalid, and that therefore they MUST choose either Christianity or Evolution, since it’s clear that both sets of historical claims **cannot** be rationally true at the same time.

  • Far from relying on “30-year-old soundbites”, I am an evolutionary biologist with a modest track record of research and publication. I have made numerous presentations at scientific conferences and have run them myself, am asked regularly to review papers written by others and known many of the scientists working in my field of vertebrate palaeontology. i am very much up-to-date not only in my field, but in science generally through regualar reading not only popular magazines such a ‘New Scientist’ but of heavyweights such as ‘Nature` and `Science`.

    That the very small number of creationists who hold PhD in subjects remotely relevant to evolutionary biology can make a conference presentations hardly constitutes a significant contribution to science. Arguments from authority supposed gained by qualification hardly adds weight to your cause: for each creationist with such a qualification there are tens, if not hundreds of thousands of academics with better and more relevant qualifications.

    The very fact that your refer to “secular” scientists demonstrates at best an ignorance of the nature of science. All science, in all fields is “secular”, in the sense that it is based on methodological naturalism. That is the same whether a scientist believes in God (or Gods) or not.

    I suggest that the fact that creationists are on the one hand claiming scientific support for their religious dogma whilst on the other demanding that science be redefined to accommodate the supernatural is a mark not of any failings of science, but of the dishonesty inherent to the movement.

  • Floydlee, I applaud you for attempting to engage the multitude of skeptics here who are strong on assertions and weak on evidence. I have several volumes in my library by qualified scientists who not only make effective arguments against evolution and solid arguments in favor of ID, but I don’t have the stomach or the patience for these interminable squabbles. Though, this is not a “scientific” declaration, as philosophy it works equally well.
    “For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” Romans 1:20. They are without excuse, and in the timing and providence of God that will be demonstrated to them. Keep the Faith, Fight the Good Fight, Finish the Course.

  • Floydlee you are not well informed about science and you chose articles that agree with your view. The entrenchment you describe fits creationism and not science. Scientists are human and in the case of the Big Bang Theory vs Steady State they argued publicly and sometimes vehemently. But over time the evidence overwhelming favored the Big Bang. The Scientific Method is self-correcting unlike creationists who will never abandon their “theory” regardless of the evidence.

    I’m so tired of beating this dead horse!

  • Evolution and natural selection respond to changes in the environment, adaptation. Some species like sharks and cockroaches have changed little because they are well adapted to their environment. I’ve only read a few articles about human evolution so I can’t answer your question.

  • The best way is to ignore the nattering of religious fanatics and science denying shills. Creationism has no place in a public school.

    As for teaching unions, so you want to pay educators less to do the same job? What do you think that will do for finding new or competent educators?

  • Well, that’s certainly an interesting blog essay there, especially your opening headline. (“Can one be a creationist and a Christian”).
    Permit me to respond to that one by offering you a blog essay of my own, on the opposite theme: Is evolution compatible with Christianity? (The clear answer is “No”, by the way.)

    Meanwhile, the historical claims of Genesis are NOT lies, and I don’t mind defending that position.
    As for “falsehoods”, I don’t know about using that term, but even the creationist group Answers In Genesis has an article called “Arguments Creationists Should Not Use”, so I have no problem admitting that in the past, creationists have used some wrong arguments. Creationists need to keep up with things too.

    This story has dropped off the main menu of stories, but hopefully RNS will bring it back later or maybe do some other origins-related article, where this conversation can be resumed.

  • The lies promoted either knowingly or unknowingly by creationists relate their claims for the scientific legitimacy of their religious dogma. You may find it compatible with Christian beliefs to support arguments with flat and blatant lies, but I suggest that most of the world’s Christians would disagree with you.

    The plain fact is that the claims of creationists for the historical accuracy of Genesis are at best based on ignorance of the evidence, at worst by systematic dishonesty. There is no evidence beyond the wishful thinking of creationists to support any of the numerous different “literal” interpretation of Genesis they claim. Most Christian churches are quite happy with that, and view it in allegorical and spiritual terms. Bearing in mind that they do not rely in a farrago of falsehoods to support their beliefs, I’m rather inclined to think that reflect the moral teachings of Christ rather better than creationists.

    Scientists have no need to publish articles on arguments they should not use: a scientist using discredited arguments loses their reputation. For creationists, it seems not to matter if their arguments are discredited provided they support their dogma – as is so well illustrated by the fact that some persist in using arguments so ignorant and dishonest that even AIG try to distance themselves from them.

    I suggest that claiming the numerous scientists who hold Christian beliefs are not really Christians only because they don’t share your particular crabbed and shallow subset of Christianity is vacuous. You are not the arbiter on who is and who is not a Christian, and your particular dogma which imposes an inappropriate and theologically questionable “literal” interpretation on the Bible is a recent invention which has never been an element of mainstream Christianity. That it is supported by systematic and blatant falsehood cast more doubt on the claims of its adherents to be Christians than it does on the faith of those it denigrates.

  • The alternative to evolution is not the Bible.

    The alternative to evolution is good science.

    The evolution battle is often MISrepresented as science against religion
    – this is baloney!

    The real battle is between good science and Darwinism.

    When Darwinian/Macro evolution is scrutinised using the scientific method, it crumbles.

    The scientific method demands: observation, measurement, repeatability. Darwinian/Macro evolution has none of these, all it has is circumstantial evidence which is open to interpretation. Ask yourself: What evidence is there that our great …. Great grandfather was a self replicating molecule?

    If we cut through the linguistic trickery evolutionists use to confuse and intimidate the masses.

    Darwinian/Macro evolution can be stated simply as the following equation:

    Simple beginning (e.g. 1 prmitive cell = no brain, no nervous system, etc.)
    + lots of time
    + lots natural selection
    + many mutations
    + natural forces (rain, wind, gravity etc.)
    extremely complex organism
    (e.g. human, brain, blood circulatory system)

    Has this been observed? – NO (Even Richard Dawkins agrees with this)

    Is it plausible? -Not really ; There is no proof that it is.

    Does it need a lot of faith to believe this? – Certainly does

    So why do we teach it as a scientific fact?

  • I say apply the scientific method and follow the scientific evidence where it leads.

