Creation-Evolution Headlines
August 2008
photo strip

“When they say that some proponents of evolution are blind followers, they’re right.  A few years ago I covered a conference of the American Atheists in Las Vegas.  I met dozens of people there who were dead sure that evolutionary theory was correct.... They came to their Darwinism via a commitment to naturalism and atheism not through the study of science.  They’re still correct when they say evolution happens.  But I’m afraid they’re wrong to call themselves skeptics unencumbered by ideology.  Many of them are best described as zealots.” 

—Gordy Slack, The Scientist 6/20/2008, on what he has learned from creationists.
AstronomyBiomimeticsBirdsBotanyCell BiologyCosmologyDating MethodsDinosaursEarly ManEducationEvolutionFossilsGenetics and DNAGeologyHealthHuman BodyIntelligent DesignMammalsMarine LifeMediaOrigin of LifePhysicsPolitics and EthicsSETISolar SystemTheologyZoology     Awards:  AmazingDumb       Note: bold emphasis added in all quotations unless otherwise indicated.
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Search
 
  Watch for the Recycle logo to find gems from the back issues!

Plant Perfume Manipulates Pollinator Behavior   08/31/2008    
August 31, 2008 — You’re a plant, stuck in the ground.  Around you are organisms with wings flitting freely about.  You need to get them to land on your flowers, but not linger too long.  How do you do it?  Attract them with sweet smells, but send them away with a bitter aftertaste.  That’s how the tobacco plant manipulates its pollinators (hawkmoths and hummingbirds), according to Science.1  The aftertaste of nicotine is intended to discourage the pollinator from lingering, so that it will be more likely to spread pollen among different plants.
    The scientists found that birds and moths tended to linger too long around the sweet nectar when the nicotine was absent.  Making them drink and move on spreads the plant’s genes around, which helps the plant prevent inbreeding, and forces the pollinators to visit more flowers for their nutrition needs and so get more exercise.
    Robert R. Raguso (Cornell), commenting on a paper in the same issue,2 said, “This study adds to a growing list of ruses by which plants manipulate pollinator movement to optimize gene flow.”  He also noted that the seeds of the tobacco plant, a Mojave desert resident named Nicotiana attenuata, read smoke signals.  “It is a fire-adapted desert annual that can spend decades as a dormant seed, awaiting a smoke signal that will trigger germination.
    Raguso noted that this subtle interaction between plant and pollinator would not have been noticed without attention to the plant perfumes.  “Through the ‘invisible hand’ of floral volatiles, the self-interests of tobacco plants and their pollinators are mediated with an apparent net outcome of mutual benefit.
    Neither the paper or the review mentioned how evolution might have brought about this mutual interaction.  A review of the paper on Science Daily, however, attributed the success of the plants to “the dictates of their Darwinian fitness.”


1.  Kessler, Gase and Baldwin, “Field Experiments with Transformed Plants Reveal the Sense of Floral Scents,” Science, 29 August 2008: Vol. 321. no. 5893, pp. 1200-1202, DOI: 10.1126/science.1160072.
2.  Robert R. Raguso, “The ‘Invisible Hand’ of Floral Chemistry,” Science, 29 August 2008: Vol. 321. no. 5893, pp. 1163-1164, DOI: 10.1126/science.1163570.
The authors presumably presume that Darwin’s mechanism could achieve the mutualistic symbiosis.  Creationists might agree that natural selection could intensify the symbiosis, leaving behind only the most capable at it in the harsher post-Flood environment, but how the symbiosis arose in the first place is a different matter (cf. 02/26/2007).  Plants possess an astonishing chemistry set.  They can produce hundreds of complex organic molecules with finely-tuned signals for the animals they need (see 02/21/2006).  Other molecules “talk” to nearby plants or deter predators (see 04/26/2007).  Organic chemists would have a major challenge duplicating this feat.  These molecules don’t just “emerge” or “arise” (favorite Darwinist words) by undirected processes of chance.  They are coded in the genes.  Put that in your pipe and smoke it.*
Next headline on:  PlantsBirdsTerrestrial ZoologyAmazing Facts
*Astute readers will notice that nicotine was designed as a deterrent.  Hummingbirds and hawkmoths don’t perch on the plant and smoke the disgusting stuff.  They flee from it.
  Learn about Survival of the Fictitious in the 08/26/2004 entry.  Evolutionists gaze into space in the 08/19/2004 entry.

Describing Star and Galaxy Growth Without Looking   08/30/2008    
August 30, 2008 — Astronomers seem to know a lot about star birth and galaxy growth.  This is a strange thing, since no one has watched the process from start to finish.  Stars and galaxies are clearly observed in various shapes, sizes, and patterns.  How reliable is it to arrange them into an evolutionary sequence?
    One way is with computers.  National Geographic News reported on work by astronomers at University of Edinburgh who got their computers to generate stars as spin-offs of black holes.  Imagine a gas cloud approaching a black hole.  “It begins rotating, and gas at the leading edge experiences a kickback of energy that flings it outward from the black hole and forms new stars.”  One astronomer outside the study had this to say: “As satisfying as the new results are, the case for disk fragmentation as the origin for the disk stars remains unproven.”  He pointed out that no such clouds are seen coming anywhere near the supermassive black hole assumed to exist at the center of the Milky Way.
    How do galaxies grow?  That was the question asked by the title of an article on PhysOrg.  More audaciously, Science Daily added the line, “Massive Galaxies Caught in the Act of Merging.”  It seems that the European Very Large Telescope (VLT) and Hubble Space Telescope found some cluster members 4 billion light-years away that show peculiar arrangements that suggest mergers are happening.  “This discovery provides unique and powerful validation of hierarchical formation as manifested in both galaxy and cluster assembly,” the article claims.  Not only that, the astronomers claim that the stars were born 3 billion years earlier and were not affected by the mergers.

Science should thrive on controversy and alternative models.  It is disturbing to see astronomers make statements that go far beyond the evidence with impunity.  Imagination may roam free among the stars, but the fact is, our bodies are stuck on Planet Earth.  Our theories should be grounded in that reality.
Next headline on:  Astronomy
Dark Matters, When All You Have Is Light   08/30/2008    
August 30, 2008 — A cluster of galaxies equivalent to a thousand Milky Ways was observed at a distance of 7.7 billion light-years.  What does it mean?  According to astronomers mentioned in an article on Space.com, it can only mean one thing: dark energy makes up 70% of the universe.
    “The existence of the cluster can only be explained with dark energy,” one spokesman said.  How can that be, since dark energy is invisible?  It depends on a theory of galaxy evolution.  “To test dark energy, scientists compare frequency of these massive clusters today with earlier times,” the article said.  “If there were no dark energy, they would expect clusters to grow relatively quickly, so the largest clusters we see now would be very small at half the age of the universe, and there would be no gigantic clusters.”  The cluster exists, so voilà – dark energy is real.  “Without dark energy we would observe much more massive clusters and many more of these massive clusters than we actually do.”
    Another example is found in an article by National Geographic News.  Some University of California astronomers divined large quantities of dark matter from the orbits of small satellite galaxies of the Milky Way.  “Basically galaxies like our own wouldn’t have formed if we didn’t have dark matter,” one said.  How he knows this, never having watched a galaxy form, and never having seen dark matter, is somewhat of a dark secret.  He did hedge his bet at the end of the article.  “If you don’t find something [about dark matter] in the next five to ten years,” he said, “there's something very wrong with all the theories we have.”
These are egregious examples of pronouncements made as fact when they are indistinguishable from theory.  They observed a bright cluster at a certain distance, that’s all.  The others observed dwarf galaxies in orbit, that’s all.  This does not justify appealing to imponderable substances and occult forces.
    Cosmologists today have lost all shame.  They make theoretical pronouncements as statements of fact.  It would be an improvement if they began each statement with “According to our belief system, such and such is suggested by certain obscure and indirect observations.”  But no; they feel empowered to speak ex cathedra on things they cannot possibly know.  This is what happens when you let scientists, who put their pants on the same way as the rest of us, promote themselves to guru status.
Next headline on:  CosmologyDating Methods
Can Evolution Survive Without Darwin?   08/29/2008    
August 29, 2008 — Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution seem synonymous.  Nevertheless, many evolutionary biologists have pointed out that a lot has happened in evolutionary biology since Darwin died.  Some even criticize creationists for using the term “Darwinism” for evolution, though often it is just as much the habit of evolutionists (example: Genome Research: “Genomics and Darwinism”).  These days, however, there is a movement to let old Darwin fade away and remove his name from evolutionary theory altogether.  Some even see his main idea, natural selection, as an impediment to progress in the field.
    In a letter to Science August 29, U. Kutschera of the University of Kassel in Germany suggested we replace “Darwinism” with “evolutionary biology” – a term first coined by Julian Huxley.  This is because evolutionary theory has expanded far beyond Darwin’s limited domain into other disciplines such as geology and computer science.  He also pointed out, though, that “we need another update of our concepts about the mechanisms of evolution” – a suggestion that natural selection is inadequate.
    A distinct down-with-Darwin attitude was most clearly seen in an interview August 24 by Susan Mazur with Stuart Newman, published in The Scoop, an independent news service in New Zealand.  Mazur was asking Newman about his recent involvement in a closed conference of 16 evolutionary biologists in Altenberg, Austria last July (see “Revolt in the Darwin Camp” from 03/07/2008 and Mazur’s July 6 preview of controversial issues in The Scoop; for list of participants and their public statement on the outcome of the meeting, see the Rationally Speaking blog for July 17).  Some of the participants wanted to formulate an “extended evolutionary synthesis” with less natural selection and more of the new perspectives that have recently taken hold, such as self-organization and epigenetics.  Some of them see natural selection only as a culling filter after other mechanisms generated novelty that caused the origin of species and body plans.  These ideas remain controversial.
    Newman described why self-organization might lead to complex structures.  To avoid misunderstanding, he prefers the term “phenotypic plasticity” –
Plasticity is not only associated with self-organization.  Molecular self-assembly can also be plastic.  It is now recognized that many proteins have no intrinsic three-dimensional structure – their forms and functions change depending on their microenvironment, including other proteins that may or may not be present.  The structure and function of macromolecular complexes can therefore change dramatically over the course of evolution with minimal genetic change, or as a side-effect of other changes, not driven by adaptation.  This is quite relevant to the evolution of highly complex structures like the bacterial flagellum, a problem constantly harped on by advocates of “Intelligent Design.”
Newman is saying that complex structures, composed of many parts that ID scientists would call irreducibly complex, might just happen spontaneously – without any “evolutionary force” of adaptation or natural selection driving the process.  Obviously such ideas are going to raise eyebrows among biologists trained in traditional Darwinism.
    Newman and Mazur both complained that the establishment biologists are not welcoming the new ideas of self-organization.  What is most interesting in Mazur’s article is her vitriolic description of the “Darwinian industry” that remains sold out to traditional Darwinian adaptationism.  They abhor the concept of self-organization, she said, because of fear those in the intelligent-design community will exploit it.  She held out particular disdain for the NCSE, which “advises schools in America on what textbooks are suitable”.
The National Center for Science Education director Eugenie Scott told me that her organization does not support self-organization because it is confused with intelligent design, i.e., “design-beyond-laws” – as Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University describes it.  NCSE also pays lucrative fees to conference speakers who keep the lid on self-organization by beating the drum for Darwinian natural selection.  NCSE and its cronies completely demonize the intelligent design community, even those who agree evolution happened.  Religion is not the target since even the National Academy of Sciences embraces religion.  So it seems the real target is those who fail to kneel before the Darwinian theory of natural selection and prevent the further fattening of the Darwinian industry tapeworm.
    NAS and NASA/NAI in their respective publications Science, Evolution and Creationism, and Astrobiology Primer have also kept out any discussion of self-organization. What is your response to this? Why do you think such organizations continue to feed unenlightened information to the public at public expense?
Somewhat taken aback at the language, Newman agreed, but with the disclaimer that “I may not use all the terms that you used”.  He pointed out that at the Dover trial, for instance, the idea was reinforced in the public mind that “if you believe in evolution, you believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution because it’s supposedly the same thing.  And if you don’t believe in Darwin’s theory, you must believe in something supernatural.”  In bold print, Mazur quoted his next statement:
This is not at all valid and I think it’s a big mistake because we know there are non-linear and what I call saltational mechanisms of embryonic development that could have contributed -- and I’m virtually certain they did -- to evolution.  It was Darwin who said that if any organ is shown to have formed not by small increments but by jumps, his theory would therefore be wrong.  [Emphasis in original].
Newman seems to be implying that, by Darwin’s own standard, natural selection theory has been falsified.  He called it a “Darwinian orthodoxy” that “everything has to be incremental,” including “something very complex like the bacterial flagellum or the segmented vertebral column, they say that it had to have arisen in an incremental fashion.”  Self-assembly and self-organization, Newman believes, can account for these things without natural selection.  “I think it’s an unfortunate error that some advocates of evolution are making by adhering so closely to this incrementalist Darwinian dogma,” which he later attributed to “implausible and incorrect mechanisms”.  Mazur reacted by calling this “mediocre science being pushed on the public” and “wasting of public funds at a time of serious economic downturn in America”.
    Newman and Mazur discussed how funding can perpetuate a consensus, even when it’s wrong, and how the consensus controls communication with the public.  “It really undermines confidence in science if people are always being subjected to what we call handwaving arguments that all complexity had to have had an incremental origin.”  Nevertheless, Newman himself, when describing how self-organization might produce a flagellum, seemed also to be just waving his hands.
Won’t it be fun if Darwinism collapses just in time for Darwin Day?  There was going to be a big celebration in 1992, remember, for Columbus on the 500th anniversary of his voyage to the New World.  The party fizzled, however, when activists got all untied about his supposed links to racism, exploitation, disease, and slavery.  (Whether this was true to history or not is beside the point.)  Maybe that’s the secret.  Hire a bunch of live-at-home dropouts and history professors who have nothing better to do than protest things.  Convince them that Darwin brought racism, sexism, genocide and a host of other evils.  (That this is true to history is the point.)  Turn them loose, get the media focused on them, raise a ruckus and watch Darwin become very politically incorrect on campus.  What a surprised look we will see on Eugenie Scott’s face when the people chanting “Down with Darwin!” are not religious creationists, but a motley mix of radicals, liberals, progressives, diversity departments and evolutionary biologists like Stuart Newman.
    This is not the first time the saltationists have attacked the gradualists.  It’s part of a repeated tug-of-war that resurfaces every decade or two, because insiders bred on Darwinism know that gradualism via natural selection is “implausible and incorrect.”  The Darwin Party hangs on for dear life because they know all is lost if gradualism goes.  No matter what you call saltationism, whether punctuated equilibria or phenotypic plasticity or self-assembly, it is tantamount to naturalistic miracles.  Can anyone really believe an outboard motor of 40 essential parts just self-assembled without design?  Such faith conjures up visions of tornados in junkyards and explosions in print shops.  The Darwinians know that intelligent design people and creationists love this stuff.  It makes their job so easy.  A dinosaur lays an egg and a bird hatches out.  Yeee-haw!
    Join the resistance!  Don’t kneel before the Darwinian theory of natural selection.  Prevent the further fattening of the Darwinian industry tapeworm!  (Thank you, Susan, for that picturesque metaphor.)  For those of us outside the Church of Darwin, who think with our brains instead of our imaginations, we’ll get our miracles, thank you, from the intelligent Designer who has both the purpose and the power to execute them.
Next headline on:  Evolutionary TheoryIntelligent Design
  Origin-of-life theories are kind of like the meatball theory for the origin of music, from the 08/06/2003 entry.

Angry Atheists Arrogate Authority in Science   08/28/2008    
August 28, 2008 — Can science contribute to religious studies?  Only to destroy it, think some atheistic scientists.  “In reality, the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism,” announced Matthew Cobb and Jerry Coyne in a letter to Nature.1
    Cobb and Coyne were taking issue with Nature’s editorial July 17 about John Templeton’s legacy.2  Though the editorial had stated that “This publication would turn away from religion in seeking explanations for how the world works, and believes that science is likely to go further in explaining human moral impulses than some religious people will welcome,” and “Thus it shares a degree of suspicion with many in the scientific community at any attempt by religiously driven organizations to fund science,” this was not enough for the correspondents, because at the end, Nature said, “critics’ total opposition to the Templeton Foundation’s unusual mix of science and spirituality is unwarranted.”
    Nothing short of total opposition was good enough for Cobb and Coyne.  “Surely science is about finding material explanations of the world,” they asserted, drawing a comparison that spirituality is to religion as intelligent design is to creationism.  “There is a fundamental conflict here, one that can never be reconciled until all religions cease making claims about the nature of reality.”  In their view, science can study what makes people religious, but religious people have nothing to say about the external world.  They made suggestions for scientific research projects of religion.  “One could consider psychological studies of why humans are superstitious and believe impossible things, and comparative sociological studies of religion using materialist explanations of the rise and fall of the world's belief systems.”
    Over at CERN in Switzerland, the search for the “God particle” is beginning with the commencement of the new Large Hadron Collider (LHC).  The LHC sets a new record for energy in its particle collision capabilities.  Scientists hope to catch the theoretical Higgs boson, a particle alleged to have emerged in the Big Bang that holds matter together.  Peter Higgs, 79, who predicted the particle, will be very puzzled if it doesn’t exist.  News Daily said that, as an atheist, he angrily rejects the designation “God particle” for his theoretical entity.  Even the name of God seems to rub him the wrong way.
    It would be hard to find a religious person with as much antipathy for science as some scientific atheists have for religion.  Evolution News reported that P. Z. Myers, author of the anti-creationist blog Pharyngula, wanted to desecrate the Eucharist in his latest hate campaign against all things religious.  Commentator Michael Egnor pointed out that Christians typically grant free speech rights to such people, no matter how repellant their views, while Myers seeks to legally coerce those on the other side, such as Christian doctors unwilling to perform abortions, to violate their moral convictions.
    Some atheistic evolutionists are less bellicose, but just as stalwart.  An example is David Sloan Wilson, who was interviewed for the River Cities Reader.  His “Darwin Project” is out to convince everyone that evolutionary theory is the best explanation for all things natural.  Whether there is anything outside of material nature, he was clear.  Religion has a horizontal component and a vertical component, he said, but the vertical component (man’s relation to God) is “100% social construction.”  In other words, the self-admitted atheist holds out no space for arguing about the possible existence of God.  Rather than fight religion directly, though, Wilson tries to defuse concerns by stressing that most of religious activity involves the horizontal component, which he thinks evolutionary theory explains nicely.  Wilson doesn’t use his atheism as a battering ram.  He calls atheism a “stealth religion,” something to sneak into people’s minds while disarming them with illustrations of the explanatory elegance of evolution (see 12/21/2005).  Whether the tactic be hardline or diplomatic, though, the results are the same: evolutionists view religion as an evil to be conquered by a “scientific” worldview that only admits atheism.
    Maybe science can study religion in a non-combative way.  News Daily reported that the Dead Sea Scrolls are going online for the first time.  Unreadable fragments are becoming decipherable thanks to NASA technology developed by a JPL retiree that can image previously unreadable fragments with spectral analysis.  Bible Places Blog quoted a portion of a New York Times report.  The most famous of the Dead Sea Scrolls was the complete Isaiah Scroll, copied well before Jesus was born, with its well-known and detailed Messianic prophecies such as those in Isaiah 9 and Isaiah 53.  Lee Strobel recounts in the film The Case for Christ that the chance of one person fulfilling just 48 of the dozens of specific Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament is one chance in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion.  Mathematics is, they say, the language of science.


