If the Disc is Ours
by David Sadler
David Sadler For Congress (2002)
12th CD/Illinois

Currently disorganized. The page is simply a dump of items and links that eventually will be organized into a more cohesive presentation. Not all links and sources will be included in the final presentation. Many links are here initially as bookmarkers to allow easy access for later review to see if any part of them can be incorporated into the final presentation.

If the Disc is Ours
by David Sadler
Chapter 2: On Biological Origins and Diversification

The debate on the origin of the cosmos, chemicals (elements beyond hydrogen and helium), stars, planets and biology is a scientific debate. Any debate that pits a 'scientist' against a religious apologist is not a debate on origins, but instead, it is a debate about how religion is not qualified to engage in a scientific debate. I agree with this view. So why does this page include so many links to religous references? Because the debate, even from the religous side, introduces a lot of science in the form of questions and evidence. Interesting enough, science has a tough time answering these questions and dealing with this evidence if it can do so at all.

There is no unanimous conclusion by either the scientific community or the religious community on how everything originated. These disciplines argue amongst themselves just as strenuously as they argue with each other. It's clear that nobody knows how everything originated in the sense that it can be demonstrated or explained scientifically.

It's also clear that religion taints the arguments on all sides since for many evolution has become a religion and for many evolution has become a religious tenent for the radical or fundamentalist atheists who use the debate on origins to proselytize their beliefs at the same time that they attempt to deligitimize opposing religious beliefs.

I was raised as a Christian and remain a believer in Christ Jesus as deity today although I do have serious issues with organized religion, its man-made doctrines, lines of authority, interpretation of and adherence to the Bible and rituals. I no longer attend church. Organized religion is too busy raising money and trying to remain politically correct to exhibit the spiritual principles that I am seeking. I've attended many churches, but none have addressed my questions regarding spirituality, and all do a miserable job in my opinion of preparing the young to defend themselves against the all-out assault upon their beliefs that they will be subjected to once they leave the safe confines of their home, church and community. The churches over-emphasize faith and under-emphasize proofs which are there, and which, if taught properly, would swell the church to over capacity.

I was also educated/indoctrinated as a Darwinian Evolutionist by the government educational system. There was never a conflict between God and evolution in my mind. Darwinian Evolution was all I was exposed to until AFTER I graduated from college.

Growing up, my dad subscribed to the National Geographic, Popular Science and Popular Mechanics. We watched and read the mainstream press. I went to public school. Everything I was exposed to said macro-evolution is the way life first emerged from the primordial soup and then diversified into all the life that we see. In our house, we had a set of bookends. One was the Thinker. The other was Hugo Rheinhold's Philosophizing Monkey considering a human skull.

I never really questioned the evolution creation story because it was all that I was exposed to. My entire knowledge universe 'agreed' that macro-evolution was an unassailable fact and that anyone and everyone who disagreed was a 'religious nut.'

The biblical creation story was not science, and there was no Intelligent Design body of knowledge when I was growing up that I was exposed to, so, frankly, I had no problem with evolution from a religious point of view. If God used it to create life and then used it to diversify life, that was fine with me. There was no conflict between my belief in God and macro-evolution.

However, I'm not an idiot and I hate being lied to or exploited by being sold a bill of goods. I REQUIRE evidence. So I became very angry indeed with a whole lot of people, institutions and industries when I finally realized that macro-evolution was a HUGE hoax to manipulate our minds - thoughts - beliefs - attitudes.

And just a brief review of modern popular evolutionist literature and a quick review of evolution vs creation and evolution vs intelligent design debates and presentations along with interacting with fundamentalist evolutionists in debate will clearly show that the vast majority of evolutionists are fundamentalist atheists and Darwinian/Neo Darwinian Evolution is their religion.