    The scientific evidence clearly indicates there is clear evidence of intelligent design. However the evolution Nazis will not allow this simple truth to be expressed in the class room.

    Evolution is treated like a sacred cow that is beyond questioning.

    Consider a quotation from New Scientist magazine in an article “Survival of the fittest theory: Darwinism’s limits” 03 February 2010

    “Much of the vast neo-Darwinian literature is distressingly uncritical.

    The possibility that anything is seriously amiss with Darwin’s account of evolution is hardly considered.

    Such dissent as there is often relies on theistic premises which Darwinists rightly say have no place in the evaluation of scientific theories. So onlookers are left with the impression that there is little or nothing about Darwin’s theory to which a scientific naturalist could reasonably object.

    The methodological scepticism that characterises most areas of scientific discourse seems strikingly absent when Darwinism is the topic.”

  • If we cut through the linguistic trickery evolutionists use to confuse and intimidate the masses.

    Darwinian/Macro evolution can be stated simply as the following equation:

    Simple beginning (e.g. 1 prmitive cell = no brain, no nervous system, etc.)
    + lots of time
    + lots natural selection
    + many mutations
    + natural forces (rain, wind, gravity etc.)
    extremely complex organism
    (e.g. human, brain, blood circulatory system)

    Has this been observed? – NO (Even Richard Dawkins agrees with this)

    Is it plausible? -Not really ; There is no proof that it is.

    Does it need a lot of faith to believe this? – Certainly does

    So why do we teach it as a scientific fact?

    Many evolutionists have publicly abandoned evolution; here is one example.

    Dr. Richard Lumsden (1938-1997) was a professor of parasitology and cell biology at Tulane University in Louisiana (a self-proclaimed evolutionist and Christian ridiculer) relates that after giving a lecture at Tulane University on the theory of evolution, one of his best students began asking him questions about evolution which he later realized had caused him to doubt his long-held evolutionary worldview.

    Check out his personal testimony

  • Well said Edward.

    Macro evolution is a dying myth which is being killed by the scientific evidence.

    If we cut through the linguistic trickery evolutionists use to confuse and intimidate the masses.

    Darwinian/Macro evolution can be stated simply as the following equation:

    Simple beginning (e.g. 1 prmitive cell = no brain, no nervous system, etc.)
    + lots of time
    + lots natural selection
    + many mutations
    + natural forces (rain, wind, gravity etc.)
    extremely complex organism
    (e.g. human, brain, blood circulatory system)

    Has this been observed? – NO (Even Richard Dawkins agrees with this)

    Is it plausible? -Not really ; There is no proof that it is.

    Does it need a lot of faith to believe this? – Certainly does

    So why do we teach it as a scientific fact?

  • Your last post was a cornucopia of ridiculous fiction. This is not any better.

    There is no such thing as an Evolutionist. There are scientists who apply the theory of evolution in their research in the field of biology. The efficacy and applicability of evolution is not in dispute by any credible scientific body of work. Nobody believes in evolution. They accept it on the basis of the evidence presented in its support and its applicability for interpreting research in the field.

    There is also no credible distinction between Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution. There is just Evolution. The distinction is made by Creationist liars when they are confronted with evidence of Evolution found in research. Rather than refute their position or rethink it, they simply make the lame excuse “its only evidence of micro-evolution, not macro-evolution” and rely on self-styled differences which do not exist in scientific research.

    “Has this been observed? – NO (Even Richard Dawkins agrees with this)”
    WRONG, YOU ARE A LIAR. Not only does Dawkins not agree with this. It has been observed. Famously the editor of Conservapedia tried to slander and discredit a scientist who made the study

    “Is it plausible? -Not really ; There is no proof that it is.”
    WRONG, YOU ARE A LIAR. A century of evidence has made evolution the most plausible and workable scientific theory for interpreting biological research. The proof of plausibility is in its application.

    “Does it need a lot of faith to believe this? – Certainly does”
    WRONG, YOU ARE A LIAR. If any scientist comes up with evidence which refutes evolution and forms the basis of a new workable scientific theory, they would be lauded by the entire scientific community. They would be world famous and legendary for their work. All scientists accept theories on the basis of the best evidence available and will revise their use of them if evidence exists to the contrary.

    “So why do we teach it as a scientific fact?”

    “Check out his personal testimony
    Youtube videos are not proof of anything credible, besides the ubiquity of housecats and the loneliness of certain segments of the population who own them.

  • There is no such thing as Darwinists or Darwinism. The theory of
    Evolution has moved far beyond Darwin’s work with over a century of
    accumulated research, scientific developments and discoveries.

    “The scientific evidence clearly indicates there is clear evidence of
    intelligent design. However the evolution Nazis will not allow this
    simple truth to be expressed in the class room.”

    You sir are a very bad liar. There is no scientific evidence for intelligent design. No research, no data, no findings, no peer reviewed published works which support it. Even one of its chief proponents Michael Behe was forced to admit this when questioned on the subject under oath with penalties for perjury.

    Since you are online, you face no penalties for being so dishonest, so you are more free to repeat obvious fictions.

    “Consider a quotation from New Scientist magazine”

    Do you have a link to the quote (or in your case a website pretending to cite the magazine quote)? Quotemining and fabrication of quotes and positions is common to Creationists. As such frequent liars, one cannot take claims of quotes from outside sources relating to Evolution at face value.

  • Oh no no, I don’t try to arbitrate who is or who ain’t a Christian based on the evolution issue. If you tell me that you’re a Christian, I have no choice but to accept you at your word, UNLESS you present some evidence that you reject the New Testament’s specific claims about Jesus Christ and His salvation.

    All I’m doing is presenting evidence that clearly shows that Evolution is flat-out Incompatible with Christianity. I’m saying that yes, this IS a serious problem, something that both Christians and Non-Christians would want to consider. So the information is on the table, for you to rationally evaluate and hopefully make some worldview choices thereby. Can’t serve two masters, you know!

    I merely point out what biblical Christianity openly says, and compare it to what you evolutionists openly say. I did not mis-quote nor mis-state either what the Bible openly says, or what you Evolutionists openly say. No “falsehoods.”

  • So it is said that “Evolution and natural selection respond to changes in the environment, adaptation”. Has this ever been observed and replicated in a lab?