1.  Matthew Cobb and Jerry Coyne, “Atheism could be science’s contribution to religion,” Nature 454, 1049 (28 August 2008) | doi:10.1038/4541049d.
2.  Editorial, “Templeton’s legacy,” Nature 454, 253-254 (17 July 2008) | doi:10.1038/454253b.
Historians of science know, sadly, that the “warfare thesis” that science and religion are hopelessly at odds is a mistaken and indefensible myth propagated by a vocal minority of religion-hating dogmatists in the late 19th century (01/06/2008 commentary).  Too bad leading scientists today haven’t learned their history.
    Remember that some communist prison guards converted when they saw how patiently Christians endured inhumane treatment.  Jerry Coyne and P. Z. Myers are playing a useful role.  Their rhetoric is so over the top, out of control, hateful and irrational, it makes great advertising for their opponents.  Consider some of the gems Coyne has given us in the past.
Coyne said evolution was useless (08/30/2006).  He argues with his evo-devo opponents but oversimplifies natural selection (06/29/2005).  He said his job was to fight creationism (10/05/2004) but even he was startled by the amount of vitriol Dawkins had against religion, calling him a fierce advocate of scientism (04/23/2003).  Later, though, he teamed up with Dawkins to call creationism laughable (09/02/2005).  Yet his own book on Speciation could not explain the origin of species (07/30/2004).  He admitted that evolution is a “science of generalizations” with few specific “laws of evolution” (12/18/2007).  He said “Like evolution itself, there are no general rules that apply to the origin of species” (11/13/2003).  Most recently, he fought in the Dumb vs Dumber brawl between evolutionists while wearing a CISsy T-shirt (08/11/2008).  Now he is backed into a corner trying to defend the claim that evolution is science, yet he has the gall to claim religion is superstition.  This is the guy who was as shook up at the collapse of the Peppered Myth as a boy finding out that Santa Claus was his dad (07/05/2002).
Yes, Jerry, keep talking.  Bystanders are beginning to wonder.  Meanwhile, CEH will silently continue citing infractions for impersonating a scientist (09/30/2007 commentary), and politely rapping the knuckles of those who filch from the smorgasbord of Christian presuppositions without paying the bill.
Next headline on:  PhysicsBible and Theology
Evolutionist Calls Everyone Crazy   08/27/2008    
August 27, 2008 — Last month she called everyone a hypocrite (07/06/2008).  This month, Robin Nixon of Live Science called everyone crazy.  Her latest article is entitled, “Why We Are All Insane.”  But then, how could we trust her explanation?
    Attributing everything about humanity to a blind process of evolution, Nixon wove a tale of mythical ancestors going a little nuts to survive:
Natural selection wants us to be crazy – at least a little bit.  While true debilitating insanity is not nature’s intention, many mental health issues may be byproducts of the over-functional human brain, some researchers claim.
    As humans improved their gathering, hunting and cooking techniques, population size increased and resources became more limited (in part because we hunted or ate some species to extinction).  As a result, not everyone could get enough to eat.  Cooperative relationships were critical to ensuring access to food, whether through farming or more strategic hunting, and those with blunt social skills were unlikely to survive, explained David C. Geary, author of “The Origin of Mind” (APA, 2004), and a researcher at the University of Missouri.
    And thus, a diversity of new mental abilities, and disabilities, unfurled.
Nixon deflected the charge of calling everyone crazy with a lateral pass to Geary.  But it sounds a little twisted to think of natural selection wanting anything – especially wanting something as crazy as making its products crazy but not too much so.
    She proceeded to explicate how craziness is a by-product of natural selection having done too good a job on the brain.  Using an analogy by Randolph Nesse, author of The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology [Wiley, 2005], she said, “Just as horse breeding has selected for long thin legs that increase speed but are prone to fracture, cognitive advances also increase fitness – to a point.”  The point for our brain is narcissism, anxiety, guilt, and other forms of mental illness:
Perhaps to check selfish urges, in favor of more probable means to biological success, social lubricants such as empathy, guilt and mild anxiety arose.
    For example, the first of our ancestors to empathize and read facial expressions had a striking advantage.  They could confirm their own social status and convince others to share food and shelter.  But too much emotional acuity – when individuals overanalyze every grimace – can cause a motivational nervousness about one’s social value to morph into a relentless handicapping anxiety.
In other words, natural selection bumbled by giving us aptitudes but failing to consider the law of unintended consequences.  Forget about joy, she says.  Quoting Geary, Nixon asserted “nature cares about genes, not joy.”  (That is “The Nature of Joy,” one of her subtitles that would surprise C. S. Lewis.)
    But wouldn’t the unintended consequences become maladaptive and lead to our extinction?  Crazy as it sounds, Nixon has it all figured out. 
Certain types of depression, however, Geary continued, may be advantageous.  The lethargy and disrupted mental state can help us disengage from unattainable goals – whether it is an unrequited love or an exalted social position.  Evolution likely favored individuals who pause and reassess ambitions, instead of wasting energy being blindly optimistic.
    Natural selection also likely held the door open for disorders such as attention deficit.  Quickly abandoning a low stimulus situation was more helpful for male hunters than female gatherers, writes Nesse, which may explain why boys are five times more likely than girls to be hyperactive.
    Similarly, in its mildest form, bipolar disorder can increase productivity and creativity.  Bipolar individuals (and their relatives) also often have more sex than average people, Geary noted.
    Sex, and survival of one’s kids, is the whole point – as far as nature is concerned.  Sometimes unpleasant mental states lead to greater reproductive success, said Geary, “so these genes stay in the gene pool.”
Natural selection thus worked by intelligent design.  It chose attributes that are advantageous.  It favored certain individuals.  It worked to increase productivity and creativity.  It worked to fill the earth with selfish, crazy hypocrites who don’t care so much about the environment as sex and survival of one’s kids – the “whole point” of evolution.  If natural selection made you depressed, hyperactive, bipolar and obsessed with sex, why fight it?  Deal with it.
    In this view, rationality is merely a by-product, not the goal.  But then, where would a rational person categorize Nixon’s explanation – on the side of reason, or of acting out, like a marionette on a string, the forces of natural selection on her own mind?
That scientists and science writers can continue to write such self-refuting nonsense with audacity is a sign that we have much work to do.  Darwinian thinking is a blight on rationality and a force for wickedness (see recent example on Evolution News).  It excuses everything that is evil as the inevitable consequence of forces beyond our control.  But then it turns around and engages in rational discussion as if rationality had any meaning.  It’s like vacuuming out a skull and filling it with gravel, and expecting it to still think.
    This hypothesis is crazy on multiple levels.  If everyone is crazy, then rationality is what is truly crazy.  On what basis could anyone claim that mental illness is “abnormal”?  Why would anyone have a longing for joy?  From whence did “social lubricants” arise?  And if natural selection favored bipolar nuts by making them promiscuous, then the eugenicists were nuts to interfere.  Obviously, you are more fit if insane.  The eugenics advocates should have sterilized the philosophers instead of the imbeciles.
    Darwin put the inmates in charge of the science asylum.  The nature in human nature is to be rational and moral.  Rationality and morality refer to things that are true, universal, necessary and certain – the opposite of natural selection’s contingency and purposelessness.  The Starving Storytellers, under the banner of Charlie, their patron saint, have made a mess in the halls of science (12/22/2003 commentary).  A complete housecleaning is in order.
    For those of you who still think and think that thinking matters, fight back against nonsense.  Enlighten these poor fools who insist on shooting their own brains out.  Help them understand that they cannot say such things.  Give them shock therapy for their Yoda complex (09/25/2006 commentary).  Help them off their pedestals as self-styled rational scientists, and welcome them into the pool of crazy, selfish, hypocritical, sex-crazed objects of natural selection.  After a few minutes of grunting and scratching their armpits, maybe they will get the message: “This is crazy.”
Next headline on:  EvolutionHuman BodyDumb Ideas
Neanderthals Win Toolmaking Olympics   08/26/2008    
August 26, 2008 — Scientists have taken another step toward debunking the myth of the “stupid Neanderthals” who went extinct when competing with their supposedly advanced neighbors, the “modern humans.”  Science Daily is one of several news sites reporting a study on toolmaking by the two groups of humans, that concluded that “stone tool technologies developed by our species, Homo sapiens, were no more efficient than those used by Neanderthals.”  In fact, Neanderthal tools may have been superior.
    More important than the study about flint knife efficiency was the change of attitude expressed by Metin Erin (U of Exeter), lead author of the paper:
Our research disputes a major pillar holding up the long-held assumption that Homo sapiens were more advanced than Neanderthals.  It is time for archaeologists to start searching for other reasons why Neanderthals became extinct while our ancestors survived.  Technologically speaking, there is no clear advantage of one tool over the other.  When we think of Neanderthals, we need to stop thinking in terms of ‘stupid’ or ‘less advanced’ and more in terms of ‘different.’
Museum displays had long portrayed Neanderthals as stoop-shouldered, beetle-browed, grunting cavemen not as evolved as the upcoming modern humans.  “Many long-held beliefs suggesting why the Neanderthals went extinct have been debunked in recent years,” the article said.  “Research has already shown that Neanderthals were as good at hunting as Homo sapiens and had no clear disadvantage in their ability to communicate.  Now, these latest findings add to the growing evidence that Neanderthals were no less intelligent than our ancestors.
Are you angry at the evolutionists who misled generations of impressionable students with their myth of the stupid Neanderthal caveman?  Why not?
    Look at another atrocity stemming from evolutionary doctrine.  Read this entry on New Scientist about the “forgotten scandal of the Soviet apeman.”  Ilia Ivanov, wanting to vindicate Darwin by demonstrating that humans were closely related to apes, tried to breed them together.  Notice the line: “When Ivanov approached the government, he stressed how proving Darwin right would strike a blow against religion, which the Bolsheviks were struggling to stamp out.”
    Don’t think for a minute that today’s evolutionary doctrine has now been purged of all its pernicious motivations.
Next headline on:  Early ManEducationPolitics and Ethics
  An animal covered with optically-perfect glass eyes: read about it in the 08/23/2001 entry.

Use Your Cow Compass   08/25/2008    
August 25, 2008 — Cattle and deer seem to align themselves to magnetic north.  German and Czech scientists, reporting in PNAS,1 used aerial observations to detect the tendency of grazing herds to line up in north-south directions.  The alignment was to magnetic north, not true north—indicating a sensitivity to earth’s magnetic field, as known to exist in migrating birds, lobsters and sea turtles (03/23/2004).
    They did not have an explanation for this apparent sixth sense in mammals, but remarked that “It is amazing that this ubiquitous conspicuous phenomenon apparently has remained unnoticed by herdsmen and hunters for thousands of years.”  They speculated that it might be involved in predator avoidance or some physiological function such as temperature regulation.
    The correlation may just be a statistical fluke.  About two-thirds of the herd members appeared to line up on a magnetic north-south orientation.  If established, “Our findings open horizons for the study of magnetoreception in general and are of potential significance for applied ethology (husbandry, animal welfare),” the authors said.  “They challenge neuroscientists and biophysics to explain the proximate mechanisms.”
    The BBC News also reported the story.  PhysOrg asked whether this “surprising discovery” of a magnetic sense might also be detected in humans – at least those who follow the herd.


1.  Begall et al, “Magnetic alignment in grazing and resting cattle and deer,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, published online 08/25/2008, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0803650105.
What this means is that you will have a statistically better chance of getting your buck trophy if you look east or west.  And cowboys will never look the same with large electromagnets on the backs of their saddles.
Next headline on:  MammalsAmazing Facts
How Chromosomes Pack Without Exploding   08/24/2008    
August 24, 2008 — When preparing to divide, a cell has to copy all its DNA accurately and pack it into chromosomes.  A professor at U Chicago told Science Daily this is “like compacting your entire wardrobe into a shoebox.”  The cell has another difficulty in this compaction process, though: DNA, being negatively charged, resists packing.
    Eukaryotes overcome the resistance by neutralizing the negative charge with histones.  DNA wraps around the histones, forming nucleosomes, which then coil and supercoil into the familiar chromosomes.  One class of marine algae, the dinoflagellates, uses a different method: it neutralizes the negatively-charged DNA with positively-charged ions of calcium and magnesium.
    The U Chicago team was puzzled at this exception to the rule.  They wondered if “this may have been the first and very efficient step toward the goal of neutralizing DNA, long before histones came into play.”  The statement was only a suggestion, however.  It also does not explain why dinoflagellates have much more nuclear DNA than human beings.
    One observation, though, was dynamic.  When the scientists removed the positively-charged ions from the dinoflagellate DNA, the chromosomes exploded.
Did they find a sequence from positive-ion neutralization to histone neutralization?  No; their evolutionary belief dictates that they use imagination and speculation to invent stories to link different organisms with common ancestry.  There are puzzles to solve here, for sure.  Why would a marine alga have so much more DNA than a human?  Why would it use a different method of neutralizing the DNA?  Don’t let these puzzles overshadow the major question: how genetic information arose that could be systematically and accurately copied, then condensed by orders of magnitude into a tiny space.  If you ever figure out how to compact your wardrobe into a shoebox, one thing is certain: you will not have done it by an evolutionary process.
Next headline on:  GeneticsCell BiologyMarine BiologyAmazing Facts
  Darwin doberman admits evolutionary theory is practically useless, from 08/30/2006.

Flatlife Has More Genes Than It Needs   08/23/2008    
August 23, 2008 — The genome of a placozoan (“flat animal”) shows more complexity than one would expect for a simple life form.  According to evolutionists, it shows that even a barely-differentiated animal presumably ancestral to complex animals had the genetic toolkit of its more-advanced descendents.
    Trichoplax adhaerens is a slimy-looking thing that sticks to aquarium walls.  Science Daily has a picture of it.  The article says the genome is “confounding [the] array of complex capabilities” because it “appears to harbor a far more complex suite of capabilities than meets the eye.”  Although the organism only has 4 or 5 cell types and no organs or gut, its genome “encodes a panoply of signaling genes and transcription factors usually associated with more complex animals.”  This includes genes for neurons even though it has no nerves, and hints of genes for sexual reproduction even though it usually divides by fission.  It even has a “parts list” for embryo formation but has not been observed to go through an embryo stage.
    Another surprise is that T. adhaerens contains 80% of the same introns as humans – in much the same arrangement.  Introns have been considered genomic “junk” that must be removed during translation.  That these parts are “conserved” (unevolved) from a primitive animal to a human being seems to point to a function for introns and their specific arrangements.  Fruit flies and other advanced life, though, have far fewer introns.
    The original paper in Nature1 summarized the surprises:

The compact genome shows remarkable complexity, including conserved gene content, gene structure and synteny [i.e., conserved linkage without requiring colinearity] relative to human and other eumetazoan genomes.  Despite the absence of any known developmental program and only a modest number of cell types, the Trichoplax genome encodes a rich array of transcription factors and signalling genes that are typically associated with embryogenesis and cell fate specification in eumetazoans, as well as other genes that are consistent with cryptic patterning of cells, unobserved life history stages and/or complex execution of biological processes such as fission and embryonic development in these enigmatic creatures.
One of the authors of the paper said, “Trichoplax has had just as much time to evolve as humans, but because of its morphological simplicity, it is tempting to think of it as a surrogate for an early animal.”
Update 08/23/2008: Elisabeth Pennisi, reporting for Science,2 added rhetoric to the “surprise effect” coming from this genome.  Trichoplax “barely qualifies as an animal.” she said.  It is one millimeter long and covered with cilia.  It glides along like an amoeba.  It usually divides by budding or fission.  One biologist was quoted saying, “Yet this animal’s genome looks surprisingly like ours.”  Here are some other quotes from her news report:
  • It’s a puzzle why Trichoplax, a seemingly primitive animal, has such a complex genome.
  • Biologists had once assumed that complicated body plans and complex genomes went hand in hand.  But T. adhaerens’s genome ... “highlights a disconnect between molecular and morphological complexity,” says Mark Martindale, an experimental embryologist at the University of Hawaii, Honolulu.  Adds Casey Dunn, an evolutionary biologist at Brown University, “It is now completely clear that genomic complexity was present very early on” in animal evolution.
  • Despite being developmentally simple--with no organs or many specialized cells--the placozoan has counterparts of the transcription factors that more complex organisms need to make their many body parts and tissues.
  • “Many genes viewed as having particular ‘functions’ in bilaterians or mammals turn out to have much deeper evolutionary history than expected, raising questions about why they evolved,” says Douglas Erwin, an evolutionary biologist at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) in Washington, D.C.