How old is Earth? I don't know. Did God create everything in seven days of twentry four hours each? It's possible, I suppose, but I don't know. The point is, those debates still RAGE among very intelligent and educated people today. In my opinion, we have a chance at answering the question, "How old is Earth?", but we have zero chance of answering the question about the length of God's creation days. As I said, these debates RAGE, so let's listen in. And let's adopt a fact-based, evidence-based perspective as we learn about this Big Question of origins of the universe and all that is in it. It's my direct experience that when we do, a belief in an Intelligent Creator is the obvious conclusion. After that, a quest for a better understanding of spirituality - not religion - is the natural progression of the intellectual mind. Where does my belief come from that Jesus Christ is deity if I have issues with organized religion and portions of the Bible? That's a different topic and different discussion. For now, the discussion is:
  • From where did the universe come?
  • From where did the life come?
  • From where did the humans come?
  • Where's the evidence?

    At this point, let's review some definitions ...

    The Six Meanings of Evolution / TruthInGenesis.com
  • Cosmic Evolution – The origin of time, space, and matter with the Big Bang.
  • Chemical Evolution – The origin of higher elements beyond hydrogen and helium.
  • Stellar and Planetary Evolution – The origin of the stars and planets.
  • Organic Evolution – The origin of life from non-life.
  • Macro Evolution – Changing from one kind of animal into another kind. Ex: ape to human.
  • Micro Evolution – Variation within the kinds. Ex: long-haired, short-haired, long-legged, short-legged, etc.

  • prop·a·gan·da
    "1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
    "2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause."
    -- Dictionary.com --

    "2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
    "3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect"
    -- Merriam-Webster's Dictionary --

    Mind Control
    "... the shaping of a person's attitudes, beliefs, and personality without the person's knowledge or consent. Mind control employs deceptive and surreptitious manipulation, usually in a group setting, for the financial or political profit of the manipulator. Mind control works by gradually exerting increasing control over individuals through a variety techniques, such as excessive repetition of routine activities, intense humiliation, or sleep deprivation."
    -- FACTnet --

    These definitions describe the propagation of macro-evolution by government schools and mainstream press and mainstream 'scientific' institutions.

    More definitions ...

    The first step in waking up was simply realizing there is more than ONE SIDE to the issue! After graduating from college and having time to select which books to read, I decided to read one of those 'crazy' books saying the fossil record didn't prove evolutionist claims. I have a degree in communications. The subjects I liked best in college were persuasion and logic.

    So I was very eager to tear to shreds the logic used by these crazies who were saying the fossil record didn't prove evolution. I mean, come on! The fossil record is the 'bed rock' evidence of evolution. Right? Back in the 1960s and 1970s, the textbooks and news articles were all saying that evolution was proven by the fossil record.

    Here's the first book I read. It's online now, so you can read it for free. Luther Sunderland interviewed major leading evolutionists at the time regarding current best-evidence knowledge of the fossil record as it pertained to evolutionists' claims of observable proof for evolution.

    "Darwin's Enigma"
    By Luther Sunderland

    This one book set me on my heels. These were not religious nuts falsifying evolution through the fossil record. These were the leading evolutionists themselves! There was no religious ranting or appeals to the Bible in this book. There were only appeals to the fossil evidence and the current modern assessment of the fossil record as evidence, or lack thereof, for evolution by those most closely associated with evolution and fossils.






    My head was spinning. Could this be true? This was only one book. It was evastating because of who was saying (admitting) this about the fossil record and they were saying it without the first mention of God or the Bible after I had been taught and told that only religious nuts disputed evolution. Surely there couldn't be other scientific books falsifying evolution.

    For the next twenty years I read as much as I could on the criticism of evolution. I used the following criteria for selecting which books to read.
    The books,
    1) could not appeal to the Bible as an authority,
    2) must deal with the subject based upon observable and testable science,
    3) must be footnoted and fully referenced

    If you read Darwin's Enigma, then I recommend the books following my signature.

    If you disagree with any of their cases, you will have to take it up with them. They have convinced me by applying scientific methods to evolution and exposing the impossibility macro-evolution through mathematics, statistical probability, biology, DNA, information system theory, physical theory of thermodynamics, paleontology, geology, cosmology, logic and persuasion.