  • Like “committed Christian” (and racist) Jeff Sessions, who fought against equalizing educational opportunities for all students in his state and called the Voting Rights Act “too intrusive,” dismissing the work of Martin Luther King and many other people of faith? Or Betsy DeVos, who owes the state of Ohio $5.3 million for illegal campaign contributions. (Essentially laundering money through her charity?)

    The trouble is not their religion. It is their lying and bigotry.

    Also, the founders’ of the Constitution (do you mean writers?) were not in the main “committed Christians.” Madison, the main drafter, called himself a deist later in life, though he was baptized an Episcopalian. Jefferson was a deist, not a trinitarian, and did not believe in the divinity of Christ. Thomas Paine was either an atheist or a deist (whichever, he was critical of Christianity) and John Adams was raised a Congregationalist, but became a Unitarian who rejected the concepts of the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, and the inerrancy of the Bible.

  • Google “Fruit flies Diane Dodd”

    Then just keep searching. Try Darwin’s finches.

    Usually when one gets a cold the immune system defeats the virus causing the cold in around seven days. Ever had a cold which kept going for weeks? – That’s because the virus is evolving and your body is the lab.

  • From across the pond………….

    This looks remarkably as though Trump, or someone pulling his strings, is determined to inflict an unerasable impact on history, and doesn’t care that (actively seeks to ensure that?) doing so may be catastrophic for humanity.

    These actions are what might be expected from a mentally/emotionally deformed human being who hates the world/the US/mankind so totally that it is in the grip of a desperate, suicide-unaware need whose realisation will ensure the destruction of any credibility that the US has internationally and, probably as collateral damage, damage the rest of the world’s environment.

    But, believe me, it will be the greatest legacy ever!!!!!

  • There is much debate about the scientific efficacy of macro evolution.
    It has never been observed, it is BELIEVED.
    The scientific method demands scrutiny of the evidence, not blind acceptance. Debates are a good way to scrutinize the evidence.

    Do a search on YouTube on “debates on evolution” to scrutinize the evidence. Try or for a start.

  • “Debates are a good way to scrutinize the evidence.”

    Someone has been in a deep coma for the last few months. 🙂

    If it isn’t published in peer reviewed journals in the scientific field, it isn’t established science.


    Scientists have discovered a tissue sample of a feathered dinosaur dating back more than 99 million years. Believers in literal Biblical creationism and their intelligent design toadies can bite the big one.

    BTW real scientists, ones who apply evolutionary theory, have identified the species where the sample came from. At no point could an intelligent design or creation science maven do such a feat. The plausibility and applicability of evolution speaks for itself here.

  • Because it’s a lot more scientific than assuming that a creator of infinite power was either there for an eternity, or suddenly sprang into being without a creator itself.

    You can’t know it was always there, because you weren’t. it was not observed, as you pointed out,

    And if it sprang into being all on its own, you just destroyed an intelligent design hypothesis.

    In any case, you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the creator god you posit is any god in particular, certainly not the god of the Bible, and way certainly, the three in one Christian god.

    Either way, you are simply parroting the arguments of the religiously inclined. Evolution is the best answer we have. Is it perfect? No, but it is vastly better than a desert religion from 2000 years ago, or three or four,

    Creationism is just religion dressed in its finest Sunday go to meetin’ drag.

  • This is beyond depressing. As a Catholic and science/climate change/evolution advocate ( why is advocacy even necessary ?) I’m reminded of the Jesuit paleontologist de Chardin writing in 1933 that the Christian gospel “has ceased to have any attraction because it has become ‘ unintelligible,'” when it fails to see reality as evolving.He invites the reader to “shift our outlook unreservedly into that of a world which is evolving.” Etc. Why are we still having this debate?! Mary Rakow, novelist

  • The question should not focus on how we got here, but rather where are we going. All Christians and Jews are commanded by God to have dominion over the Earth and to be good stewards of the Earth. Some of these so called Christians who think it is only about making money and whose long term view is will I or my chronies make a profit in the next quarter are not good stewards.

    We need an EPA Director who see it as his or her duty to be a good steward and protect the Earth for the long run. Think of the farmers who care about their land for the next seven generations. Not the farmers who contributed to the Dust Bowl and other environmental disasters compounded by human error.

    As for Evolution, some theologians have felt there is no conflict between the Bible and evolution just a matter of “what is a day?”. Is it literally 24 hours or was the earth and heavens developed in six phases that may be billions of years?

  • The level of absurdity in the pres-elect’s appointees far surpasses anything Monty Python’s Flying Circus ever considered. Republicans are taking the US back to the day’s of Coolidge and Hoover. By the time those were done damaging the country, the electorate was so fed up with Republicans they kept Democrats in complete charge for the next 20 years. Democrats dominated Congress much longer than that. Democrats will again be called in to repair Republican messes, just as Clinton and Obama had to fix the economy after Bush and Bush.

  • If you think evolutionary theory is incredible, how can you give credence to two creation stories that are inconsistent with each other?

  • Scoffing and sarcasm is a poor substitute for scientific evidence.

    What evidence is there, which proves (beyond reasonable doubt) that our great.….….…. Great grandfather was as self replicating molecule or a primitive cell?
    RIP macro evolution

  • The old cleric was Bishop Ulrich of Augsburg. He was quoted in A.D. White’s “A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, 1896, page 697. Here is a quotation from the book.

    ‘Nothing during the American struggle against the slave system did more to wean religious and God-fearing men and women from the old interpretation of Scripture than the use of it to justify slavery. Typical among examples of this use were the arguments of Hopkins, Bishop of Vermont, a man whose noble character and beautiful culture gave him very wide influence in all branches of the American Protestant Church. While avowing his personal dislike to slavery, he demonstrated that the Bible sanctioned it. Other theologians, Catholic and Protestant, took the same ground; and then came that tremendous rejoinder which echoed from heart to heart throughout the Northern States: “The Bible sanctions slavery? So much the worse for the Bible.” Then was fulfilled that old saying of Bishop Ulrich of Augsburg: “Press not the breasts of Holy Writ too hard, lest they yield blood rather than milk.”’

    You can check this for yourself by googling the PDF of the book online or by going to

  • I won’t scoff or use sarcasm. I’ll just pose a simple statement: If you find evolutionary theory incredible, then so is a literal reading of Genesis, because the two creation stories are inconsistent in their order of creation.