1.  Srivastava et al, “The Trichoplax genome and the nature of placozoans,” Nature 454, 955-960 (21 August 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature07191.
2.  Elizabeth Pennisi, “Genomics: ‘Simple’ Animal’s Genome Proves Unexpectedly Complex,” Science, 22 August 2008: Vol. 321. no. 5892, pp. 1028-1029, DOI: 10.1126/science.321.5892.1028b.
The predictions of evolutionists that they would find Darwin’s tree of life in the genomes of organisms has been falsified.  Genomes do not show a straightforward progression from simple to complex, with gradual acquisition of new function over time.  The evo-talk in the article and paper sounds forced and superfluous.  It may be “tempting” to “think of it” as a primitive evolutionary thing, but moral philosophy admonishes us to overcome temptation.
    The genetic toolkit appears established early on.  In addition, gene count, chromosome number, and intron content appear indifferent to evolutionary relationships.  Trichoplax shows that simple organisms can have complex genes they don’t use – another contradiction with evolutionary expectations.  The relationship between genotype and phenotype appears much more elaborate than any evolutionary biologist expected.  Whatever is going on, it is time to think outside Darwin’s black box.
Next headline on:  GeneticsEvolution
Early Art Confounds Evolutionists   08/16/2008    
August 16, 2008 — The artwork on the walls of Chauvet Cave in France is too good to have been made by early modern humans.  “Chauvet should be removed from assessments of early modern humans in Europe,” said UK archaeologist Robin Dennell.  “Including it leads to a gross distortion of their cognitive abilities.”  Other experts who dated the artwork at 30,000 years – twice the estimated age of the more famous cave art at Lascaux – stand by their dates.  “Chauvet is the best dated rock art site in the world,” said French rock art expert Jean Clottes.  Randall White (New York U) agreed: “There are more dates from Chauvet than from most other caves combined.”  Michael Balter reported on the controversy in the Aug 15 issue of Science.1
    The art in Grotte Chauvet was discovered about 10 years ago (07/26/2001, 04/22/2003).  Its charcoal and ochre paintings of horses, bison and rhinos are so good, they surpass in quality the cave paintings estimated at half that age.  Evolutionary anthropologists divide the modern human period in which the first signs of culture appear into the Aurignacian period (beginning 40,000 years BP) down to the Magdalenian period (17,000 to 12,000 years BP).  They expected to find a progression in cognitive ability as reflected in art.  The reverse is true.  “The fundamental importance of Chauvet is to show that the capacity of Homo sapiens to engage in artistic expression did not go through a linear evolution over many thousands of years,” says cave art expert Gilles Tosello of the University of Toulouse (UT), France.  “It was there from the beginning” (cf. 10/04/2001, 12/13/2003).
    Because this runs contrary to evolutionary expectations, Dennell and colleague Paul Pettit of the University of Sheffield have found it too hard an empirical pill to swallow.  They mounted a serious challenge to the dating of the art.  They claim that later Magdalenian people could have picked up old charcoal off the floor to make the paintings.  The Chauvet old-date defenders find that idea ridiculous.  They present other arguments against attempts to revise the date, claiming, for instance, that the cave opening was sealed by a landslide well before the Magdalenian period had arrived.
    Balter left the controversy at a standoff with Pettit looking like the underdog.  He quoted Margaret Conkey (UC Berkeley) asking, “Chauvet was an expression of the sensibilities, beliefs, and social relations of anatomically modern humans in this part of the world.  What was it about their lives that made imagemaking in caves meaningful?”
1.  Michael Balter, “Archaeology: Going Deeper Into the Grotte Chauvet,” Science, 15 August 2008: Vol. 321. no. 5891, pp. 904-905, DOI: 10.1126/science.321.5891.904.
One other interesting detail in the article is that the humans who made the paintings apparently shared the cave with large, dangerous predators: cave bears.  Hundreds of cave bear bones were found in the cave.  Who were the hunters and who were the huntees?  Maybe they took up residence in different seasons.
    This article is a humorous look into the dogmatism of certain evolutionists who want to maintain their beliefs in spite of the evidence.  Throw out the evidence, says one; it is leading to a “gross distortion” of the “cognitive abilities” of early man.  Being interpreted, this must mean that what provides an accurate picture of human history is the fact-free tenacity of imagination.
    None of this grants an inch to the grossly distorted dating methods of evolutionary anthropologists.  Despite their bluff about calibration, radiocarbon dating is only as “accurate” as its untestable assumptions.  A global event like a Flood (based on written records) would have drastically changed the calibration curve and put all this art well within a Biblical timeframe.  A creationist would expect man’s cognitive abilities to be complete from the beginning, just as revealed by the Chauvet data.
    If you don’t buy that, then we ask again (01/19/2001): do you buy the notion that for tens of thousands of years – multiple times the length of all recorded human history – people physically and mentally our equals (or superiors) drew pictures of horses on cave walls, but never figured out one could get a lot more done by hopping on their backs and taking a ride?
    For as far back as we have records, men have ridden horseback for travel, hunting and warfare.  Native Americans introduced to horses quickly became expert riders.  They could fire arrows in all directions at a full gallop, bareback, using primitive bridles.  Yet we are expected to believe that the master artisans of Chauvet cave, very familiar with all the mammals in their environment, drawing magnificent steeds to perfection, never thought about that?  How plausible is it that at least 25,000 years passed, brave men hunting all kinds of large animals the whole time, before someone got daring enough to leap onto Old Paint and shout, “ride ’em cowboy!”?  It’s downright aurignacious to imagine such a thing.  Even a Magdalene would think it silly.
    Including the Chauvet Cave data does not lead to a gross distortion of early man’s cognitive abilities.  Believing the evolutionary story with its horseless economy leads to a gross distortion of the cognitive abilities of modern Homo gullibilis.
Next headline on:  Early ManDating Methods
Human Skeletons Found in Sahara   08/14/2008    
August 14, 2008 — They went looking for dinosaur bones, and found human skeletons instead.  That’s what is being reported by National Geographic and the Los Angeles Times.  A barren wasteland in the Sahara, covered with sand, has turned out to be a treasure trove of evidence of human occupation.  The area appears to have been a lakeside paradise thousands of years ago.
    The area of human habitation, with skeletons and artifacts indicating fishing and hunting, lies on top of Cretaceous strata known for dinosaur fossils.  This Stone-Age site, which National Geographic called a “Green Sahara” and the Times called “Green Eden,” appears to have supported two different tribes of people at different times.  200 human burial sites were found.  One of them showed the tenderness of family affection: “A woman, possibly a mother, and two children laid to rest holding hands, arms outstretched toward each other, on a bed of flowers.”
    The area, named Gobero, was a spine-tingling discovery when first found in 2000.  Paul Sereno (U of Chicago) and team just published their data in PLoS ONE after several seasons of excavation.1  The team classifies the human strata as Holocene and the underlying bedrock as Cretaceous.  Still, it was surprising to find human bones when they were looking for dinosaur bones.  “Sereno and colleagues have also made several dinosaur discoveries in the region, including the bizarre cow-like dino Nigersaurus and the bus-size SuperCroc,” National Geographic reported.  Imagine Sereno’s surprise when he found human skeletons.  “You’re not looking at [dinosaurs],” he said; “you’re looking at your own species.”
1.  Sereno et al, “Lakeside Cemeteries in the Sahara: 5000 Years of Holocene Population and Environmental Change,” Public Library of Science ONE, 3(8): e2995 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002995.
This is an intriguing discovery.  The team did not find a mixture of dinosaur bones and human bones in the same strata, but the close juxtaposition calls for explanation.  Evolutionists would have us believe 65 million years separated the Cretaceous and Holocene deposits.  The strata are classified, and their ages are inferred, however, by the bones they contain, and their presumed position in the evolutionary story.  Where are all the intervening epochs between the two deposits?
    These deposits could be fit into a Biblical context.  For one thing, notice that no one is claiming the human remains are tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years old.  Given uncertainty, they fit within the post-Flood world.  The dinosaur-containing strata may have been Flood deposits.  As people separated in the decades and centuries after the Flood (especially after the Tower of Babel), a people group found this rich area of greenery, lakes, fish and wildlife – the next best thing after Eden.  (If any post-Flood dinosaurs were around, the humans could have killed them off as a nuisance.)
    Centuries of successful human habitation could have taken place here before the Egyptian civilization began.  After the Flood, many large lakes remained inland.  They eventually dried up, forcing the inhabitants who left these burial plots and artifacts to look for greener pastures.  The researchers believe a thousand-year period of dry conditions intervened between the two populations who came here.
    This is a discovery that deserves watching.  The paper says, “We are just beginning to understand the anatomical and cultural diversity that existed within the Sahara during the Holocene.”  There appears to be nothing here that rules out a Biblical post-Flood scenario, and a number of things that suggest it.  The dinosaur fossils are in good condition.  Can the 65-million-year hiatus between the adjacent strata really be supported?  Let’s watch for more surprised looks on the faces of the scientists, and not take their Darwin-drenched dating assumptions for granted.
Next headline on:  DinosaursFossilsDating MethodsEarly ManBible
Membrane Switches Keep Your Brain Humming   08/14/2008    
August 14, 2008 — Tunnels with rotating gates and rocker switches – this sounds like mechanical engineering.  It’s the machinery that helps power your brain, reported scientists from UCLA and the Pasteur Institute.
    Their paper in Science described the structure of just one of many kinds of membrane channels.1  Cell membranes are lined with elaborate one-way gates.  This one binds a sodium ion to a galactose sugar molecule and brings it inside the cell.  It’s a key player in the process that brings fuel to the brain.  Karpowich and Wang brought it home in their review of the paper in the same issue of Science:2
The average Western adult metabolizes hundreds of grams of carbohydrates per day, half of which is used as an energy source for the brain.  To benefit from these ingested carbohydrates, they must first be broken down into simple sugars, such as glucose, and absorbed through the epithelial cells of the intestine.  The glucose must then be reabsorbed in the kidneys.  On page 810 of this issue, Faham et al. report a major advance in elucidating the molecular mechanism by which this highly effective absorption is realized.
The wording in this statement reveals the stage that molecular biology is in.  Scientists have known about the chemistry of biological processes for decades.  Only now, however, are scientists revealing the mechanics behind that chemistry.  And mechanics it is: the paper describes gates made of protein that rotate open and closed to let the proper molecules in.  Other gates that are members of some of the other 250 families of membrane transporters use other mechanisms.  One of them in a simplified illustration in Karpowich and Wang’s review looks like a rocker switch: the cargo drops into a V-shaped mechanism, which when properly authenticated, inverts into an upside-down V and ejects the cargo outside the cell.
    The sodium galactose transporter studied by Faham et al looks more like a cylindrical gumball machine.  As the outside gate rotates, the cargo drops in.  Once safely enclosed, the inside gate rotates open and out falls the cargo into the cytoplasm.  Faham et al described this an “alternating-access mechanism.”  Since they act as one-way gates, Karpowich and Wang called these “symmetric transporters for asymmetric transport.
    What did the scientists think of these clever machines?  For one thing, the researchers noticed that there are other families of transporters that use similar mechanical methods, but have nothing in common in terms of their protein sequences.  “This structural homology is surprising,” they said.  “....These findings support classification of proteins using criteria such as topological arrangement, molecular function, and unique structural features involved in mechanism, rather than solely on the basis of primary sequence.”  The statement implies that evolutionary relationships are less useful in classifying the machines than functional descriptions.  In fact, evolution was never mentioned in either paper. 
1.  Faham, Watanabe et al, “The Crystal Structure of a Sodium Galactose Transporter Reveals Mechanistic Insights into Na+/Sugar Symport,” Science, 8 August 2008: Vol. 321. no. 5890, pp. 810-814, DOI: 10.1126/science.1160406.
2.  Karpowich and Wang, “Symmetric Transporters for Asymmetric Transport,” Science, 8 August 2008: Vol. 321. no. 5890, pp. 781-782, DOI: 10.1126/science.1161495.
Riddle: where would Darwinism go if it entered a cell by one of these transporter machines?  Answer: first, it would be tagged as foreign and dangerous contraband.  Then, a kinesin would carry it down a microtubule to a proteasome, where it would be cut up into little bits, then ejected outside where it belongs.  Where would Intelligent Design go?  It doesn’t need the transporter, because it’s already in the nucleus, encoded as DNA.
Next headline on:  Cell BiologyAmazing Facts
  Mad scientists engage in bellicose rhetoric over intelligent design, from 08/13/2005.

Does Cancer Illustrate Fitness?   08/13/2008    
August 13, 2008 — Most people think of health and vitality when they hear the word “fitness.”  Why, then, does an article on Science Daily apply the word to one of the biggest scourges of mankind?  “Scientists from The Institute of Advanced Studies at Princeton and the University of California discovered that the underlying process in tumor formation is the same as for life itself—evolution.”  The article even applies Spencer’s notorious phrase to the evolution of cancer: “Survival Of The Fittest: Even Cancer Cells Follow The Laws Of Evolution.”

After analyzing a half million gene mutations, the researchers found that although different gene mutations control different cancer pathways, each pathway was controlled by only one set of gene mutations.
    This suggests that a molecular “survival of the fittest” scenario plays out in every living creature as gene mutations strive for ultimate survival through cancerous tumors.
    Gerald Weismann, Editor-in-Chief of the The FASEB Journal, wins Stupid Evolution Quote of the Week with his comment on the paper: “Little could Darwin have known that his ‘Origin of the Species’ would one day explain the ‘Origin of the Tumor.’”
Good grief, cancer is not fitness.  Evolutionists (at least those who think consistently) have to believe that everything destructive is just as worthy of our respect and admiration as everything good and beautiful, because it is just another manifestation of the mindless, senseless, directionless, purposeless “laws of evolution” (which are not laws at all in the classical scientific sense: where are the equations?)
    So while millions of their fellow humans are suffering from cancer, looking to science for treatments and cures, there are a few researchers who call themselves fellows of the “institute of advanced studies” who have nothing better to do than tell jokes about On the Origin of Tumors by Natural Selection, and the Preservation of Favored Mistakes in the Struggle for Death.  Get a life.
Next headline on:  Evolutionary TheoryDumb Ideas
Cassini Survives Enceladus Geyser Plunge   08/12/2008    
August 12, 2008 — The Cassini spacecraft has done it again – returned some of the most stunning outer planet images ever taken.  Zipping by at just 30 miles over the active surface of Enceladus, Cassini did a “skeet shoot” of high-res images achieving 7 meters per pixel in places – the highest resolution of any shot of a moon taken during a flyby.  The images can be viewed at JPL, NASA and Ciclops, website of the Imaging Team.
    It’s too early to interpret the bizarre texture of this active moon as revealed in the images, but certain things stand out.  There are no craters.  The terrain is criss-crossed by fractures, new ones overlying older ones.  Boulders as large as houses dot the hills.  And the “tiger stripes” – sites of active eruptions – have heaps of material lining their edges.  Press releases arrived on Thursday August 14: for the latest on the discoveries and what scientists are thinking about them, see the websites for Cassini and Ciclops.
    On the Enceladus Flyby Blog you can find links to animations of the event (see the Aug 7 and 11 entries), and other interesting facts about Enceladus and Cassini.
Catch the thrill of discovery.  Read some of the responses of space enthusiasts to these pictures at Unmanned Spaceflight, and learn more about them on the Planetary Society blog.  Pictures like this are hard to come by: it takes a spaceship costing billions of dollars, and years of flight and planning.  Soon we will have more to say about Enceladus.  For now, enjoy history in the making.
Next headline on:  Solar SystemAmazing Facts
Admissions of Ignorance in Evolutionary Theory   08/11/2008    
August 11, 2008 — For a scientific idea some have proclaimed as a fact no longer in need of proof, and as well-established as gravity, Darwin’s theory of evolution still reveals surprising weaknesses when its defenders speak about the details.  Detecting these weaknesses requires tuning out the media hype, and tuning into scientific papers and pro-evolution journals where evolutionary theory is debated.  Elisabeth Pennisi wrote one such account in Science last week.1  It revealed that the public is getting a very misleading view of evolution – both its operation and the strength of the evidence for it.
    It would seem obvious that evolution needs a genetic basis.  Darwin attempted to explain it in his day, unsuccessfully.  The neo-Darwinian synthesis of the 1930s was supposed to explain it.  Serious questions about how evolution works at the genetic level remain, however, to this day.  This was evident in Pennisi’s use of war metaphors to describe two groups of evolutionists that are “locking horns” over a current issue: whether genes or regulatory elements (in particular, cis regulatory factors) are key to evolutionary change.  The latter, a “fashionable idea,” has been growing in popularity among those in the evo-devo subculture: i.e., evolutionary biologists who focus more on developmental than genetic influences.  When Jerry Coyne and Hopi Hoekstra wrote a pointed critique of the regulatory-element hypothesis in the journal Evolution last year, “Egos were bruised.  Tempers flared.  Journal clubs, coffee breaks at meetings, and blogs are still all abuzz,” she wrote.
    None of the combatants doubt Darwin’s theory in the slightest, of course.  Still, some statements in Pennisi’s account could give a Darwin-doubter cause for gloating.  Consider this paragraph:
[Sean] Carroll [U of Wisconsin] argued that mutations in cis regions were a way to soft-pedal evolutionary change.  Genes involved in establishing body plans and patterns have such a broad reach--affecting a variety of tissues at multiple stages of development--that mutations in their coding regions can be catastrophic.  In contrast, changes in cis elements, several of which typically work in concert to control a particular gene’s activity, are likely to have a much more limited effect.  Each element serves as a docking site for a particular transcription factor, some of which stimulate gene expression and others inhibit it.  This modularity makes possible an infinite number of cis-element combinations that finely tune gene activity in time, space, and degree, and any one sequence change is unlikely to be broadly disruptive.
This sounds like damage control.  Is the standard explanation too risky?  Yet critics of the evo-devo alternative argue that every such “fine-tuning” change must be adaptive to persist through natural selection.  Precious few examples, they say, can be found to illustrate a regulatory change related to a morphological change.  One regulatory change in a mouse, for instance, can make its digits grow slightly longer (see 01/18/2008), but the mutant mouse is hardly ready to take off flying like a bat.
    “Where’s the beef?” challenged Pennisi, giving the floor to Coyne and Hoekstra, who countered that mutations for evolutionary change must occur in genes:
But Hoekstra and Coyne say this enthusiasm doesn’t rest on solid evidence.  In their Evolution article, they picked apart these examples and the rationale behind them.  They pulled quotes from Carroll’s work to criticize his fervor and berated the evo-devo community for charging full speed ahead with the cis-regulatory hypothesis.  “Evo devo’s enthusiasm for cis-regulatory changes is unfounded and premature,” they wrote.  Changes in gene regulation are important, says Hoekstra, but they are not necessarily caused by mutations in cis elements.  “They do not have one case where it’s really nailed down,” she says.
Those be fightin’ words, indeed.  Coyne even used psychological warfare, telling Science, “I’m distressed that Sean Carroll is preaching to the general public that we know how evolution works based on such thin evidence.”
    The opposition did not take this sitting down.  “Almost as soon as their article appeared, lines were drawn and rebuttals planned,” Pennisi reported like a war correspondent.  But did they come back with a knock-down case for evolution?  All Sean Carroll could reply was that his view is the best of a bad lot:
“I am not trying to say that regulatory sequence is the most important thing in evolution,” he told Science.  But when it comes to what’s known about the genetic underpinnings of morphological evolution, “it’s a shutout” in favor of cis elements, he asserts.
That one statement could come as a shock to students who have been taught all their lives that evolution by natural selection acting on genetic mutations is well understood.  The article degenerated from here into the battle of the T-shirts and other fluff.  Coyne, for instance, sported a T-shirt that said “I’m no CISsy,” and entitled his talk at a recent conference, “Give me just one cis-regulatory mutation and I’ll shut up.
    Pennisi reported statistics from pro-evo-devo people purporting to show the extent of regulatory elements involved in mutated genes.  “Yet even these data are inconclusive,” another was quoted admitting.  At the end of the article, there was no winner.  Pennisi’s closing theme, with variations, was how little is known.  Everyone was making excuses.  Evo-devo devotees complained that associations between regulatory elements and morphological effects are hard to measure.  “I really want to emphasize,” Carroll bluffed, “that evo-devo [researchers] haven’t come to this way of thinking simply through storytelling” but through data.  Was this a response to ridicule he has heard?  Or was it a backhanded charge that his opponents are the storytellers?  Either way, it’s hard to feel his conclusions are compelling when the relevance of certain regulatory elements, and their interactions, are confusing, and “the numbers may be misleading.”  How much more so when genetic mutations can affect the regulatory elements themselves?  What role do RNA elements play?  What about gene duplications?  Patricia Wittkop (U of Michigan) suggested there may be more noise than signal when she said, “The important question is about finding out whether there are principles that will allow us to predict the most likely paths of change for a specific trait or situation.”  It would seem any scientific claim needs such principles to be deemed scientific.
    If the evolutionists cannot resolve their conflict, they can at least improve their battlefield protocols.  Pennisi ended with this:
With so much unknown, “we don’t want to spend our time bickering,” says [Gregory] Wray [Duke U].  He and others worry that Hoekstra, Coyne, and Carroll have taken too hard a line and backed themselves into opposite corners.  Coyne doesn’t seem to mind the fuss, but Hoekstra is more circumspect about their Evolution paper.  “I stand by the science absolutely,” she says.  “But if I did it over again, I would probably tone down the language.

1.  Elisabeth Pennisi, “Evolutionary Biology: Deciphering the Genetics of Evolution,” Science, 8 August 2008: Vol. 321. no. 5890, pp. 760-763, DOI: 10.1126/science.321.5890.760.
The vast majority of the public, including high school students, never sees the bickering between Darwiniacs over the most fundamental aspects of their theory.  That’s why you need to see it exposed here.
    The lesson in this story is that almost nothing is understood in their tale at a scientific level.  Evolutionists want us to believe that humans have bacteria ancestors.  All the amazing structures in all of life had to emerge from a simple, primordial cell by some undirected biological process at the genetic level.  When it comes to positive evidence for such a fantastic, astonishing claim, the paltry best these true believers could exhibit were inconclusive effects of mutations or regulatory elements on existing complex species: reversible changes to the amount of armor on stickleback fish, bristles or the lack of them on fruit flies (with no idea whether they provide any adaptive advantage), slightly longer digits on mice, and other trivia.  When it comes to negative evidence, look at how both sides falsified each other.  The charges and counter-charges were hilarious.  They go like this:
“You have no evidence.”
“Oh yeah?  Well, we have a lot more than you!”
This is like the Dumb and Dumber T-shirts you see friends wearing at amusement parks.  We’ve taken off the Darwiniacs’ white lab coats and shown you their T-shirts: not just Dumb and Dumber, but Fussy and Fussier, and Deceived and Deceiver.  Should such people be “preaching to the general public” that “they know how evolution works, based on such thin evidence”?  Look under the T-shirt and you see just a skeleton with no scientific fitness.  “Where’s the beef?” indeed.  These Popeyes (05/31/2005) will find no salvation in spinach (01/24/2005).  Their ID nemesis, already fit to the hilt, has already eaten it all.  Skinny lightweights only win in the cartoons.
Next headline on:  Evolutionary TheoryMediaGenetics
  Evolutionists gas each other, from 08/05/2004.  Niles Eldredge bashes Dawkins and the Selfish Gene idea, promotes his punctuated equilibria model in 2004 book.

These Bugs Have the Right Stride   08/09/2008    
August 9, 2008 — If there were an Olympic event for walking on water, the water strider would lead the pack.  Science Daily reported on work by European biologists that show the water bug has perfectly proportioned legs for being able to balance on the surface tension of water: “Long enough to provide maximum weight support but not long enough to bend and hinder the insect’s movement,” a mathematical model showed.  See also the 08/07/2003 and 11/04/2004 entries about water striders.

We’ll ignore the brief Darwinist nonsense thrown into the lead paragraph, since it appears to have nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific work:
The amazing water strider – known for its ability to walk on water – came within just a hair of sinking into evolutionary oblivion.
Actually, that was too funny not to award Stupid Evolution Quote of the Week.  Evolutionary oblivion; what a suggestive term.  It has possibilities.
Next headline on:  ZoologyAmazing FactsDumb Ideas
Life in Space: Follow the Hot Water, not the Hot Air   08/08/2008    
August 8, 2008 — Planetary scientists have their eyes and instruments on regions of hot water, but speculating too dogmatically about life in space could get you in hot water yourself.
    Simon Klatterhorn (geologist, U of Idaho) is mesmerized by the possibility of life at Europa, Jupiter’s ice-crusted oceanic moon.  In an interview by Science Daily, he said that Europa brings out the adventurer in him.  Cracks in the ice of Europa and of Saturn’s moon Enceladus are peepholes into the possibility of life down there.  He knows that life requires water, and he knows that life survives on earth in some of the most inhospitable environments.  Put the two together, and he finds the possibility of life in space compelling.  “This research feeds that need that I have as a geologist and as a person to be the explorer, to be the adventurer, to see things that no one else has seen before and figure out things that no one else has figured out before,” he said.  “And out in the solar system is a great place to do that, because there are some things—like the plumes on Enceladus—that we really are seeing for the very first time.”
    Speaking of the plumes of Enceladus, the Cassini spacecraft is all set for another daring dive through the geysers Monday night (Aug. 11).  Swooping down at just 30 miles over the surface, the spaceship might be able to peer right down into the geyser vents.  Follow the Blog for details, and read the Flight Plan.  On this encounter, the cameras get priority time.  Undoubtedly some scientists will speculate about the possibility of life in a subterranean ocean.
    Even those who study life in space full time, like SETI researchers, can get annoyed by dogmatists.  Seth Shostak, director of the SETI Institute, let his emotions fly in an editorial about UFO-diehards on Space.com.  He has gotten pretty tired of their ad hominem attacks on anyone who demands more physical evidence than they can provide after 60 years of sightings.  He quoted some examples of hot-headed UFO bullies.  He’s willing to listen, and evaluate decent evidence: “After all,” he said, “I happen to think that extraterrestrial intelligence is a frequent occurrence in a universe of ten thousand million million million stars.”  But he expects civilized discourse and respect among those who want to approach the subject scientifically.
    One point Shostak emphasized is that one doesn’t have to be personally involved in UFO reports to be able to express an opinion about it.  “Carl Sagan was asked his opinion about many matters in which he had no research background,” he said.  “His thoughts on same were valuable and worth hearing.”  The burden of proof in science is on the one making a claim.
Shostak is a favorite SETI researcher to engage in civil discourse and respectful debate, because he so honestly opens himself up to judgment by his own standards.  OK, then, can outsiders express opinions about SETI?  Can the opinions of a SETI critic or Darwin doubter with strong academic credentials and good presentation skills be valuable and worth hearing?  Is the burden of proof on the SETI researcher to back up his belief that ETI is a common occurrence in the universe?  Obviously he has no way out, and would have to say yes.  So thank you, Dr. Shostak; we’ll take you up on it.
    Let us be among the first to join you in denouncing bullies, like those dogmatic Darwinists who eviscerate the careers of Darwin-doubters like those highlighted in the movie Expelled.  Surely you are not among those types.
    We appreciate your honesty about lack of evidence in your craft (01/24/2007).  May we respectfully ask that you review our critique of your rebuttal of intelligent design back in 12/03/2005?  That you credit your sources, as we recommended in 05/04/2006?  Will you review our analysis of your reasoning about science, religion and evolutionary theory back in 02/20/2007?  Will you honestly consider the possibility that SETI is imagination masquerading as science, like we demonstrated in April this year?  Could you share a brief chuckle with us at the thought of a poor misguided student in cowboy country, with SETI Institute blessing, sending a poem about menstruation to aliens? (See the 05/29/2008 entry that analyzed an article that reported this incident with pride).
    No ad hominems from us.  In fact, we called you a highly intelligent individual, and said it sincerely.  We just wonder why you use detection methods that imply intelligent design while consigning ID to the pseudoscience bin, and ascribe the universe and life (and your own rationality) to non-intelligent causes.  We just want you to think about it.  Fair enough?  Are you searching for ETI in the right places?  Have you done a fair investigation, as did former atheist Lee Strobel, of the claims of a Man who said He came from heaven (John 14-16), and provided empirical evidence for it (Acts 1-2, I Corinthians 15), in ways that can be studied by scientific and historical methods?  If not willing to go that route, if you choose to persist in looking into the stars for divine guidance, can you at least admit that you are practicing and advocating a pseudoscientific religion in the place of Christianity?  Can you admit that Christianity, at this point, has more evidence going for it than SETI?  Are you willing to call SETI a kind of religion?  Then can we lobby for Separation of Search and State (01/24/2007)?
    Readers, be nice.  Don’t fling these questions at the likes of the honorable Dr. Shostak with pride and arrogance.  Let any hot air come at us, not from us.  If he repents of his sins (logical and theological), and discovers extraterrestrial omnipresent Intelligence that was there all along, we wish to share with him in that moment of surprising joy, and embrace him with open arms as good Christians are commanded to do (like Paul was treated in Acts 9, who later wrote Romans 12).
Next headline on:  Origin of LifeSolar SystemSETIBible and Theology
New Camera Imitates Eyeball   08/07/2008    
August 7, 2008 — Scientists at the University of Illinois and Northwestern University have succeeded in manufacturing stretchable optical electronic sensors on curved surfaces.  This will open up a whole new world of new imaging products – inventions that imitate the human eyeball.  The team said this about the eyeball in their paper in Nature:1 
The human eye is a remarkable imaging device, with many attractive design features.  Prominent among these is a hemispherical detector geometry, similar to that found in many other biological systems, that enables a wide field of view and low aberrations with simple, few-component imaging optics.  This type of configuration is extremely difficult to achieve using established optoelectronics technologies, owing to the intrinsically planar nature of the patterning, deposition, etching, materials growth and doping methods that exist for fabricating such systems.  Here we report strategies that avoid these limitations, and implement them to yield high-performance, hemispherical electronic eye cameras based on single-crystalline silicon.... In a general sense, these methods, taken together with our theoretical analyses of their associated mechanics, provide practical routes for integrating well-developed planar device technologies onto the surfaces of complex curvilinear objects, suitable for diverse applications that cannot be addressed by conventional means.
Commenting on this new technology in the same issue of Nature,2 Takao Someya (U of Tokyo) remarked that flat-field imagers used up till now suffer from distortion and non-uniform brightness.  He said that the new breakthrough came because the researchers “have drawn inspiration from animals’ eyes and have succeeded in eliminating these fundamental limitations of conventional artificial-vision systems.”  What can we expect from this invention?  Compact health-monitoring devices, ultra-compact cameras with less distortion, adaptive focusing mechanisms, and more gadgets for industry and the home – maybe high-resolution, bright cell-phone cameras, for instance.
    Someya even foresees using the technology to imitate insects’ compound eyes “with exceptional dynamic visual acuity” and fish eyes “that have a 360° field of view.”  It’s an exceptional advance in optical engineering, he said.  Where did it come from?  “These and other types of biologically inspired device should become feasible given the advances in optical engineering made possible by the advent of geometrically transformable and stretchable-compressible electronics and optoelectronics” – something animals, insects and fish have had all along.
    The UK Telegraph said this invention “heralds a cyborg revolution.”  Reporter Roger Highfield quoted team member John Rogers of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.  “We believe that some of the most compelling areas of future application involve the intimate, conformal integration of electronics with the human body, in ways that are inconceivable using established technologies," he said.  “This approach allows us to put electronics in places where we couldn’t before.  We can now, for the first time, move device design beyond the flatland constraints of conventional systems.”  See also the Science Daily report.
1.  Rogers, Ko et al, “A hemispherical electronic eye camera based on compressible silicon optoelectronics,” Nature 454, 748-753 (7 August 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature07113.
2.  Takao Someya, “Optics: Electronic eyeballs,” Nature 454, 703-704 (7 August 2008) | doi:10.1038/454703a.
How much did this discovery owe to the theory of evolution?  Zip.  The word was absent in all the papers and articles about it.  How much did it depend on intelligent design (i.e., reverse-engineering a contrivance with “attractive design features”)?  That was the whole point.
    Now, if they can get their silicon eyes to work for 90 years, clean themselves, repair themselves, focus themselves, adjust themselves, point themselves, automatically process images, automatically concentrate on useful information, perform at 126 megapixel resolution with motion imaging and reproduce themselves, they will begin to approach the engineering your Creator installed in your eye sockets.  Let’s give credit where it’s due.  Speaking of long-lasting performance, Methuselah’s eyes apparently lasted 969 years.
Footnote:  The prior week, Nature allowed the foul-mouthed, profane blooter for evolution, PZ Myers, to rant about the “scourge of creationism” in his review of a pro-evolution book by Ken Miller (07/31/2008 issue.)  Having eyes, they see not.
Next headline on:  Human BodyBiomimeticsIntelligent DesignAmazing Facts
  How the lens of the human eye stays clear: see 08/28/2003.  Can evolution explain such wonders?  See 08/20/2003.

Adult Stem Cells Race Ahead; Embryonics Falter   08/07/2008    
August 7, 2008 — Major advances are being made with induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS), stem cells reconstituted from adult tissues, while interest in embryonic stem cells (ES) seems to be drying up.
    Both Nature and Science reported advances in iPS technology last week.  Nature reported that the number of factors needed to reconstitute pluripotent stem cells has dropped from four to two.1  Science,2 reporting on another iPS study, said that the factors can be delivered without the need for retroviral insertion – one of the risks of the initial process announced last year (06/06/2007, 01/10/2008).
    Meanwhile, things are looking bleak for embryonic stem cell labs.  Just a few years ago, all the major scientific organizations were pushing the US government to ease restrictions on human cloning so that America could keep up with the world’s gold rush of ES research.  Now, Andrea Gawrylewski blogged on The Scientist July 23 that biotech companies appear to be bailing on ES cells.  At first, investors jumped on the bandwagon.  “But with almost no therapeutic advances to show for the cash, the hype has died down.”  Now, investors are eyeing the iPS technology.  One analyst was quoted: “We’ve had advances in adult stem cells and [FDA] approvals.  Where do you think Wall Street money is going to go?”  Advanced Cell Technology, one of the early ES startups, is struggling to stay in business.
Update 08/11/2008: Twenty lines of diseased cells have been created using iPS technology, reported Science Daily, making it possible for scientists to examine genetic disorders.  Science Daily also reported on the new ability to create iPS cells without the need for the cancer-causing retrovirus used in earlier methods.  The article said, “Researchers hope that such embryonic stem-cell-like cells, known as induced pluripotent (IPS) cells, eventually may treat diseases such as Parkinson’s disease and diabetes.”  In addition Nature News reported that skin cells from an elderly patient were transformed into nerve cells with iPS.  “It is the first time that an induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cell line has been created from a patient with a genetic illness,” Monya Baker reported.  “Like embryonic stem cells, iPS cells have the potential to develop into almost any of the body’s cell types and offer new disease insights.”
    Meanwhile, Science3 reported new ethical worries about embryonic stem cell lines made available by the National Institutes of Health.  Egg cells were collected from donors without proper information and consent, the article explains: one firm told donors that cells “might be used in research,” and another told donors that the cells would be destroyed after a research project.  “Other forms failed to mention that embryos would be destroyed and that cells derived from them could end up in experiments around the world.”  One neurologist said “I was shocked” when she heard about the ethical lapses.  Most researchers “just assumed that the consent had been taken care of.”  Proposals to get retroactive consent from donors, though, will probably go nowhere.  The article ended by indicating that iPS technology might make embryonic stem cells superfluous, even though both presidential candidates (Obama and McCain) support expanding embryonic stem cell lines, as does Congress.