  • You are putting words in my mouth. I don’t find evolutionary theory “incredible”.

    I find evolution scientifically highly implausible and devoid of solid scientific evidence.

    Since we teach it to students as a “fact” this is nothing short of gross deception.

    The consequences of teaching Darwinina/Macro evolution as a scientific fact are subtle but very destructive.

    The core assertion of Darwinian/Macro evolution, that from simple and chaotic beginnings all life-forms emerged by an unguided, purposeless process, is NOT harmless. The inescapable inference is that since we emerged from a random, unguided, purposeless process, then we are purposeless and of no inherent value. This has a subtle but very negative impact on the self esteem of students and is contributing to low self esteem, depression, nihilism, etc.

    If the scientific evidence for macro evolution was genuinely strong; I would not complain. The truth is that the scientific evidence shows that macro evolution is highly implausible

  • You might be happy to blindly believe the “experts” but I am not.

    I want to see the actual evidence and evaluate it.

    Evolution has been treated like a sacred cow long enough.

    I am not happy to hear about the so called “mountains of evidence” I want to see the evidence.

    I had been hearing about the “mountains of evidence” proving Evolution for years; I thought it was rock solid science.

    One day I started scrutinizing the so called “mountains of evidence” and to my utter disgust I found that it was actually mountains of cow dung.

    There are mountains of ambit claims in the big print but when I analysed the small print I discovered that I was conned.

    The deception starts with a vague and changing definition of evolution; if they do not define what the word means then the evidence they provide does not have to prove anything in particular. (see link for details

    The evolutionists provide countless examples of micro evolution (adaptation) and INFER that this somehow proves Macro evolution (development of new body parts). This is typical “bait and switch” advertising.

  • They are called experts because they have expertise. Skills, education, training, experience in the field which makes their opinions and findings on a given subject objectively credible. You do not appear to have any of those things. So your personal opinion on such subjects is not worth squat. Nobody has to prove evolution to you. It is established scientific theory. There are tons of books and websites you can go to in order to learn about it. I don’t care what you think on the subject. It requires expertise to challenge it. You do not appear to have it or understand it.

    As the one challenging the established scientific theory on the subject, it is your burden to provide evidence which refutes it. Your opinion that it is unproven merely reflects your ignorance and unwillingness to learn the subject.

    Also as I said before, there is no such thing as an evolutionist. There are scientists who apply evolutionary theory. It is not believed, it is accepted based on evidence, applicability and how it is methodologically sound. Also there is no distinction between microevolution and macro evolution. Such distinctions are made when creationists are flustered by the continuing mounting evidence which they cannot deny with a straight face. So they concede it’s existence and rattle off a lame excuse about it being only microevolution. It’s all evolution.
    A 99 million year old tissue sample of a feathered dinosaur was found recently. What can creation science mavens tell us about it? Absolutely nothing. They don’t do real research their ideas have zero applicability in scientific research. All they can do is pretend to deny its existence. Scientists applying evolutionary concepts can not only identify the species, but its possible environment, its place within such environment and how it relates to modern species.

  • Theot58, the difference between finding evolutionary theory “incredible” and finding it “scientifically highly implausible and devoid of solid scientific evidence” is the implied claim that you have the scientific knowledge and standing to make such a call.

    Now when an anonymous blogger makes such a call, I find that implausible!

    Evolution has been accepted by scientists, whether they are believers or not, simply on the overwhelming weight of evidence. Your assertion “that from simple and chaotic beginnings all life-forms emerged by an unguided, purposeless process” might describe a non-theistic conception of evolution. However, believers often see in the same process the hand of God.

    Many believers, including Christianity’s largest denomination, the Catholic Church, accept evolution. But please, don’t take my word for it. Check out this reference for starters. Then Google it for yourself, as I did.

    Now this isn’t just a Catholic Versus Protestant thing. Many Protestants accept evolution for much the same reasons that the Catholic church accepts it: the overwhelming weight of evidence. Your ideas about evolution are also rejected by many Protestants, too.

    Protestants are not infallible. Sometimes even the finest of them get it tragically wrong. Luther was anti-semitic. John Wesley wrote:

    “the English in general, and indeed most of the men of learning in Europe have given up all account of witches and apparitions as mere old wives’ fables…. the giving up of witchcraft is in effect the giving up of the Bible. With my latest breath I will bear testimony against giving up to infidels one great proof of the invisible world; I mean that of witchcraft and apparitions confirmed by the testimony of all ages,”

    In 1650, Oliver Cromwell wrote to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland begging them to consider the possibility that they might be wrong.

    Have you considered that you might be wrong?

  • Lets apply the KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid)

    If we cut through the linguistic trickery evolutionists use to confuse and intimidate the masses.

    Darwinian/Macro evolution can be stated simply as the following equation:

    Simple beginning (e.g. 1 primitive cell = no brain, no skeleton etc.)
    + lots of time
    + lots natural selection
    + many mutations
    + natural forces (rain, wind, gravity etc.)
    extremely complex organism
    (e.g. human, brain, blood circulatory system)

    Has this been observed? – NO (Even Richard Dawkins agrees with this)

    Is it plausible? -Not really ; There is no proof that it is.

    Does it need a lot of faith to believe this? – Certainly does

    So why do we teach it as a scientific fact?

    The evolution battle is often MISrepresented as science against religion – this is baloney!

    The real battle is between good science and Darwinism.

    When Darwinian/Macro evolution is scrutinised using the scientific method, it crumbles.

    The scientific method demands: observation, measurement, repeatability. Darwinian/Macro evolution has none of these, all it has is circumstantial evidence which is open to interpretation. Ask yourself: What evidence is there that our great …. Great grandfather was a self replicating molecule?

  • No you didn’t. You probably went to sites such as Answers in Genesis where creationist arguments have been prepared for you to accept without question and then use them in discussions – which is pretty much describes religious doctrine. Funny I haven’t seen christians question any of Newton’s or Copernicus’s theories.The bible says god stopped the sun for Joshua. But the sun doesn’t move around the earth so god had to stop the earth from spinning. If it did winds up to 1000 miles an hour would have tumbled the walls of jericho and nearly everything else. If god is right then science is wrong about this.

  • Jim

    1) I did not get my answers from Answers in Genesis or any other creationist website

    2) You are confusing the issue.
    – Evolution is taught as scientific “fact” to trusting students.
    – The onus of proof is on Evolutionists to provide suitable evidence
    – Show us the evidence

    You are raising some issues in the Bible and think that somehow this minimizes the burden on evolutionists. Not so. The Bible is NOT taught in the science class as a “fact”. Hence no onus of proof.

    The evolution battle is often MISrepresented as science against religion – this is baloney!

    The real battle is between good science and Darwinism.

    When Darwinian/Macro evolution is scrutinised using the scientific method, it crumbles.

    The scientific method demands: observation, measurement, repeatability. Darwinian/Macro evolution has none of these, all it has is circumstantial evidence which is open to interpretation. Ask yourself: What evidence is there that our great …. Great grandfather was a self replicating molecule?

  • Lol! None of those questions you refer to pose any doubt as to the application of evolutionary theory here.

    What could an intelligent design creationist type maven tell us about any such sample?

    Absolutely nothing. Deny it’s existence. Pretend it is something else. Make up some nonsense. But at no point can it provide any answers as to what it was, where it came from, what kind of animal it was. Creationism gives scientists nothing to work with. So it never has to be accepted by them. It is useless.

    Evolution gives key answers to all those questions and provides avenues for further research and analysis.

    They is why your claims about the theory are utterly useless. Obviously evolution serves a valuable function in science. Creationism only serves a function to people who feel a need to lie for their version of God. People who don’t care about science or it’s,methods.

  • theo, the fossil record clearly demonstrates macro evolution through geologic time.

    Darwin has been dead, what, 135 years? It’s been about 160 years since the “Origin of Species” was published. Goodness, you’d think in that interval there would be thousands and thousands of paleontologists, developmental biologists, geologists, geneticists, and other specialists, who would have confirmed ‘descent with modification’. Well, goodness me! Yes, indeed, there have been oodles of such scientists! Ernst Mayr to John Maynard Smith to Stephen Jay Gould to Niles Eldredge, etc. etc.

    I recommend a good site to understand evolutionary processes. You need the basics.

  • What a silly blog, floydlee. The person who wrote darwins-god must have no knowledge of genetics. DNA is a powerful tool to show evolutionary divergence and relationships among species. We share 99.9% DNA with extinct Homo neanderthalensis; 98.7% DNA with chimps. Go further back in time as species diverged, and we only share 84-85% DNA with canids (dogs, wolves) and ruminants (cattle, goats, deer). Go further back in time along diverging lines of species, and we only share 65% of genetic material with birds such as chickens….even a life form such as yeast shares 18% of genetic material with humans. This is why cells of baker’s yeast can be used in cancer studies because “the same genes that control the cell cycle in baker’s yeast (and that malfunction in tumor cells) exist in more or less the same capacity in human cells.” (Dr. Leslie Pray).

    Anyone who dismisses evolutionary processes is a fool.

  • I have gone through the Berkeley website with a fine tooth comb.

    I would encourage you to do the same and to question more and believe less.

    Check out this link to see how fossils are a huge PROBLEM for Darwinian/macro evolution.

    Fossils were a problem to Darwin and they are still a problem for evolution today.

    The fossil record is major PROBLEM for evolution as indicated by Stephen Jay Gould when he said:

    “The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy.

    Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion,

    The coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs…”

  • It’s a good thing science had developed beyond Darwin to the point where we have the evidence and methods to demonstrate his basic concepts were correct and have fine tuned it accordingly. Even if Darwin himself didn’t know the precise mechanisms of evolution at the time.

    Besides, quote mining is a dishonest form of discussion. If you are going to quote people please provide links. Creationists are far to dishonest to be taken at face value on such things.

  • theo, honey, it’s Dr. Sharon Diehl. I’m a geochemist/geologist. There is no “belief” in the fossil record and evolution, there is “understanding” of the complexity and diversity of life through geologic time that is recorded in the fossil record. Are you some sort of fundie religious person, who thinks knowledge interferes with your “faith” and can’t wrap your head around basic biological science?

    There is no “problem” with the fossil record, and you are incredibly dense if you think paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould had a “problem” with fossils, or Darwin’s early thoughts on evolution. As I stated previously, scientists since Darwin’s time have gathered more fossils and more information; we now have genetics and DNA that demonstrate the relationship between closely related species. Gould is known for the evolutionary concept of “punctuated equilibrium”.

    OMG, your link is to a fundie religious shill site! Honey, there are no human footprints associated with dinosaur tracks, there is no problem with the geologic time column, which is used by every geoscientist on the globe to explore for energy resources. Put the buybull, er, bible, down, dear, and try to think rationally.

  • Sharon your statement ‘ DNA is a powerful tool to show evolutionary divergence and relationships among species.” is baloney.

    DNA is a problem for evolution. It is a about a 4GB code which contain information to build an organism. Natural forces have NEVER been observed to produce codes to BELIEVE that they can is pure irrational faith.

    Dr Ben Carson; ex Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at one of the world’s greatest hospitals (John Hopkins), a groundbreaking surgeon, best-selling author, and recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom said:

    “I think one of the most damning pieces of evidence against evolution is the human genome.

    You can see that you have very complex, sophisticated coding mechanisms for different amino acids, and various sequences that give you millions of different genetic instructions — very much like computer programming, which uses a series of zeros and ones in different sequences, but gives you very specific information about what that computer is to do.”

  • You are right that science has advance beyond Darwin and is showing that Darwins macro evolution idea is totally implausible.
    Natural forces do NOT have the ability to design a human brain.
    Natural forces cause things to degrade over time. Let unattended system go from complex to simple. You body dies and goes back dust. All the design information to build your brain, nervous system, skeletal system etc disappears. This is the OPPOSite of macro evolution.
    Macro evolution is dying a slow and agonizing death – it is being slain by good science.

  • Sharon honey – you are so nice – but so wrong.

    The fossils are INTERPRETED and tortured by evolutionists to make them fit into their preconceived pet theory or Macro evolution.