1.  Kim et al, “Pluripotent stem cells induced from adult neural stem cells by reprogramming with two factors,” Nature 454, 646-650 (24 July 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature07061.
2.  Aoi et al, “Generation of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Adult Mouse Liver and Stomach Cells,” Science, 1 August 2008: Vol. 321. no. 5889, pp. 699-702, DOI: 10.1126/science.1154884.
3.  Gretchen Vogel and Constance Holden, “Ethics Questions Add to Concerns About NIH Lines,” Science, 8 August 2008: Vol. 321. no. 5890, pp. 756-757, DOI: 10.1126/science.321.5890.756b.
Don’t forget how the Big Science community held President Bush hostage with claims he didn’t care for the disabled when he twice vetoed Congressional attempts to expand embryonic stem cell research.  Don’t forget how Hollywood tugged at our heartstrings with disabled celebrities begging for cures that could only come from ES cells.  Let this be a lesson about the trustworthiness of Big Science to make right choices on political and moral issues.  Meanwhile, can Californians get their $3 billion back after they were deceived into splurging on this morally-corrupt, dishonestly-hyped boondoggle? (11/03/2004, 02/08/2005, 10/13/2006).  Maybe after they get the Lottery removed.  Good luck.  The Lottery was similarly sold to voters as desperately needed for education.  Multiple editorials since have admitted that Lottery money doesn’t amount to a hill of beans in the school budget.  Meanwhile, a few lucky individuals get filthy rich for no admirable reason on the backs of millions of gullible individuals (who never learned math at public school) who are the least able to throw their money away.
    Baloney detecting should be a prerequisite to entering a voting booth.
Next headline on:  Cell BiologyPolitics and EthicsHealth
Survival of the, Whatever   08/06/2008    
August 6, 2008 — Two articles recently have cast doubt on whether the classic Darwinian phrase “survival of the fittest” fits what happens in nature.
    Science Daily reported on work by researchers at University of Texas at Austin that suggests evolution’s products may not always be optimal.  The team speculated that mutations which help an animal in the short term may not help in the long term.  Working on this idea with computer-simulated RNA, “Their computer models show that the evolution of optimal organisms often requires a long sequence of interacting mutations, each arising by chance and surviving natural selection.”  Good combinations are hard to evolve, they said; that’s why evolution opts for the easy solutions at the expense of the harder, better ones.
    An article in Discover Magazine considered the cute oddball of the animal world, the giant panda.  The panda’s strange diet and clumsy sex life were subjects for a discussion on whether it makes a better poster animal for intelligent design or for evolution.  Surprisingly, author Lizzie Buchen claimed that the panda is “a favorite animal of creationists, who argue that the panda’s survival proves the existence of God.”  Where did that come from?  An embedded link points to an essay by Laurence Smart, who appears to be somewhat of a lone ranger among creationists judging from his website, which lists his own book and writings.  His article on pandas questioned whether natural selection theory would have produced such a creature.  Perhaps Buchen was also thinking of the intelligent-design textbook Of Pandas and People; but in that book, Davis and Kenyon only used pandas as a case study on difficulties with classification and homology.  They did not claim the panda was intelligently or poorly designed.
    Buchen put forth a “possible evolutionary explanation” based on lack of competition for the panda’s diet and sex life.  Summarizing the explanation of Megan Owen at the San Diego Zoo, she opined,
When pandas split off from the bear lineage about 3 million years ago, tasty and nutritious cuisine like meat, fruit, and nuts may have been difficult to obtain while bamboo was ubiquitous—a wide-open ecological niche.  So there were two choices: Exert some serious effort to get the good stuff, or munch away on a seemingly inexhaustible supply of woody grasses.
This led to their modified chewing muscles, unusual “thumbs” and weird digestive system.  “The biggest argument for the intelligent design crowd is the panda’s mating habits,” she alleged without a reference, though Laurence Smart’s lone article did list reported problems with panda sexuality as evidence against natural selection (not, though, as evidence for intelligent design).  Buchen, however, after explaining how natural selection might have favored the panda’s reproductive apparatus and behavior, concluded that “The panda’s weaknesses in today’s world—from its failure to reproduce in captivity to its yawn-inspiring lifestyle—is a product of its natural history, not a malicious joke of an intelligent designer.
Here we have malicious jokes against creationists and slanders against intelligent design, propped up with the Gribbleflix theory of evolution (12/19/2007).  Somehow Buchen’s ability to tell an evolutionary tale gives her the privilege of misrepresenting her opponents and impugning the character of God.  Evolutionists should disown her for bringing up a very Lamarckian view of evolution.  The purpose-driven panda made a choice: munch away on inexhaustible bamboo instead of work hard for meat – as if pandas are capable of choice, or their offspring would inherit an acquired taste.
    To ridicule ID, Buchen set up a straw man argument.  Intelligent design theory does not teach that all parts are optimal.  Rather, it teaches constrained optimality: good design achieves the best combination of trade-offs between competing requirements.  Buchen herself debunked the myth that the panda is a poor reproducer.  That gets rid of much of its bad rap for dysteleology (bad design).  It appears that the panda’s reputation for bumbling breeding habits could well be a product of zookeeper interference; the panda actually seems to do a fair job of mating in the wild.
    As for evolution opting for the easy solution over the difficult one, as claimed by the U of Texas folk, that’s exactly the point Michael Behe made in The Edge of Evolution for a different conclusion.  He demonstrated that under the most ideal circumstances, in the best-studied cases in the world, natural selection acting on random mutations is extremely limited in its creative ability.  It is certainly not up to the task of creating a panda from a pre-panda ancestor.
    What Buchen doesn’t say is that creationists would probably agree that natural selection has devolved the modern panda from its created-kind ancestor.  And what she and the U of Texas crowd should notice is that any theory of evolution that can explain anything explains nothing (04/23/2001).  Furthermore, now that evolutionists are admitting that their theory does not produce fitness, how should they apologize to the millions of victims of Social Darwinism who suffered and died over the absolute fact, proved by Darwin, that superior individuals have the right by law of “survival of the fittest” to exterminate the weak?  Send the reparations-activists knocking on the door of Down House.
Next headline on:  Darwinism and Evolutionary TheoryIntelligent Design
Defeat Spam: Imitate the Body’s Defenses   08/05/2008    
August 5, 2008 — Your body’s immune system is inspiring the next generation of email spam-fighters.  The University of Southampton reported that “An algorithm for spam recognition inspired by the immune system will be presented at the first European conference on Artificial Life (ALIFE XI) being held in Winchester this week.”
    The idea is that “in the same way as the vertebrate adaptive immune system learns to distinguish harmless from harmful substances, these principles can be applied to spam detection.”  The conference is hosted by the University’s new “Science and Engineering of Natural Systems” group.
Natural systems do not do their own science and engineering.  The engineering is embedded in their DNA.  The conference attendees will hear from experts on alleged self-organizing structures and “embedded, embodied, evolving and adaptive systems.”  This is code for intelligent design.  Embedded instructions require design.  Embodied adaptive systems require pre-programmed design by intelligent agents (as in robotics).  Evolving systems that perform such feats without intelligent help, however, exist only in the vivid imaginations of secular evolutionists.  Their best example so far is a tornado in a junkyard.
Next headline on:  BiomimeticsHuman Body
  Contrary to popular perception, the book by Copernicus about the sun-centered universe was widely read at the time.  See the 08/15/2002 entry.  Another 2002 story showed that oil can be made from marble; see 08/13/2002.

Phoenix Did NOT Find Mars Life   08/04/2008    
August 4, 2008 — A media snafu has NASA spokespersons rushing to deny that life has been found on Mars, reported Space.com.  For example, Live Science reporter Leonard David said that the White House has been alerted to the potential for new information about life on Mars based on findings from the Phoenix Lander.  The apparent secrecy has teased the press into thinking life has been found, when all an Aviation Week reporter had said based on his own inside sources was that instrument data has found something that “is increasingly compelling as another piece in the puzzle of life.”  The vagueness of the statement could imply good news or bad news.
    The Space.com damage-control article hastened to explain that Phoenix is incapable of finding life.  The instruments can detect organic molecules, but not life itself.  The reason for caution at the NASA press briefing last week that announced the discovery of water ice (see U of Arizona press release) at the northern latitudes of Mars, where Phoenix set up base camp, is that the scientists want their findings to go through peer review and get published before getting scooped by the popular press.  It is normal procedure for findings to be embargoed by the press till formal publication.
    Another Space.com article by Andrea Thompson explains what Phoenix is capable of detecting.  Organic molecules have not been found at equatorial latitudes because of strong oxidizing processes at work there.  One of the main reasons for putting a lander in the polar regions was the hope that organics could survive there.  Organics are not a sufficient condition for biology, explained a Johns Hopkins scientist.  “Just because there are organic compounds, doesn’t mean that that’s life,”
    Leonard David said this reminded him of the 1996 to-do about a Martian meteorite that some scientists said appeared to show evidence for fossilized microbes.
Update 08/05/2008 morning: Space.com and PhysOrg are now reporting that the chemical found may be perchlorate, a highly reactive oxidant that would be bad news for life.  The tests are inconclusive at this point.
Update 08/05/2008 afternoon: In order to stem “speculation that has become rampant on the web,” reported Space.com, the Phoenix team is admitting perchlorate has been found, but spinning the story to say that it “may not be harmful to any potential life there and could in fact be a boon to it.”  The highly-oxidizing substance could be an energy source, for instance, and some life survives in Earth’s Atacama Desert in spite of the presence of perchlorates.  There is a slim possibility the perchlorate came from a solid rocket booster, but the team feels their readings from the Phoenix instruments show it was present in the soil samples.  PhysOrg printed a brief report, and later, BBC News and Science Daily denied a NASA cover-up.  They reiterated the latest spin that the discovery of perchlorate “was fascinating but made ‘life on Mars’ neither more nor less likely.”

So they did not claim to find any organics, and they found a highly-oxidizing substance that would normally be toxic to life.  You’d think after so many years of bad news from Mars (02/18/2008, 01/09/2007, 01/28/2005) that Martian fever would be dead, but look at faith of the believers.  Phoenix could find one molecule of tailpipe soot, call it organic, and the press would go bananas.  Even if the soot turned out to be residue from the lander’s own thrusters, by then the media will have soaked it for all its evolutionary worth.  The Martian Meteorite story launched NASA’s revitalized Mars program and started the new “science” of astrobiology (04/17/2006).  Only later did we realize it was scientifically unfounded.  We’re all for exploring Mars but NASA had better find better reasons for going than titillating the public with false hopes and dubious inferences from questionable data.
    Organics are to life what letters are to a book.  It’s not the presence of the letters, but the way they are put together, that signifies life.  When looking for life, don’t just follow the water.  Follow the instructions (12/30/2002).
Next headline on:  Solar SystemOrigin of LifeMedia
Scientists Bemoan Research Fraud   08/02/2008    
August 02, 2008 — A commentary entitled “Repairing research integrity” published in Nature June 181 struck a nerve.  Three letters to the editor in the July 31 issue said the problem is worse than Titus, Wells and Rhoades indicated when they said many issues of research fraud go unreported, and suggested principles to fix the problem.
    The letters to the editor were disturbing.  Two Brazilian researchers said fraud is widespread in their country: “If misconduct allegations are ever filed, official statements are usually vague and investigations can take several years,” they said.  “Whistle-blowers are typically frowned upon by their colleagues and officials at their institutions.”
    A Croatian letter-writer said that integrity is more common in America than elsewhere.  “Take Europe, where – apart from in Scandinavia, Germany, the United Kingdom and, to some degree, France – little or no regulation exists to control scientific misconduct.  Individual cases of fraud can therefore be more easily hidden and may be far more common than in countries with established standards.”
    A letter by two Americans was perhaps the most disturbing.  They opined that dishonesty is endemic from the top down: “The academic and financial rewards of calculated, cautious dishonesty on the part of some scientific leaders are, we believe, all too apparent to the junior scientists they supervise,” they said.  “No amount of tutoring, stricter supervision or courses in research ethics will fix this problem.
    Maybe scientists need a little fear of God.
1.  Titus, Wells and Rhoades, “Repairing research integrity,” Nature 453, 980-982 (19 June 2008) | doi:10.1038/453980a.
Remember, this is the culture announcing to you that Darwinism is a fact of science.  Tell us, Mr. Darwin, where integrity evolved from.  Science needs Biblical morality whether it acknowledges it or not.  Let him who is without sin cast the first stone at the despised outcast accused of prostituting science with religion.
Next headline on:  Politics and EthicsBible and Theology
How Much Is Known About Climate History?   08/01/2008    
August 1, 2008 — Scientific papers on earth history can seem very erudite and confident, filled with jargon and named periods that appear carved in stone.  Every once in awhile, though, a surprise discovery raises questions about how sound their timelines and models really are.  Get a load of this opening to a review by Jacqueline Flückiger,1 an environmental physicist in Zurich, of a paper in Science2 that said major climate changes can occur much more rapidly than thought:
When Manhattan froze in a day in the movie The Day After Tomorrow as a result of an abrupt change in the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, scientists emphasized the physical impossibility of this scenario.  Now some might be stunned by how quickly climate can change.  On page 680 of this issue, Steffensen et al. zoom in on three climatic shifts recorded in the NGRIP ice core from central Greenland... and show that the atmospheric circulation at mid to high northern latitudes changed within just 1 to 3 years.
In looking at the paper and the review, however, questions arise about how scientists know what they are talking about.  The conclusions rely heavily on ice core data, and interpreting these rely heavily on oxygen-isotope ratios.  We saw from the 07/29/2008 entry that assumptions underlying the use of oxygen isotope data can be drastically wrong.
    Flückiger wrote matter-of-factly about several prehistoric climate periods, such as “Bølling-Allerød warm period (~14,700 years ago) and the onset (~12,850 years ago) and termination (~11,700 years ago) of the Younger Dryas cold period.”  To the extent these periods, named after modern human beings who weren’t living at the time, are calibrated by proxy measurements based on questionable assumptions, how reliable are the conclusions?
    The review waltzes past these questions with an air of certitude: “The high resolution of the records allows them to precisely define the duration of the shifts, and because all measurements were done along the same ice core, the sequence of events in different proxies can be compared without uncertainty in the relative timing.”  In addition, she discussed correlations with other data sets besides the ice cores.
    Actually, though, the interpretation of the data is heavily influenced by the consensus theories in which the models are embedded.  The fact that both the reviewer and the research team were very surprised at the rapidity of major climate changes they interpreted from the ice cores should disturb the confidence placed in the pronouncements of the experts.  In addition, they are dealing with very complex – almost chaotic – causes of change.  In her ending paragraphs, Flückiger herself cast doubt on the confidence level of the outputs based on the complexity of the inputs:
Global coupled climate models provide one way to study the complex mechanisms that underlie climate shifts.  Simulated climate shifts are, however, considerably slower than the observed ones, lasting a hundred to a few hundred years.  This might be due to missing feedbacks, the wrong forcing of the abrupt shifts, or a misguided focus on changes in ocean circulation or temperature, rather than other aspects of the climate system.  A closer look at wind patterns and atmospheric circulation in models will either reveal faster shifts and help clarify the underlying mechanisms, or tell us that better models are needed to study that question.
    We should keep in mind that we only know the relative timing for three events so far, and that each of them looks somewhat different.  Greenland ice cores offer the opportunity to study the 24 Dansgaard-Oeschger events of the last glacial period at a similar resolution.  The data from all events, in combination with annually resolved records from other archives and improved models, will help to elucidate the dynamics of these events, revealing what they have in common, and what parts of the shifts are random.
    The data reported by Steffensen et al. underscore the fact that the atmospheric circulation may shift from one state to another within just 1 year.  With ongoing global warming, the climate system might therefore hold some surprises.
So the modelers are dealing with just a few inputs, without knowing what other inputs there are, or how relevant they are.  Scientists may have a “misguided focus” on some data sets.  Their models differ in resolution from real-time effects by orders of magnitude.  They do not understand the dynamics of important events, nor what they have in common.  Some inputs are admittedly random.  The question no one seems to be asking is, based on these uncertainties, how do they know the timeline and named periods of which they speak confidently have any connection to the real history of the earth?  Steffensen et al ended their paper saying, “Neither the magnitude of such shifts nor their abruptness is currently captured by state-of-the-art climate models.... If we are to be confident in the ability of those models to accurately predict the impacts of future abrupt change, their ability to match what we see in the past is crucial.”  For more on problems with climate models, see the 02/05/2008 entry.
    Another indication that global climate reconstruction and prediction is a dubious art showed up in a Science Daily story.  Everyone has been hearing lately about the shrinkage of the Antarctic ice sheets and the disappearance of ice near the North Pole.  Such announcements are usually stated in a tone of alarm, foretelling that the earth’s climate is in peril.  Why, then, did this article state nonchalantly that Antarctica was ice-free 40 million years ago?  Sure enough, a fossil “snapshot” from New Zealand “reveals a greenhouse Earth, with warmer seas and little or no ice in Antarctica.”  Another article in Science Daily discussed warm-water fossils found in Antarctica and said it proved that the South Pole continent was ice free again 14 million years ago.  The BBC News said the warm-water ostracod fossils show exceptional preservation in three dimensions.
    Considering these questions and issues about scientific certainty when dealing with complex phenomena, it seems ironic that Nature, in a book review this week,3 took a jab at politicians.  Jan Witkowski (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) reviewed a new book about the tragic story of how Stalin elevated Lysenko, a charlatan, and murdered Nikolai Vavilov, a noble-minded scientist sincerely trying to help feed the Russian people through good genetic research.  Lysenko’s misguided policies resulted in the death of millions of people from starvation.  Instead of aiming his moral lesson at communism, however, Witkowski seemed to have Washington on his mind: “Even now, politics continues to trump good science, as is evident from the delays in reducing global carbon emissions,” he said.  “Pringle’s very readable account is a timely reminder that public policies must be based on rational decisions drawn from the best data available.”  Does he really think that is what is going on at the U.N.?
Update 08/04/2008: The paper on the Antarctic fossils came out on PNAS today.4  The authors found moss tissues that were “freeze-dried” and unfossilized – i.e., the actual moss tissues were intact.  Based on radiometric dating of ash falls in the area, they claim these delicate tissues, along with detailed parts of beetles and ostracods, have persisted in this dry valley for 14 million years.  PhysOrg reported the story, too, and Live Science quoted a researcher who said, “We knew we shouldn’t expect to see something like that.”
    On the same day, Science Daily reported claims that an abrupt climate change occurred in Western Europe 12,700 years ago.  The “extremely rapid” cooling occurred “long before human-made changes in the atmosphere.”
1.  Jacqueline Flückiger, “Climate Change: Did You Say ‘Fast’?” Science, 1 August 2008: Vol. 321. no. 5889, pp. 650-651, DOI: 10.1126/science.1159821.
2.  Steffensen et al, “High-Resolution Greenland Ice Core Data Show Abrupt Climate Change Happens in Few Years,” Science, 1 August 2008: Vol. 321. no. 5889, pp. 680-684, DOI: 10.1126/science.1157707.
3.  Jan Witkowski, “Stalin’s War on Genetic Science,” Nature 454, 577-579 (31 July 2008) | doi:10.1038/454577a.
4.  Lewis et al, “Mid-Miocene cooling and the extinction of tundra in continental Antarctica,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, published online before print August 4, 2008, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0802501105.
One of the scientists in the Antarctic-moss story quickly used the data for a global warming sermon: “You have to understand where these thresholds are, because, if human beings are unfortunate enough to push climate over one of these thresholds, it could be a total catastrophe.”  Instead of repenting over his evolutionary timeline have just been falsified, he got self-righteous about what humans should do.
    One thing you learn pretty quick in the science reporting business (that is, if you think independently and don’t follow the Darwiniac parade) is that the same people pushing evolution-only in the schools are the ones pushing ruining the economy over global warming in the UN: i.e., leftist radicals and secular-progressive liberals.  These, furthermore, are the same people with a high-and-mighty attitude about their scientific consensus being too urgent for free speech and democracy.  Their views must be imposed on the public by the elite, through the World Court if necessary.
    A number of ironies appear here.  Witkowski rightly accused Stalin of politically-motivated policies that killed millions based on bad science, but thinks killing millions today based on bad science is rational and good.  (Global warming is typically off-topic in these pages, but if countries implement what the IPCC and Kyoto recommend, the consequences will be brutal on the most vulnerable people in the world.)
    Another irony is that he knows humans could not have caused the global warming that supposedly occurred 14 and 40 million years ago, but we must slash our wrists today over our ecological sins.  (The papers above reveal that drastic climate change has apparently occurred surprisingly fast without man’s help, enough to melt the poles, and life got by in spite of it.  That includes all the mammals, birds, Galapagos tortoises, penguins, tuataras and other endangered species that apparently got through the warm periods just fine.)
    A third irony is that Witkowski (with Nature’s blessing) called us to make rational decisions drawn from the best data available.  But the book he was reviewing was about genetics and farming, not climate change.  You can grow plants in real time in the lab.  You can test what makes plants and crops grow best and watch the results in weeks or months.  Climate modelers, however, have to deal with chaotic and complex inputs, using proxy measurements, based on questionable assumptions, with unknown numbers of factors with unknown dynamics and unknown relative importance, confounded by feedback effects that are poorly understood, about prehistoric phenomena that cannot be directly observed.  Indeed, their models look more like the convoluted theories of Lysenko than the experimental science of Mendel and Vavilov.
    If Witkowski meant to impugn today’s communist countries instead of Washington, we forgive him, but experience teaches us that when Nature and Big Science accuses “politics” of trumping “good science” it means another conservative-bashing party is in progress.  Let the reader beware (see previous entry, 08/02/2008).
    Our readers know that good science is highly regarded here.  We are unmerciful, though, against dogmatists employing the good name of science wrongfully.  It’s hard sometimes to look past the arrogance in the papers for the kernels of truth in raw data, but respect for science demands it.  The rare scientist who shows humility, who recognizes he could be wrong, who shows honesty and integrity and a desire to serve humankind through science, and a willingness to be corrected and learn from other points of view, is like a ray of warming sun in a blizzard of fogma.*
*See 05/14/2007 commentary.
Next headline on:  GeologyDating MethodsFossilsPolitics and Ethics