    Dr. Collin Patterson Senior paleontologist of British Museam of natural History said:

    “I fully agree with your comments about 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….. I will lay it on the line –

    there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument”

    C. Patterson, letter to Luther D Sunderland, April 10, 1979 as published in Darwin’s Enigma (Green Forest , AR: Master Books, 4th edition. 1988) p. 89

  • There is no distinction between Macro and Micro evolution. That is simply a dodge for dishonest Creationists when confronted with the wealth of material and research demonstrating evolution. When cornered with such research, they simply deny its conclusions and declare “That is not proof of Macro evolution”. The problem being for such lying Creationists is that the scientific community makes no such division. It is all Evolution.

    “Dr. Collin Patterson Senior paleontologist of British Museam of natural History said:”

    Please provide a link so one can see the quote in context. You already misrepresented the beliefs of one scientist previously and quote mining is a common form of lying among Creationists.

  • There is no Macro/Micro evolution distinction. That is simply Creationists looking for excuses to duck and evade from scientific findings which make them look foolish. It is all evolution.

    “Natural forces do NOT have the ability to design a human brain.”
    Your opinion. Unsupported by facts. Especially since you have no examples of artificial creation of a human brain nor can find any analogues in designing one. How can you recognize design unless humans have a history of designing such things? You can’t. An argument from design for living things has no rational basis.

    “Natural forces cause things to degrade over time.”

    Living things do not age and die? Natural forces also build things over time. Complexity is produced by adding energy into a system.

    “All the design information to build your brain, nervous system, skeletal system etc disappears”

    Unless passed on to the next generation through one’s genes.

    You seem to have some very clear gaps in logic and lack application of common sense here.

  • “Dr Ben Carson; ex Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at one of the
    world’s greatest hospitals (John Hopkins), a groundbreaking surgeon,
    best-selling author, and recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom

    Is not a biologist nor qualified to speak about evolution. The difference between a surgeon and biologist is like the one between a mechanic and an engineer. As stated before, one requires expertise in order to pose a challenge to established scientific theories. Lacking such expertise means one can throw out their opinions on the subject as being unqualified.

  • It was answered, just not to your liking. Its a pitfall of taking such a dishonest position such as yours.

  • There is no distinction between macro and micro evolution. It is all evolution. The use of the terms is strictly so dishonest Creationists can weasel out of acknowledging the wealth of information which makes their ideas look absolutely foolish and ill informed.

    “Natural forces do NOT have the ability to design a human brain.”
    Because you say so? Claiming a human brain is designed is an assumption made with nothing to support it. We have no experience in designing anything similar. So we have no baseline to claim it was designed in the first place. All the information used to build a brain, nervous system … is carried in our genes and carried into the next generation.

    I know your statement sounded intelligent in your head, but whomever you cribbed it from didn’t really think it through.

    “Macro evolution is dying a slow and agonizing death – it is being slain by good science.”

    As stated before, you require expertise in the field before you can even make the claim as to what is good science and what isn’t. It is clear you lack such expertise. So your opinion as to such things isn’t worth squat. All you prove is a vehemence in your clear dishonesty. All creationists are liars by nature. It is inherent to the position.

  • Spuddie why don’t you google and watch some debates on evolution and then make up your mind.

    Deamonizing me and other evolution skeptics does not help evolution at all.

    Please go to Science Against Evolution website for credible scientific evidence which shows that Darwinian/Macro evolution is nothing but a popular myth


    There are tons of stuff there.

  • Because a debate is not a proper form of discussing scientific ideas. It is weighted to heavily to the assumption that both sides have inherent equal merit. It avoids actual analysis and resorts to emotional appeals and rhetoric over facts.

    If you wanted to see real confrontation you are far better served in the court room. Where experts must qualify themselves before rendering an opinion on a subject and evidence is subjected to challenge. More importantly scientific ideas must be presented to a lay audience.

    The Dover case was a perfect example of the dishonesty and vacuous nature of creationism. ID experts admitted to a lack of evidence to support their ideas and to lacking all respect for scientific methodologies.

    As a creationist you are inherently a liar. You deny faith you clearly possess and lie about scientific proof of your belief. There is not one honest assertion from a creationist.

    As someone who deliberately quotes scientists out of context or uses fictitious quotes, you made your veracity impairment clear. As someone who rejects the work of experts in the field it is clear any pretense of concern for rational inquiry is a lie as well. Since you lack expertise in the field, your opinion on the subject is worthless.

  • Spuddie your demonizing and wild and false accusations are so silly and false that I will not even attempt a rebuttal.
    I will let the watching world make up their own minds.
    Lets consider the facts:
    1) You have not presented any facts for macro evolution
    2) You accuse all evolution skeptics (like me) of being liars
    3) You assert that we should trust the experts
    (ie don’t worry about seing the actual evidence)
    You must think people are stupid not to see through your BS.

  • Honey, you are ‘quote mining’ with no understanding of what Patterson or Gould have said. Both are/were paleontologists who studied and acknowledged evolutionary processes.

    Re: Patterson quote mining: it is not possible to say for certain whether a fossil is in the direct ancestral line of a species group. Archaeopteryx, for example, is not necessarily directly ancestral to birds. It may have been a species on a side-branch. However, that in no way disqualifies it as a transitional form, or as evidence for evolution. Evolution predicts that such fossils will exist, and if there was no link between reptiles and birds then Archaeopteryx would not exist, whether it is directly ancestral or not. What Patterson was saying to Sunderland was that, of the transitional forms that are known, he could not make a watertight argument for any being directly ancestral to living species groups.

    “Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain [evolutionary] trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms.–Stephen Jay Gould

    [T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common — and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution, but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim…Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are ABUNDANT BETWEEN LARGER GROUPS.
    – Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. “Evolution as Fact and Theory” in Hens Teeth and Horse’s Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.

    If any of your sources has the words “Genesis”, the oxymoron “Creation Science”, or “Creation Research” in the titles, disregard as religious claptrappery.

  • ‘theo’ is a typical dishonest creationist who ‘quote mines’ and puts his own spin on text, such as he lifted from Patternson’s correspondence. Attached is a link to talkorigins, wherein Patterson laments that creationists continually take his cautionary science out of context.