Scientist of the Month

Click on Apollos, the trusty
Find our articles in:
     
Dutch  Spanish  Russian
Guide to Evolution
Feedback
Write Us!

“I enjoyed reading your site.  I completely disagree with you on just about every point, but you do an excellent job of organizing information.”
(a software engineer in Virginia.  His criticisms led to an engaging dialogue.  He left off at one point, saying, “You have given me much to think about.”)

“I have learned so much since discovering your site about 3 years ago.  I am a homeschooling mother of five and my children and I are just in wonder over some the discoveries in science that have been explored on creation-evolution headlines.  The baloney detector will become a part of my curriculum during the next school year.  EVERYONE I know needs to be well versed on the types of deceptive practices used by those opposed to truth, whether it be in science, politics, or whatever the subject.”
(a homeschooling mom in Mississippi)

“Just wanted to say how much I love your website.  You present the truth in a very direct, comprehensive manner, while peeling away the layers of propaganda disguised as 'evidence' for the theory of evolution.”
(a health care worker in Canada)

“I’ve been reading you daily for about a year now.  I’m extremely impressed with how many sources you keep tabs on and I rely on you to keep my finger on the pulse of the controversy now.”
(a web application programmer in Maryland)

“I would like to express my appreciation for your work exposing the Darwinist assumptions and speculation masquerading as science.... When I discovered your site through a link... I knew that I had struck gold! ....Your site has helped me to understand how the Darwinists use propaganda techniques to confuse the public.  I never would have had so much insight otherwise... I check your site almost daily to keep informed of new developments.”
(a lumber mill employee in Florida)

“I have been reading your website for about the past year or so.  You are [an] excellent resource.  Your information and analysis is spot on, up to date and accurate.  Keep up the good work.”
(an accountant in Illinois)

“This website redefines debunking.  Thanks for wading through the obfuscation that passes for evolution science to expose the sartorial deficiencies of Emperor Charles and his minions.  Simply the best site of its kind, an amazing resource.  Keep up the great work!”
(an engineer in Michigan)

“I have been a fan of your daily news items for about two years, when a friend pointed me to it.  I now visit every day (or almost every day)... A quick kudo: You are amazing, incredible, thorough, indispensable, and I could list another ten superlatives.  Again, I just don’t know how you manage to comb so widely, in so many technical journals, to come up with all this great ‘news from science’ info.”
(a PhD professor of scientific rhetoric in Florida and author of two books, who added that he was “awe-struck” by this site)

“Like your site especially the ‘style’ of your comments.... Keep up the good work.”
(a retired engineer and amateur astronomer in Maryland)

“I really enjoy your website, the first I visit every day.  I have a quote by Mark Twain which seems to me to describe the Darwinian philosophy of science perfectly.  ‘There is something fascinating about science.  One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.’  Working as I do in the Environmental field (I am a geologist doing groundwater contamination project management for a state agency) I see that kind of science a lot.  Keep up the good work!!”
(a hydrogeologist in Alabama)

“I visit your website regularly and I commend you on your work.  I applaud your effort to pull actual science from the mass of propaganda for Evolution you report on (at least on those rare occasions when there actually is any science in the propaganda).  I also must say that I'm amazed at your capacity to continually plow through the propaganda day after day and provide cutting and amusing commentary....  I can only hope that youthful surfers will stop by your website for a fair and interesting critique of the dogma they have to imbibe in school.”
(a technical writer living in Jerusalem)

“I have enjoyed your site for several years now.  Thanks for all the hard work you obviously put into this.  I appreciate your insights, especially the biological oriented ones in which I'm far behind the nomenclature curve.  It would be impossible for me to understand what's going on without some interpretation.  Thanks again.”
(a manufacturing engineer in Vermont)

“Love your site and your enormous amount of intellectualism and candor regarding the evolution debate.  Yours is one site I look forward to on a daily basis.  Thank you for being a voice for the rest of us.”
(a graphic designer in Wisconsin)

“For sound, thoughtful commentary on creation-evolution hot topics go to Creation-Evolution Headlines.
(Access Research Network 12/28/2007).

”Your website is simply the best (and I’d dare say one of the most important) web sites on the entire WWW.”
(an IT specialist at an Alabama university)

“I’ve been reading the articles on this website for over a year, and I’m guilty of not showing any appreciation.  You provide a great service.  It’s one of the most informative and up-to-date resources on creation available anywhere.  Thank you so much.  Please keep up the great work.”
(a senior research scientist in Georgia)

“Just a note to thank you for your site.  I am a regular visitor and I use your site to rebut evolutionary "just so" stories often seen in our local media.  I know what you do is a lot of work but you make a difference and are appreciated.”
(a veterinarian in Minnesota)

“This is one of the best sites I have ever visited.  Thanks.  I have passed it on to several others... I am a retired grandmother. I have been studying the creation/evolution question for about 50 yrs.... Thanks for the info and enjoyable site.”
(a retiree in Florida)

“It is refreshing to know that there are valuable resources such as Creation-Evolution Headlines that can keep us updated on the latest scientific news that affect our view of the world, and more importantly to help us decipher through the rhetoric so carelessly disseminated by evolutionary scientists.  I find it ‘Intellectually Satisfying’ to know that I don’t have to park my brain at the door to be a ‘believer’ or at the very least, to not believe in Macroevolution.”
(a loan specialist in California)

“I have greatly benefitted from your efforts.  I very much look forward to your latest posts.”
(an attorney in California)

“I must say your website provides an invaluable arsenal in this war for souls that is being fought.  Your commentaries move me to laughter or sadness.  I have been viewing your information for about 6 months and find it one of the best on the web.  It is certainly effective against the nonsense published on Talkorigins.org.  It great to see work that glorifies God and His creation.”
(a commercial manager in Australia)

“Visiting daily your site and really do love it.”
(a retiree from Finland who studied math and computer science)

“I am agnostic but I can never deny that organic life (except human) is doing a wonderful job at functioning at optimum capacity.  Thank you for this ... site!”
(an evolutionary theorist from Australia)

“During the year I have looked at your site, I have gone through your archives and found them to be very helpful and informative.  I am so impressed that I forward link to members of my congregation who I believe are interested in a higher level discussion of creationist issues than they will find at [a leading origins website].”
(a minister in Virginia)

“I attended a public school in KS where evolution was taught.  I have rejected evolution but have not always known the answers to some of the questions.... A friend told me about your site and I like it, I have it on my favorites, and I check it every day.”
(an auto technician in Missouri)

“Thanks for a great site!  It has brilliant insights into the world of science and of the evolutionary dogma.  One of the best sites I know of on the internet!”
(a programmer in Iceland)

“The site you run – creation-evolution headlines is extremely useful to me.  I get so tired of what passes for science – Darwinism in particular – and I find your site a refreshing antidote to the usual junk.... it is clear that your thinking and logic and willingness to look at the evidence for what the evidence says is much greater than what I read in what are now called science journals.  Please keep up the good work.  I appreciate what you are doing more than I can communicate in this e-mail.”
(a teacher in California)

“Although we are often in disagreement, I have the greatest respect and admiration for your writing.”
(an octogenarian agnostic in Palm Springs)

“your website is absolutely superb and unique.  No other site out there provides an informed & insightful ‘running critique’ of the current goings-on in the scientific establishment.  Thanks for keeping us informed.”
(a mechanical designer in Indiana)

“I have been a fan of your site for some time now.  I enjoy reading the ‘No Spin’ of what is being discussed.... keep up the good work, the world needs to be shown just how little the ‘scientist’ [sic] do know in regards to origins.”
(a network engineer in South Carolina)

“I am a young man and it is encouraging to find a scientific ‘journal’ on the side of creationism and intelligent design.... Thank you for your very encouraging website.”
(a web designer and author in Maryland)

“GREAT site.  Your ability to expose the clothesless emperor in clear language is indispensable to us non-science types who have a hard time seeing through the jargon and the hype.  Your tireless efforts result in encouragement and are a great service to the faith community.  Please keep it up!”
(a medical writer in Connecticut)

“I really love your site and check it everyday.  I also recommend it to everyone I can, because there is no better website for current information about ID.”
(a product designer in Utah)

“Your site is a fantastic resource.  By far, it is the most current, relevant and most frequently updated site keeping track of science news from a creationist perspective.  One by one, articles challenging currently-held aspects of evolution do not amount to much.  But when browsing the archives, it’s apparent you’ve caught bucketfulls of science articles and news items that devastate evolution.  The links and references are wonderful tools for storming the gates of evolutionary paradise and ripping down their strongholds.  The commentary is the icing on the cake.  Thanks for all your hard work, and by all means, keep it up!”
(a business student in Kentucky)

“Thanks for your awesome work; it stimulates my mind and encourages my faith.”
(a family physician in Texas)

“I wanted to personally thank you for your outstanding website.  I am intensely interested in any science news having to do with creation, especially regarding astronomy.  Thanks again for your GREAT website!”
(an amateur astronomer in San Diego)

“What an absolutely brilliant website you have.  It’s hard to express how uplifting it is for me to stumble across something of such high quality.”
(a pharmacologist in Michigan)

“I want to make a brief commendation in passing of the outstanding job you did in rebutting the ‘thinking’ on the article: “Evolution of Electrical Engineering” ...  What a rebuttal to end all rebuttals, unanswerable, inspiring, and so noteworthy that was.  Thanks for the effort and research you put into it.  I wish this answer could be posted in every church, synagogue, secondary school, and college/university..., and needless to say scientific laboratories.”
(a reader in Florida)

“You provide a great service with your thorough coverage of news stories relating to the creation-evolution controversy.”
(an elder of a Christian church in Salt Lake City)

“I really enjoy your website and have made it my home page so I can check on your latest articles.  I am amazed at the diversity of topics you address.  I tell everyone I can about your site and encourage them to check it frequently.”
(a business owner in Salt Lake City)

“I’ve been a regular reader of CEH for about nine month now, and I look forward to each new posting.... I enjoy the information CEH gleans from current events in science and hope you keep the service going.”
(a mechanical engineer in Utah)

“It took six years of constant study of evolution to overcome the indoctrination found in public schools of my youth.  I now rely on your site; it helps me to see the work of God where I could not see it before and to find miracles where there was only mystery.  Your site is a daily devotional that I go to once a day and recommend to everyone.  I am still susceptible to the wiles of fake science and I need the fellowship of your site; such information is rarely found in a church.
    Now my eyes see the stars God made and the life He designed and I feel the rumblings of joy as promised.  When I feel down or worried my solution is to praise God the Creator Of All That Is, and my concerns drain away while peace and joy fill the void.  This is something I could not do when I did not know (know: a clear and accurate perception of truth) God as Creator.  I could go on and on about the difference knowing our Creator has made, but I believe you understand.
    I tell everyone that gives me an opening about your site.  God is working through you.  Please don’t stop telling us how to see the lies or leading us in celebrating the truth.  Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you.”
(a renowned artist in Wyoming)

“I discovered your site a few months ago and it has become essential reading – via RSS to Bloglines.”
(a cartographer and GIS analyst in New Zealand)

“I love your site, and frequently visit to read both explanations of news reports, and your humor about Bonny Saint Charlie.”
(a nuclear safety engineer in Washington)

“Your site is wonderful.”
(a senior staff scientist, retired, from Arizona)

“I’ve told many people about your site.  It’s a tremendous service to science news junkies – not to mention students of both Christianity and Science.  Kudos!”
(a meteorology research scientist in Alabama)

“...let me thank you for your Creation-Evolution Headlines.  I’ve been an avid reader of it since I first ‘discovered’ your website about five years ago.  May I also express my admiration for the speed with which your articles appear—often within 24 hours of a particular news announcement or journal article being published.”
(a plant physiologist and prominent creation writer in Australia)

“How do you guys do it--reviewing so much relevant material every day and writing incisive, thoughtful analyses?!”
(a retired high school biology teacher in New Jersey)

“Your site is one of the best out there!  I really love reading your articles on creation evolution headlines and visit this section almost daily.”
(a webmaster in the Netherlands)

“Keep it up!  I’ve been hitting your site daily (or more...).  I sure hope you get a mountain of encouraging email, you deserve it.”
(a small business owner in Oregon)

“Great work!  May your tribe increase!!!”
(a former Marxist, now ID speaker in Brazil)

“You are the best.  Thank you.... The work you do is very important.  Please don’t ever give up.  God bless the whole team.”
(an engineer and computer consultant in Virginia)

“I really appreciate your work in this topic, so you should never stop doing what you do, ’cause you have a lot of readers out there, even in small countries in Europe, like Slovenia is... I use crev.info for all my signatures on Internet forums etc., it really is fantastic site, the best site!  You see, we(your pleased readers) exist all over the world, so you must be doing great work!  Well i hope you have understand my bad english.”
(a biology student in Slovenia)

“Thanks for your time, effort, expertise, and humor.  As a public school biology teacher I peruse your site constantly for new information that will challenge evolutionary belief and share much of what I learn with my students.  Your site is pounding a huge dent in evolution’s supposed solid exterior.  Keep it up.”
(a biology teacher in the eastern USA)

“Several years ago, I became aware of your Creation-Evolution Headlines web site.  For several years now, it has been one of my favorite internet sites.  I many times check your website first, before going on to check the secular news and other creation web sites.
    I continue to be impressed with your writing and research skills, your humor, and your technical and scientific knowledge and understanding.  Your ability to cut through the inconsequentials and zero in on the principle issues is one of the characteristics that is a valuable asset....
    I commend you for the completeness and thoroughness with which you provide coverage of the issues.  You obviously spend a great deal of time on this work.  It is apparent in ever so many ways.
    Also, your background topics of logic and propaganda techniques have been useful as classroom aides, helping others to learn to use their baloney detectors.
    Through the years, I have directed many to your site.  For their sake and mine, I hope you will be able to continue providing this very important, very much needed, educational, humorous, thought provoking work.”
(an engineer in Missouri)

“I am so glad I found your site.  I love reading short blurbs about recent discoveries, etc, and your commentary often highlights that the discovery can be ‘interpreted’ in two differing ways, and usually with the pro-God/Design viewpoint making more sense.  It’s such a refreshing difference from the usual media spin.  Often you’ll have a story up along with comment before the masses even know about the story yet.”
(a system administrator in Texas, who calls CEH the “UnSpin Zone”)

“You are indeed the ‘Rush Limbaugh’ Truth Detector of science falsely so-called.  Keep up the excellent work.”
(a safety director in Michigan)

“I know of no better way to stay informed with current scientific research than to read your site everyday, which in turn has helped me understand many of the concepts not in my area (particle physics) and which I hear about in school or in the media.  Also, I just love the commentaries and the baloney detecting!!”
(a grad student in particle physics)

“I thank you for your ministry.  May God bless you!  You are doing great job effectively exposing pagan lie of evolution.  Among all known to me creation ministries [well-known organizations listed] Creationsafaris stands unique thanks to qualitative survey and analysis of scientific publications and news.  I became permanent reader ever since discovered your site half a year ago.  Moreover your ministry is effective tool for intensive and deep education for cristians.”
(a webmaster in Ukraine, seeking permission to translate CEH articles into Russian to reach countries across the former Soviet Union)

“The scholarship of the editors is unquestionable.  The objectivity of the editors is admirable in face of all the unfounded claims of evolutionists and Darwinists.  The amount of new data available each day on the site is phenomenal (I can’t wait to see the next new article each time I log on).  Most importantly, the TRUTH is always and forever the primary goal of the people who run this website.  Thank you so very much for 6 years of consistent dedication to the TRUTH.”
(11 months earlier): “I just completed reading each entry from each month.  I found your site about 6 months ago and as soon as I understood the format, I just started at the very first entry and started reading.... Your work has blessed my education and determination to bold in showing the ‘unscientific’ nature of evolution in general and Darwinism in particular.”
(a medical doctor in Oklahoma)

“Thanks for the showing courage in marching against a popular unproven unscientific belief system.  I don’t think I missed 1 article in the past couple of years.”
(a manufacturing engineer in Australia)

“I do not know and cannot imagine how much time you must spend to read, research and compile your analysis of current findings in almost every area of science.  But I do know I thank you for it.”
(a practice administrator in Maryland)

“Since finding your insightful comments some 18 or more months ago, I’ve visited your site daily.... You so very adeptly and adroitly undress the emperor daily; so much so one wonders if he might not soon catch cold and fall ill off his throne! .... To you I wish much continued success and many more years of fun and frolicking undoing the damage taxpayers are forced to fund through unending story spinning by ideologically biased scientists.”
(an investment advisor in Missouri)

“I really like your articles.  You do a fabulous job of cutting through the double-talk and exposing the real issues.  Thank you for your hard work and diligence.”
(an engineer in Texas)

“I love your site.  Found it about maybe two years ago and I read it every day.  I love the closing comments in green.  You have a real knack for exposing the toothless claims of the evolutionists.  Your comments are very helpful for many us who don’t know enough to respond to their claims.  Thanks for your good work and keep it up.”
(a missionary in Japan)

“I just thought I’d write and tell you how much I appreciate your headline list and commentary.  It’s inspired a lot of thought and consideration.  I check your listings every day!”
(a computer programmer in Tulsa)

“Just wanted to thank you for your creation/evolution news ... an outstanding educational resource.“
(director of a consulting company in Australia)

“Your insights ... been some of the most helpful – not surprising considering the caliber of your most-excellent website!  I’m serious, ..., your website has to be the best creation website out there....”
(a biologist and science writer in southern California)

“I first learned of your web site on March 29.... Your site has far exceeded my expectations and is consulted daily for the latest.  I join with other readers in praising your time and energy spent to educate, illuminate, expose errors.... The links are a great help in understanding the news items.  The archival structure is marvelous....  Your site brings back dignity to Science conducted as it should be.  Best regards for your continuing work and influence.  Lives are being changed and sustained every day.”
(a manufacturing quality engineer in Mississippi)

“I wrote you over three years ago letting you know how much I enjoyed your Creation-Evolution headlines, as well as your Creation Safaris site.  I stated then that I read your headlines and commentary every day, and that is still true!  My interest in many sites has come and gone over the years, but your site is still at the top of my list!  I am so thankful that you take the time to read and analyze some of the scientific journals out there; which I don’t have the time to read myself.  Your commentary is very, very much appreciated.”
(a hike leader and nature-lover in Ontario, Canada)

“...just wanted to say how much I admire your site and your writing.  You’re very insightful and have quite a broad range of knowledge.  Anyway, just wanted to say that I am a big fan!”
(a PhD biochemist at a major university)

“I love your site and syndicate your content on my church website.... The stories you highlight show the irrelevancy of evolutionary theory and that evolutionists have perpetual ‘foot and mouth’ disease; doing a great job of discrediting themselves.  Keep up the good work.”
(a database administrator and CEH “junkie” in California)

“I can’t tell you how much I enjoy your article reviews on your website—it’s a HUGE asset!”
(a lawyer in Washington)

“Really, really, really a fantastic site.  Your wit makes a razor appear dull!... A million thanks for your site.”
(a small business owner in Oregon “and father of children who love your site too.”)

“Thank God for ... Creation Evolution Headlines.  This site is right at the cutting edge in the debate over bio-origins and is crucial in working to undermine the deceived mindset of naturalism.  The arguments presented are unassailable (all articles having first been thoroughly ‘baloney detected’) and the narrative always lands just on the right side of the layman’s comprehension limits... Very highly recommended to all, especially, of course, to those who have never thought to question the ‘fact’ of evolution.”
(a business owner in Somerset, UK)

“I continue to note the difference between the dismal derogations of the darwinite devotees, opposed to the openness and humor of rigorous, follow-the-evidence scientists on the Truth side.  Keep up the great work.”
(a math/science teacher with M.A. in anthropology)

“Your material is clearly among the best I have ever read on evolution problems!  I hope a book is in the works!”
(a biology prof in Ohio)

“I have enjoyed reading the sardonic apologetics on the Creation/Evolution Headlines section of your web site.  Keep up the good work!”
(an IT business owner in California)

“Your commentaries ... are always delightful.”
(president of a Canadian creation group)

“I’m pleased to see... your amazing work on the ‘Headlines’.”
(secretary of a creation society in the UK)

“We appreciate all you do at crev.info.”
(a publisher of creation and ID materials)

“I was grateful for creationsafaris.com for help with baloney detecting.  I had read about the fish-o-pod and wanted to see what you thought.  Your comments were helpful and encouraged me that my own ‘baloney detecting’ skill are improving.  I also enjoyed reading your reaction to the article on evolution teachers doing battle with students.... I will ask my girls to read your comments on the proper way to question their teachers.”
(a home-schooling mom)

“I just want to express how dissapointed [sic] I am in your website.  Instead of being objective, the website is entirely one sided, favoring creationism over evolution, as if the two are contradictory.... Did man and simien [sic] evovlve [sic] at random from a common ancestor?  Or did God guide this evolution?  I don’t know.  But all things, including the laws of nature, originate from God.... To deny evolution is to deny God’s creation.  To embrace evolution is to not only embrace his creation, but to better appreciate it.”
(a student in Saginaw, Michigan)

“I immensely enjoy reading the Creation-Evolution Headlines.  The way you use words exposes the bankruptcy of the evolutionary worldview.”
(a student at Northern Michigan U)

“...standing O for crev.info.”
(a database programmer in California)

“Just wanted to say that I am thrilled to have found your website!  Although I regularly visit numerous creation/evolution sites, I’ve found that many of them do not stay current with relative information.  I love the almost daily updates to your ‘headlines’ section.  I’ve since made it my browser home page, and have recommended it to several of my friends.  Absolutely great site!”
(a network engineer in Florida)

“After I heard about Creation-Evolution Headlines, it soon became my favorite Evolution resource site on the web.  I visit several times a day cause I can’t wait for the next update.  That’s pathetic, I know ... but not nearly as pathetic as Evolution, something you make completely obvious with your snappy, intelligent commentary on scientific current events.  It should be a textbook for science classrooms around the country.  You rock!”
(an editor in Tennessee)

“One of the highlights of my day is checking your latest CreationSafaris creation-evolution news listing!  Thanks so much for your great work -- and your wonderful humor.”
(a pastor in Virginia)

“Thanks!!!  Your material is absolutely awesome.  I’ll be using it in our Adult Sunday School class.”
(a pastor in Wisconsin)

“Love your site & read it daily.”
(a family physician in Texas)

“I set it [crev.info] up as my homepage.  That way I am less likely to miss some really interesting events.... I really appreciate what you are doing with Creation-Evolution Headlines.  I tell everybody I think might be interested, to check it out.”
(a systems analyst in Tennessee)

“I would like to thank you for your service from which I stand to benefit a lot.”
(a Swiss astrophysicist)

“I enjoy very much reading your materials.”
(a law professor in Portugal)

“Thanks for your time and thanks for all the work on the site.  It has been a valuable resource for me.”
(a medical student in Kansas)

“Creation-Evolution Headlines is a terrific resource.  The articles are always current and the commentary is right on the mark.”
(a molecular biologist in Illinois)

Creation-Evolution Headlines is my favorite ‘anti-evolution’ website.  With almost giddy anticipation, I check it several times a week for the latest postings.  May God bless you and empower you to keep up this FANTASTIC work!”
(a financial analyst in New York)

“I read your pages on a daily basis and I would like to let you know that your hard work has been a great help in increasing my knowledge and growing in my faith.  Besides the huge variety of scientific disciplines covered, I also enormously enjoy your great sense of humor and your creativity in wording your thoughts, which make reading your website even more enjoyable.”
(a software developer in Illinois)

“THANK YOU for all the work you do to make this wonderful resource!  After being regular readers for a long time, this year we’ve incorporated your site into our home education for our four teenagers.  The Baloney Detector is part of their Logic and Reasoning Skills course, and the Daily Headlines and Scientists of the Month features are a big part of our curriculum for an elective called ‘Science Discovery Past and Present’.  What a wonderful goldmine for equipping future leaders and researchers with the tools of clear thinking!
(a home school teacher in California)

“What can I say – I LOVE YOU! – I READ YOU ALMOST EVERY DAY I copy and send out to various folks.  I love your sense of humor, including your politics and of course your faith.  I appreciate and use your knowledge – What can I say – THANK YOU – THANK YOU – THANK YOU – SO MUCH.”
(a biology major, former evolutionist, now father of college students)

“I came across your site while browsing through creation & science links.  I love the work you do!”
(an attorney in Florida)

“Love your commentary and up to date reporting.  Best site for evolution/design info.”
(a graphic designer in Oregon)

“I am an ardent reader of your site.  I applaud your efforts and pass on your website to all I talk to.  I have recently given your web site info to all my grandchildren to have them present it to their science teachers.... Your Supporter and fan..God bless you all...”
(a health services manager in Florida)

“Why your readership keeps doubling: I came across your website at a time when I was just getting to know what creation science is all about.  A friend of mine was telling me about what he had been finding out. I was highly skeptical and sought to read as many pro/con articles as I could find and vowed to be open-minded toward his seemingly crazy claims. At first I had no idea of the magnitude of research and information that’s been going on. Now, I’m simply overwhelmed by the sophistication and availability of scientific research and information on what I now know to be the truth about creation.
    Your website was one of dozens that I found in my search.  Now, there are only a handful of sites I check every day.  Yours is at the top of my list... I find your news page to be the most insightful and well-written of the creation news blogs out there.  The quick wit, baloney detector, in-depth scientific knowledge you bring to the table and the superb writing style on your site has kept me interested in the day-to-day happenings of what is clearly a growing movement.  Your site ... has given me a place to point them toward to find out more and realize that they’ve been missing a huge volume of information when it comes to the creation-evolution issue.
    Another thing I really like about this site is the links to articles in science journals and news references.  That helps me get a better picture of what you’re talking about.... Keep it up and I promise to send as many people as will listen to this website and others.”
(an Air Force Academy graduate stationed in New Mexico)

“I’m a small town newspaper editor in southwest Wyoming.  We’re pretty isolated, and finding your site was a great as finding a gold mine.  I read it daily, and if there’s nothing new, I re-read everything.  I follow links.  I read the Scientist of the Month.  It’s the best site I’ve run across.  Our local school board is all Darwinist and determined to remain that way.”
(a newspaper editor in Wyoming)

“ have been reading your page for about 2 years or so.... I read it every day.  I ...am well educated, with a BA in Applied Physics from Harvard and an MBA in Finance from Wharton.”
(a reader in Delaware)

“ I came across your website by accident about 4 months ago and look at it every day.... About 8 months ago I was reading a letter to the editor of the Seattle Times that was written by a staunch ‘anti-Creationist’ and it sparked my interest enough to research the topic and within a week I was yelling, ‘my whole life’s education has been a lie!!!’  I’ve put more study into Biblical Creation in the last 8 months than any other topic in my life.  Past that, through resources like your website...I’ve been able to convince my father (professional mathematician and amateur geologist), my best friend (mechanical engineer and fellow USAF Academy Grad/Creation Science nutcase), my pastor (he was the hardest to crack), and many others to realize the Truth of Creation.... Resources like your website help the rest of us at the ‘grassroots level’ drum up interest in the subject.  And regardless of what the major media says: Creationism is spreading like wildfire, so please keep your website going to help fan the flames.”
(an Air Force Academy graduate and officer)

“I love your site!  I **really** enjoy reading it for several specific reasons: 1.It uses the latest (as in this month!) research as a launch pad for opinion; for years I have searched for this from a creation science viewpoint, and now, I’ve found it.  2. You have balanced fun with this topic.  This is hugely valuable!  Smug Christianity is ugly, and I don’t perceive that attitude in your comments.  3. I enjoy the expansive breadth of scientific news that you cover.  4. I am not a trained scientist but I know evolutionary bologna/(boloney) when I see it; you help me to see it.  I really appreciate this.
(a computer technology salesman in Virginia)

“I love your site.  That’s why I was more than happy to mention it in the local paper.... I mentioned your site as the place where..... ‘Every Darwin-cheering news article is reviewed on that site from an ID perspective.  Then the huge holes of the evolution theory are exposed, and the bad science is shredded to bits, using real science.’”
(a project manager in New Jersey)

“I’ve been reading your site almost daily for about three years.  I have never been more convinced of the truthfulness of Scripture and the faithfulness of God.”
(a system administrator and homeschooling father in Colorado)

“I use the internet a lot to catch up on news back home and also to read up on the creation-evolution controversy, one of my favourite topics.  Your site is always my first port of call for the latest news and views and I really appreciate the work you put into keeping it up to date and all the helpful links you provide.  You are a beacon of light for anyone who wants to hear frank, honest conclusions instead of the usual diluted garbage we are spoon-fed by the media.... Keep up the good work and know that you’re changing lives.
(a teacher in Spain)

“I am grateful to you for your site and look forward to reading new stories.... I particularly value it for being up to date with what is going on.”
(from the Isle of Wight, UK)

“[Creation-Evolution Headlines] is the place to go for late-breaking news [on origins]; it has the most information and the quickest turnaround.  It’s incredible – I don’t know how you do it.  I can’t believe all the articles you find.  God bless you!”
(a radio producer in Riverside, CA)

“Just thought I let you know how much I enjoy reading your ‘Headlines’ section.  I really appreciate how you are keeping your ear to the ground in so many different areas.  It seems that there is almost no scientific discipline that has been unaffected by Darwin’s Folly.”
(a programmer in aerospace from Gardena, CA)

“I enjoy reading the comments on news articles on your site very much.  It is incredible how much refuse is being published in several scientific fields regarding evolution.  It is good to notice that the efforts of true scientists have an increasing influence at schools, but also in the media.... May God bless your efforts and open the eyes of the blinded evolutionists and the general public that are being deceived by pseudo-scientists.... I enjoy the site very much and I highly respect the work you and the team are doing to spread the truth.”
(an ebusiness manager in the Netherlands)

“I discovered your site through a link at certain website... It has greatly helped me being updated with the latest development in science and with critical comments from you.  I also love your baloney detector and in fact have translated some part of the baloney detector into our language (Indonesian).  I plan to translate them all for my friends so as to empower them.”
(a staff member of a bilateral agency in West Timor, Indonesia)

“...absolutely brilliant and inspiring.”
(a documentary film producer, remarking on the 07/10/2005 commentary)

“I found your site several months ago and within weeks had gone through your entire archives....  I check in several times a day for further information and am always excited to read the new articles.  Your insight into the difference between what is actually known versus what is reported has given me the confidence to stand up for what I believe.  I always felt there was more to the story, and your articles have given me the tools to read through the hype....  You are an invaluable help and I commend your efforts.  Keep up the great work.”
(a sound technician in Alberta)

“I discovered your site (through a link from a blog) a few weeks ago and I can’t stop reading it....  I also enjoy your insightful and humorous commentary at the end of each story.  If the evolutionists’ blindness wasn’t so sad, I would laugh harder.
  I have a masters degree in mechanical engineering from a leading University.  When I read the descriptions, see the pictures, and watch the movies of the inner workings of the cell, I’m absolutely amazed....  Thanks for bringing these amazing stories daily.  Keep up the good work.
(an engineer in Virginia)

“I stumbled across your site several months ago and have been reading it practically daily.  I enjoy the inter-links to previous material as well as the links to the quoted research.  I’ve been in head-to-head debate with a materialist for over a year now.  Evolution is just one of those debates.  Your site is among others that have been a real help in expanding my understanding.”
(a software engineer in Pennsylvania)

“I was in the April 28, 2005 issue of Nature [see 04/27/2005 story] regarding the rise of intelligent design in the universities.  It was through your website that I began my journey out of the crisis of faith which was mentioned in that article.  It was an honor to see you all highlighting the article in Nature.  Thank you for all you have done!
(Salvador Cordova, George Mason University)

“I shudder to think of the many ways in which you mislead readers, encouraging them to build a faith based on misunderstanding and ignorance.  Why don’t you allow people to have a faith that is grounded in a fuller understanding of the world?... Your website is a sham.”
(a co-author of the paper reviewed in the 12/03/2003 entry who did not appreciate the unflattering commentary.  This led to a cordial interchange, but he could not divorce his reasoning from the science vs. faith dichotomy, and resulted in an impasse over definitions – but, at least, a more mutually respectful dialogue.  He never did explain how his paper supported Darwinian macroevolution.  He just claimed evolution is a fact.)