  • Spuddie is correct in stating that there is no distinction between creationist assertions of “micro” versus “macro” evolution. This micro versus macro evolution stuff is made up—just like Mr. Ken Ham thinks there is some magical difference between “historical” and “observational” science. Evolutionary processes work at all scales—micro and macro—with the same genetic and DNA material. I assume you are one of those young-earth creationists, so presenting any fossil evidence, such as land mammals evolving to sea mammals, e.g. whales, would make you apoplectic.

  • Your inability to present honest and well thought out arguments doesn’t do much to garner respect for your views. Lying, misrepresenting facts and phony issues are at the core of your pov.

    You haven’t demonstrated macro or micro evolution are real distinctions. The scientific community doesn’t make it. Only lying creationists when they want to avoid evidence presented to them

    “Evolution skeptics” would just be a re-branding for lying creationism. Skepticism requires a base understanding of what is being scrutinized, honesty and a level of objectivity. You show none of those. So it is simply denialism.

    There is no current objective scientific challenge to evolution. But there is a dishonest religious based one that has no basis in science.

    Experts have expertise. Skills, education and experience which gives their opinion on a subject objectively credible weight. It is why they can present such opinions to a lay audience in a court and it satisfies burdens of proof. Ignoring experts on a subject without showing your own expertise is generally a sign of stupidity. Someone uninterested in facts or objective findings.

  • If you cannot see a scientific distinction
    between a organism adapting to its environment (micro evolution)
    to a bacteria developing a human brain (macro evolution)

    then “Houston we have a problem”.

    The scope for intelligent discussion is not possible.

    We can observe micro evolution (minor changes) but we cannot observe Macro Evolution (the development of new body parts or functions).

    It is poor science to conclude that just because we observe Micro evolution that Macro evolution “must have happened”. There are many examples where extrapolation leads to fatal results. Consider 2 examples:

    a) If you have a headache you take 2 aspirin and you feel better; you may think that taking 20 aspirin would make you feel fantastic – but it does not. It will probably kill you.

    b) Sunshine is nice, you need it make vitamin D; however it is good only in small doses; big doses will give you skin cancer.
    Conclusion: Micro Evolution does NOT prove Macro evolution.

    Even the Berkely, evolution website ( confirms micro and macro evolution are distinctly different. Also, evolutionist, Douglas Theobald, Ph.D. ( also admits the is fundamental difference between Micro and Macro evolution.

  • No scientist in the field makes the distinction .It is an artificial construct used by creationists to avoid acknowledging the wealth of research smacking them in the face. A way to save dignity and continue dishonest denial.

    It is also clear that your criticism of Evolution is largely based on not understanding the concept. Your example of “macro evolution” shows you really don’t know how it works in the first place. This is why we rely on experts on subjects where people have expertise. Maybe if you got info on the subject from actual experts in the field you would not wrack your brain with so many false dilemmas.

    More quote mining on the terms. Douglas Theobald may have coined the terms but they never became the accepted lexicon in the field. No peer reviewed studies use the terms or make the distinction. Nobody frames research in such a manner. The only people who employ the terms now are dishonest amateurs trying to ignore established scientific theories, research and evidence.

  • Dembski employs devices where he starts from real world scenarios, UPS trucks delivering messages, then moves to cells drawing parallels of function misdirecting the audience for the purpose of his argument. The problem with Dembski is the narrow focus he puts in a relatively few of points. Evidence for evolution is everywhere, and universally found geographically distributed across the planet and temporally linked. There is nothing that disproves evolution, and Dembski knows that, he is left arguing for the gaps. With so many examples of poor design in nature, there is much evidence which contradicts the idea of intelligent design. Why flightless beetles with wings, blind salamanders and cave fish with useless eyes. Why does the physical geography of the planet wholly dictate distribution of species in time and space. Intelligent design is really a device which attempts to give religion a hand up where it is not required.

  • America will have more wars, hatred, bigotry, fear and White men making decisions for women. Gott Mit Uns Murica..

  • Grown men in the year 2017 still believe stories of goat herders who thought the world was flat and did not know where the sun went at night. Edward please tell me the one about Adam and Eve and Cain and Able and how the only two boys on the planet went to Nod to find their wives??? I need a good belly laugh…

  • Well Floydlee in the year 2017 we still have grown men believing stories for children as fact. What was God doing 34567 trillion years ago on his own? Why did he talk to himself and who was writing it down? Why did he create light and then 3 days later the “SUN..?” The sad thing is religious cults new that who created the most fear could “Rule” over the masses and enslave them for personal gain. I say grow up and stop believing in talking animals and fantasy.

  • Grow up. What you just described would take trillions of years and that would go against all religious “Creationist” truths. You think there was a “Creator” but what was he doing for 3456 trillion years on his own? Who made him? Why did he talk to himself and who wrote it down?? You wombats are holding mankind back. We got to the moon using science and most religions were against us trying.

  • The generally considered opinion among theologians is that Cain and Seth, perhaps not Abel due to his early demise, took their wives from among their unnamed sisters. Genetic considerations were not an issue at the time because their bodies were still relatively uncorrupted by the Fall. Over time the deleterious effects of the Fall made such unions between close siblings problematic and the practice was discontinued. That is the short theological answer to your question.

  • “Confuse and intimidate the masses”…? You really are on drugs. The Kings and Priests have ruled the courts, controlled education, written history, created FEAR and HATRED to control the masses for 3000 years. The books these rulers relied upon are still used to this day as FACT and LAW. The 3 Abrahamic religions that all believe in the one God of Abraham have burnt every book and killed followers for reading anything that was not approved by the Church, Synagogue or Mosque. The first person to translate the Bible to English was hung for heresy. He was a devout Christian that wanted everyone to read and learn the Bible…. And the Church hunted him down and “KILLED” him. You are sick and need help. Stop the drugs, take your hand off your cock and put the Bible down. Right now you have Creationist running your Government and Education systems pushing the BIBLE once again as FACT. De Vos and her friends will destroy the USA… Gott Mit Uns Murica

  • I get it. You are a Ken Ham fan. “The Eye Is a Perfect Design by a Perfect Creator Ken Ham”……. whilst a scientist makes his glasses.

  • You are weird. Evolution can take millions of years for a micro change. To go from pond scum to a human brain took billions of years. But if your bible is correct and the world is only 6000 years old then yes I understand you and please get help.