“I absolutely love creation-evolution news.  As a Finnish university student very interested in science, I frequent your site to find out about all the new science stuff that’s been happening — you have such a knack for finding all this information!  I have been able to stump evolutionists with knowledge gleaned from your site many times.”
(a student in Finland)

“I love your site and read it almost every day.  I use it for my science class and 5th grade Sunday School class.  I also challenge Middle Schoolers and High Schoolers to get on the site to check out articles against the baloney they are taught in school.”
(a teacher in Los Gatos, CA)

“I have spent quite a few hours at Creation Evolution Headlines in the past week or so going over every article in the archives.  I thank you for such an informative and enjoyable site.  I will be visiting often and will share this link with others.”
[Later] “ I am back to May 2004 in the archives.  I figured I should be farther back, but there is a ton of information to digest.”
(a computer game designer in Colorado)

“The IDEA Center also highly recommends visiting Creation-Evolution Headlines... the most expansive and clearly written origins news website on the internet!”
(endorsement on Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center)

“Hey Friends, Check out this site: www.creationsafaris.com.  This is a fantastic resource for the whole family.... a fantastic reference library with summaries, commentaries and great links that are added to daily—archives go back five years.”
(a reader who found us in Georgia)

“I just wanted to drop you a note telling you that at www.BornAgainRadio.com, I’ve added a link to your excellent Creation-Evolution news site.”
(a radio announcer)

“I cannot understand why anyone would invest so much time and effort to a website of sophistry and casuistry.  Why twist Christian apology into an illogic pretzel to placate your intellect?  Isn’t it easier to admit that your faith has no basis -- hence, ‘faith’.  It would be extricate [sic] yourself from intellectual dishonesty -- and from bearing false witness.”
Sincerely, Rev. [name withheld] (an ex-Catholic, “apostate Christian” Natural/Scientific pantheist)

“Just wanted to let you folks know that we are consistent readers and truly appreciate the job you are doing.  God bless you all this coming New Year.”
(from two prominent creation researchers/writers in Oregon)

“Thanks so much for your site!  It is brain candy!”
(a reader in North Carolina)

“I Love your site – probably a little too much.  I enjoy the commentary and the links to the original articles.”
(a civil engineer in New York)

“I’ve had your Creation/Evolution Headlines site on my favourites list for 18 months now, and I can truthfully say that it’s one of the best on the Internet, and I check in several times a week.  The constant stream of new information on such a variety of science issues should impress anyone, but the rigorous and humourous way that every thought is taken captive is inspiring.  I’m pleased that some Christians, and indeed, some webmasters, are devoting themselves to producing real content that leaves the reader in a better state than when they found him.”
(a community safety manager in England)

“I really appreciate the effort that you are making to provide the public with information about the problems with the General Theory of Evolution.  It gives me ammunition when I discuss evolution in my classroom.  I am tired of the evolutionary dogma.  I wish that more people would stand up against such ridiculous beliefs.”
(a science teacher in Alabama)

“If you choose to hold an opinion that flies in the face of every piece of evidence collected so far, you cannot be suprised [sic] when people dismiss your views.”
(a “former Christian” software distributor, location not disclosed)

“...the Creation Headlines is the best.  Visiting your site... is a standard part of my startup procedures every morning.”
(a retired Air Force Chaplain)

“I LOVE your site and respect the time and work you put into it.  I read the latest just about EVERY night before bed and send selection[s] out to others and tell others about it.  I thank you very much and keep up the good work (and humor).”
(a USF grad in biology)

“Answering your invitation for thoughts on your site is not difficult because of the excellent commentary I find.  Because of the breadth and depth of erudition apparent in the commentaries, I hope I’m not being presumptuous in suspecting the existence of contributions from a ‘Truth Underground’ comprised of dissident college faculty, teachers, scientists, and engineers.  If that’s not the case, then it is surely a potential only waiting to be realized.  Regardless, I remain in awe of the care taken in decomposing the evolutionary cant that bombards us from the specialist as well as popular press.”
(a mathematician/physicist in Arizona)

“I’m from Quebec, Canada.  I have studied in ‘pure sciences’ and after in actuarial mathematics.  I’m visiting this site 3-4 times in a week.  I’m learning a lot and this site gives me the opportunity to realize that this is a good time to be a creationist!”
(a French Canadian reader)

“I LOVE your Creation Safari site, and the Baloney Detector material.  OUTSTANDING JOB!!!!”
(a reader in the Air Force)

“You have a unique position in the Origins community.  Congratulations on the best current affairs news source on the origins net.  You may be able to write fast but your logic is fun to work through.”
(a pediatrician in California)

“Visit your site almost daily and find it very informative, educational and inspiring.”
(a reader in western Canada)

“I wish to thank you for the information you extend every day on your site.  It is truly a blessing!”
(a reader in North Carolina)

“I really appreciate your efforts in posting to this website.  I find it an incredibly useful way to keep up with recent research (I also check science news daily) and also to research particular topics.”
(an IT consultant from Brisbane, Australia)

“I would just like to say very good job with the work done here, very comprehensive.  I check your site every day.  It’s great to see real science directly on the front lines, toe to toe with the pseudoscience that's mindlessly spewed from the ‘prestigious’ science journals.”
(a biology student in Illinois)

“I’ve been checking in for a long time but thought I’d leave you a note, this time.  Your writing on these complex topics is insightful, informative with just the right amount of humor.  I appreciate the hard work that goes into monitoring the research from so many sources and then writing intelligently about them.”
(an investment banker in California)

“Keep up the great work.  You are giving a whole army of Christians plenty of ammunition to come out of the closet (everyone else has).  Most of us are not scientists, but most of the people we talk to are not scientists either, just ordinary people who have been fed baloney for years and years.”
(a reader in Arizona)

“Keep up the outstanding work!  You guys really ARE making a difference!”
(a reader in Texas)

“I wholeheartedly agree with you when you say that ‘science’ is not hostile towards ‘religion’.  It is the dogmatically religious that are unwaveringly hostile towards any kind of science which threatens their dearly-held precepts.  ‘Science’ (real, open-minded science) is not interested in theological navel-gazing.”
(anonymous)
Note: Please supply your name and location when writing in.  Anonymous attacks only make one look foolish and cowardly, and will not normally be printed.  This one was shown to display a bad example.

“I appreciate reading your site every day.  It is a great way to keep up on not just the new research being done, but to also keep abreast of the evolving debate about evolution (Pun intended).... I find it an incredibly useful way to keep up with recent research (I also check science news daily) and also to research particular topics.”
(an IT consultant in Brisbane, Australia)

“I love your website.”
(a student at a state university who used CEH when writing for the campus newsletter)

“....when you claim great uncertainty for issues that are fairly well resolved you damage your already questionable credibility.  I’m sure your audience loves your ranting, but if you know as much about biochemistry, geology, astronomy, and the other fields you skewer, as you do about ornithology, you are spreading heat, not light.”
(a professor of ornithology at a state university, responding to the 09/10/2002 headline)

“I wanted to let you know I appreciate your headline news style of exposing the follies of evolutionism.... Your style gives us constant, up-to-date reminders that over and over again, the Bible creation account is vindicated and the evolutionary fables are refuted.”
(a reader, location unknown)

“You have a knack of extracting the gist of a technical paper, and digesting it into understandable terms.”
(a nuclear physicist from Lawrence Livermore Labs who worked on the Manhattan Project)

“After spending MORE time than I really had available going thru your MANY references I want to let you know how much I appreciate the effort you have put forth.
The information is properly documented, and coming from recognized scientific sources is doubly valuable.  Your explanatory comments and sidebar quotations also add GREATLY to your overall effectiveness as they 1) provide an immediate interpretive starting point and 2) maintaining the reader’s interest.”
(a reader in Michigan)

“I am a huge fan of the site, and check daily for updates.”
(reader location and occupation unknown)

“I just wanted to take a minute to personally thank-you and let you know that you guys are providing an invaluable service!  We check your Web site weekly (if not daily) to make sure we have the latest information in the creation/evolution controversy.  Please know that your diligence and perseverance to teach the Truth have not gone unnoticed.  Keep up the great work!”
(a PhD scientist involved in origins research)

“You've got a very useful and informative Web site going.  The many readers who visit your site regularly realize that it requires considerable effort to maintain the quality level and to keep the reviews current....  I hope you can continue your excellent Web pages.  I have recommended them highly to others.”
(a reader, location and occupation unknown)

“As an apprentice apologist, I can always find an article that will spark a ‘spirited’ debate.  Keep ’em coming!  The Truth will prevail.”
(a reader, location and occupation unknown)

“Thanks for your web page and work.  I try to drop by at least once a week and read what you have.  I’m a Christian that is interested in science (I’m a mechanical engineer) and I find you topics interesting and helpful.  I enjoy your lessons and insights on Baloney Detection.”
(a year later):
“I read your site 2 to 3 times a week; which I’ve probably done for a couple of years.  I enjoy it for the interesting content, the logical arguments, what I can learn about biology/science, and your pointed commentary.”
(a production designer in Kentucky)

“I look up CREV headlines every day.  It is a wonderful source of information and encouragement to me.... Your gift of discerning the fallacies in evolutionists interpretation of scientific evidence is very helpful and educational for me.  Please keep it up.  Your website is the best I know of.”
(a Presbyterian minister in New South Wales, Australia)

“I’ve written to you before, but just wanted to say again how much I appreciate your site and all the work you put into it.  I check it almost every day and often share the contents (and web address) with lists on which I participate.  I don’t know how you do all that you do, but I am grateful for your energy and knowledge.”
(a prominent creationist author)

“I am new to your site, but I love it!  Thanks for updating it with such cool information.”
(a home schooler)

“I love your site.... Visit every day hoping for another of your brilliant demolitions of the foolish just-so stories of those who think themselves wise.”
(a reader from Southern California)

“I visit your site daily for the latest news from science journals and other media, and enjoy your commentary immensely.  I consider your web site to be the most valuable, timely and relevant creation-oriented site on the internet.”
(a reader from Ontario, Canada)

“Keep up the good work!  I thoroughly enjoy your site.”
(a reader in Texas)

“Thanks for keeping this fantastic web site going.  It is very informative and up-to-date with current news including incisive insight.”
(a reader in North Carolina)

“Great site!  For all the Baloney Detector is impressive and a great tool in debunking wishful thinking theories.”
(a reader in the Netherlands)

“Just wanted to let you know, your work is having quite an impact.  For example, major postings on your site are being circulated among the Intelligent Design members....”
(a PhD organic chemist)

“It’s like ‘opening a can of worms’ ... I love to click all the related links and read your comments and the links to other websites, but this usually makes me late for something else.  But it’s ALWAYS well worth it!!”
(a leader of a creation group)

“I am a regular visitor to your website ... I am impressed by the range of scientific disciplines your articles address.  I appreciate your insightful dissection of the often unwarranted conclusions evolutionists infer from the data... Being a medical doctor, I particularly relish the technical detail you frequently include in the discussion living systems and processes.  Your website continually reinforces my conviction that if an unbiased observer seeks a reason for the existence of life then Intelligent Design will be the unavoidable conclusion.”
(a medical doctor)

“A church member asked me what I thought was the best creation web site.  I told him CreationSafaris.com.”
(a PhD geologist)

“I love your site... I check it every day for interesting information.  It was hard at first to believe in Genesis fully, but now I feel more confident about the mistakes of humankind and that all their reasoning amounts to nothing in light of a living God.”
(a college grad)

“Thank you so much for the interesting science links and comments on your creation evolution headlines page ... it is very informative.”
(a reader from Scottsdale, AZ)

“I still visit your site almost every day, and really enjoy it.  Great job!!!  (I also recommend it to many, many students.)
(an educational consultant)

“I like what I see–very much.  I really appreciate a decent, calm and scholarly approach to the whole issue... Thanks ... for this fabulous endeavor–it’s superb!”

“It is refreshing to read your comments.  You have a knack to get to the heart of the matter.”
(a reader in the Air Force).

“Love your website.  It has well thought out structure and will help many through these complex issues.  I especially love the Baloney Detector.”
(a scientist).

“I believe this is one of the best sites on the Internet.  I really like your side-bar of ‘truisms.’  Yogi [Berra] is absolutely correct.  If I were a man of wealth, I would support you financially.”
(a registered nurse in Alabama, who found us on TruthCast.com.)

“WOW.  Unbelievable.... My question is, do you sleep? ... I’m utterly impressed by your page which represents untold amounts of time and energy as well as your faith.”
(a mountain man in Alaska).

“Just wanted to say that I recently ran across your web site featuring science headlines and your commentary and find it to be A++++, superb, a 10, a homerun – I run out of superlatives to describe it! ... You can be sure I will visit your site often – daily when possible – to gain the latest information to use in my speaking engagements.  I’ll also do my part to help publicize your site among college students.  Keep up the good work.  Your material is appreciated and used.”
(a college campus minister)

 
Featured Creation Scientist for August



Isaac Newton
1641 - 1727

Our next character underlines the word “greatest” in the title of this book.  Sir Isaac Newton is the scientist par excellence, and he was strongly motivated by his Biblical beliefs.  In fact, he felt he was personally involved in fulfilling the prophecy of Daniel 12:4: “Many shall go to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.”

That the greatest scientist of all time was a Christian and a creationist should give any Darwinian pause.  Co-inventor of the calculus, discoverer of the law of universal gravitation and the three laws of motion, analyzer of white light split into colors by means of a prism, inventor of the reflecting telescope and author of the most important book of the scientific revolution (the Principia Mathematica), Sir Isaac Newton is unexcelled in the roll call of great scientists.

But did your history books forget to tell you that Newton wrote more on theology than on science?  A recent article in Nature confirms this (see 08/19/2004 entry in Creation-Evolution Headlines): Newton approached the study of the Bible with as much rigor and planning as he did physics.  Even more important, “Newton’s religion and science may have been tied together by belief in absolute truth.”  To him, the Bible revealed the truth about God just as much as scientific inquiry uncovered truth about nature..... Continue reading about Isaac Newton.


If you are enjoying this series, you can learn more about great Christians in science by reading our online book-in-progress:
The World’s Greatest Creation Scientists from Y1K to Y2K.

A Concise Guide
to Understanding
Evolutionary Theory

You can observe a lot by just watching.
– Yogi Berra

First Law of Scientific Progress
The advance of science can be measured by the rate at which exceptions to previously held laws accumulate.
Corollaries:
1. Exceptions always outnumber rules.
2. There are always exceptions to established exceptions.
3. By the time one masters the exceptions, no one recalls the rules to which they apply.

Darwin’s Law
Nature will tell you a direct lie if she can.
Bloch’s Extension
So will Darwinists.

Finagle’s Creed
Science is true.  Don’t be misled by facts.

Finagle’s 2nd Law
No matter what the anticipated result, there will always be someone eager to (a) misinterpret it, (b) fake it, or (c) believe it happened according to his own pet theory.

Finagle’s Rules
3. Draw your curves, then plot your data.
4. In case of doubt, make it sound convincing.
6. Do not believe in miracles – rely on them.

Murphy’s Law of Research
Enough research will tend to support your theory.

Maier’s Law
If the facts do not conform to the theory, they must be disposed of.
Corollaries:
1. The bigger the theory, the better.
2. The experiments may be considered a success if no more than 50% of the observed measurements must be discarded to obtain a correspondence with the theory.

Eddington’s Theory
The number of different hypotheses erected to explain a given biological phenomenon is inversely proportional to the available knowledge.

Young’s Law
All great discoveries are made by mistake.
Corollary
The greater the funding, the longer it takes to make the mistake.

Peer’s Law
The solution to a problem changes the nature of the problem.

Peter’s Law of Evolution
Competence always contains the seed of incompetence.

Weinberg’s Corollary
An expert is a person who avoids the small errors while sweeping on to the grand fallacy.

Souder’s Law
Repetition does not establish validity.

Cohen’s Law
What really matters is the name you succeed in imposing on the facts – not the facts themselves.

Harrison’s Postulate
For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.

Thumb’s Second Postulate
An easily-understood, workable falsehood is more useful than a complex, incomprehensible truth.

Ruckert’s Law
There is nothing so small that it can’t be blown out of proportion

Hawkins’ Theory of Progress
Progress does not consist in replacing a theory that is wrong with one that is right.  It consists in replacing a theory that is wrong with one that is more subtly wrong.

Macbeth’s Law
The best theory is not ipso facto a good theory.

Disraeli’s Dictum
Error is often more earnest than truth.

Advice from Paul

Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge – by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith.

I Timothy 6:20-21

Song of the True Scientist

O Lord, how manifold are Your works!  In wisdom You have made them all.  The earth is full of Your possessions . . . . May the glory of the Lord endure forever.  May the Lord rejoice in His works . . . . I will sing to the Lord s long as I live; I will sing praise to my God while I have my being.  May my meditation be sweet to Him; I will be glad in the Lord.  May sinners be consumed from the earth, and the wicked be no more.  Bless the Lord, O my soul!  Praise the Lord! 

from Psalm 104

Maxwell’s Motivation

Through the creatures Thou hast made
Show the brightness of Thy glory.
Be eternal truth displayed
In their substance transitory.
Till green earth and ocean hoary,
Massy rock and tender blade,
Tell the same unending story:
We are truth in form arrayed.

Teach me thus Thy works to read,
That my faith,– new strength accruing–
May from world to world proceed,
Wisdom’s fruitful search pursuing
Till, thy truth my mind imbuing,
I proclaim the eternal Creed –
Oft the glorious theme renewing,
God our Lord is God indeed.

James Clerk Maxwell
One of the greatest physicists
of all time (a creationist).

Disclaimer: Creation-Evolution Headlines includes links to many external sites, but takes no responsibility for the accuracy or legitimacy of their content.  Inclusion of an external link is strictly for the reader’s convenience, and does not necessarily constitute endorsement of the material or its authors, owners, or sponsors.