  • If you repeat a lie for 3000 years and portray it as fact some people will believe it. If you take a sword and hold it to my sons throat and say do you take Jesus Christ to be your Lord and Saviour or die… I guess I would say yes. Jews, Christians, Muslims all use the books of Moses as the fundamental start to their core beliefs. All 3 pray to the same God to protect them and all kill each other to protect him. Science will always admit it is wrong and move on and try again. Religion will, has killed millions to protect its stories from Scientific reviews. A Christian President dropped Napalm on 300,000 Vietnamese. A Christian President dropped 2 nukes on civilians. WW1 was a Christian King at war with his Christian Kaiser Nephew and cousin Nicholas. “one person at a time, one life at a time” is how the religious have ruled for 3000 years. The Church refers to its followers as it’s “Flock”…it wants sheep that follow, obey and get fat so they can eat.

  • That is the beautiful thing about evolution. We don’t know and will never know. If man lives in space we will adapt to that. If we live under the oceans we will adapt to that. But you will not see the changes as it happens over millennia. What does the Bible say will happen in 500-2000 years? Armageddon? Christians have been declaring end times since Jesus was a boy. I can recall 5 in my life time. All praised and declared true by millions of followers but all come and gone without incident. Many Biblical build end times bunkers….why? If they don’t die then God destroys everything for nothing..? No..?

  • Theo, I feel sorry for you. Science never treats anything as fact until it has been proven and even then they are open for change. What you creationists want is a stable God created world that never changes. God’s evolved. Religion evolves. Human thought evolves. Idea’s, theories, facts and truths, Laws… evolve and change. 2000 years ago a woman could not drive a car, vote, rule men, study, work or have sex without permission. You could have slaves, beat them, rape them, etc and the Laws of Abraham backed you over them. We are evolving daily. The great thing about the proof you seek, we say by the time we find it it could have changed. The women around you can now vote, drive, work, have sex, dress in bikini’s all because some one stood up to your crap. Many died so that women have rights and many will die to stop your school of thought brainwashing the next generations of blind faithful..

  • So, as a grown man your telling me you believe the story? A talking snake.. a Family all having sex together for a few generations is normal? How can I ever trust some one to tell the truth when they believe this is truth? How can I trust any politician that swears to serve God and Country whilst believing in fairy tales? I can not understand what part of bullsh!t you take for real and what you take as fantasy? Did a burning Bush talk to Moses? Really? Come on man grow up. Fables…bed time stories… Trump and his Christian evangelical cabinet are dangerous to mankind.

  • Time, of course, will tell whether your perspective or mine is the correct one. I am both confident in my position and content to await the results. Cheers.

  • Your religions have had 3000 years to prove them selves. All we have seen is death and destruction and holding back sciences and progress of humanity. Trumps nominees are right wing supremacist that want to rule over every angle of our lives. If you believe in God and his laws, how about YOU follow them and leave us alone.

  • I have no interest in dictating to you how you should live your life. I believe in the free exchange of ideas and beliefs in as civil a manner as possible. If you choose to reject my perspective as yesterday’s trash, I do not dispute your right to do so. My only hope is that some day you may not live to regret your present perspective vis’ a’ vis God, apart from the present administration.

  • Then tell every religious person to stop pushing their flavour of BS on others. If people want God in their life let them find it.

  • In a religious forum such as this the whole concept is that we all can engage in the free exchange of ideas between ourselves. Sometimes we gain insight from our interactions with others who hold opposing viewpoints. A prime example is my dialogue with Ben in Oakland. I am a straight evangelical conservative; he is a gay, largely liberal, agnostic/atheist. We agree on few issues, though occasionally we do, but the good thing is that we have learned to navigate our differences amicably, and are not too proud to express regrets to one another when we have a misunderstanding or a sharp difference.

  • I agree with religion on many subjects but not when it is demanded as law and imposed on all. Right now Evangelical Christians are demanding Gay rights be removed on religious grounds. Womens rights are being removed again as Christian Laws. Right now in Africa Evangelical American Pastors are encouraging the burning of witches, gays, Atheists and children. Christians kill in the name of their God and his Laws. Muslim’s kill in the name of Allah and his Laws. They both pray to the same God of Abraham just call him different names but still honour the Laws of Moses and add a few extra. We are told as Atheists to tolerate all religion yet all religion persecutes us, rapes our Children and imposes their Laws on US……. We just want to live in Peace with no religious Wars and sufferings.

  • I would very much like to see evidence for your statement that “Evangelical American Pastors are encouraging the burning of witches, gays, Atheists and children.”

  • I visited the link you provided. The story and images are quite disturbing. However, in light of the economic motive outlined in the story and the family linkages in some cases, it would seem that other factors are in play above and beyond any claims or acts by so-called Christians. Tribal and cultural considerations may well play a factor in such acts. Finally, no Christian in my rather wide experience and exposure to the faith as it is practiced globally, any such “Christians’ as those described in the narrative would well have their Christianity called into question.

  • Every American Evangelical Christian wants Gays beaten/killed. Most Christians turn a blind eye to mob violence against gays, witches, women, etc.. Islam, Christianity… same God of Abraham. They both have the same ideologies and hatreds.

  • Name one Christian or Islamic preacher that does not spew hatred towards Gays. Name one that promotes women’s health. Islam hates gays, abortion, women’s rights, witches, non believers, etc.. Christians hates gays, abortion, women’s rights, witches, non believers, etc.. Hindu’s hates gays, abortion, women’s rights, witches, non believers, etc.. Jews hates gays, abortion, women’s rights, witches, non believers, etc.. Jews, Christians and Muslim’s all pray for help from the same God. The same God of Abraham. When you understand how stupid that is you will understand why we have had 3000 years of Abrahamic wars. When you say my comments are fallacious I suggest you read your bibles. I suggest you read history and the Imperial march of God, King and Christian empires. The violence we see around the world by Christians, Jews and Muslim’s is the same fight over who will control the World. All follow the Laws of Moses and the God of Abraham. You should learn to read. It is all out there just stop picking the bits you like for your narrative. Right now the wars you see are Christian Nations fighting Islamic Nations. Grow up.

2019 NewsMatch Campaign: This Story Can't Wait! Donate.