    Never, ever bring up the Bible when discussing or trying to refute this falsification of the evolution, because this isn't about religion and none of the books I recommend appeal to religion or to the Bible in their arguments that falsify the theory. They appeal exclusively to available evidence and what can be observed and tested scientifically.
    Evolutionists view themselves as the unquestionable authorities when it comes to origins and diversity of living things. They also admit that evolutionists don't know what the hell they are studying, but do it anyway because it is their 'favored account' in spite of a lack of evidence. Consider one of my favorite evolutionists, Stephen Jay Gould ...
    “Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.”
    Gould admits that the lack of evidence supporting evolution is a 'trade secret of paleontology.'
    “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”
    -- Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,”
    Natural History, vol. 86 (May 1977), pp. 12-16.--
    The fossile record should be the 'bed rock' evidence for evolution that proves without a trace of doubt the claimed incremental transmutation of the first life form into all life. As Gould admits, this proof does not exist in the fossil record. So evolutionists spend most of their careers making claims regarding the fossil record that simply do not exist.

    This fantacy erected around the fossil record thus becomes a foundation built upon sand for all subsequent assumptions and claims regarding macro-evolution through slow mutation and natural selection. At times, for those honest with themselves, it becomes too much for some professionals who have spent their lives studying, advocating, teaching and writing about evolution.
    • "One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let's call it a non-evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden realization for over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it.
    “That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.
    “Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true?
    “I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence.
    “I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school'."
    -- Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London). 5 November 1981 --
    • "In retrospect, I realize that I have wasted so much of my life arguing about things that don’t really matter ... Modern Darwinism is built on what I will be calling “The Primary Axiom”. The Primary Axiom is that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection.
    "... Late in my career, I did something which for a Cornell professor would seem unthinkable. I began to question the Primary Axiom ... I gradually realized that the seemingly 'great and unassailable fortress' which has been built up around the primary axiom is really a house of cards. The Primary Axiom is actually an extremely vulnerable theory – in fact it is essentially indefensible ...
    "... To question the Primary Axiom required me to re-examine virtually everything I thought I knew about genetics ... What I eventually experienced was a complete overthrow of my previous understandings. Several years of personal struggle resulted in a new understanding, and a very strong conviction that the Primary Axiom was most definitely wrong ...
    "... If the Primary Axiom is wrong, then there is a surprising and very practical consequence. When subjected only to natural forces, the human genome must irrevocably degenerate over time.
    -- John Sanford, Cornell geneticist in his book, Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome --
  • Video: Dr. John Sanford: Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome / Dr. John Sanford, Published on Jul 27, 2012
  • Video: Mutations and Darwinism / Jerry Bergman Ph.D., Published on Jul 13, 2013


    The UFO community doesn't agree on answers to UFO questions. There's a good reason for that. Nobody really knows. So these are my conclusions and speculations based upon my research of the subject since my sighting in the eighth grade. Anyone can form their own informed opinions. All one must do is study the subject and think about it. Of course, it does help to see one or more -- expecially close up. That experience takes the 'theory' to a whole new level of reality.

    An opinion also takes on more credibility if it is consistant with other opinions held and expressed by the same person. I have endeavored to fit my theorizing of the UFO reality into the context of my understanding of the existence of God, science and human endeavors.

    Life is simply too irreducibly complex to have combined by chance. A thought experiment I ask people to consider is to imagine a healthy person who drowns. Five minutes under water without breathing and you're dead. Why?

    People answer, "Well, you can't live without oxygen. The brain cells die, and if they are dead, you're dead."

    I ask, "But why can't we bring them back to life? All the biological parts for the complete body are there. Five minutes ago, this was a healthy individual. The body is not broken or traumatized. It was only deprived of oxygen."

    They answer, "Well, once the body is dead, you can't bring it back to life. It doesn't matter if all the parts are there. Dead is dead."

    Alright. Then how did the first dead (non-living) matter come to life? In the Evolutionists origin of life creation story, regardless of how well organized and complete ... how did this non-living matter come to life as the first living cell? If dead is dead, and you can't bring the dead back to life, and if before life on Earth there was no life, just a primordial soup of water, mud and minerals slam-dance until a natural miracle occurs. Without the aide of mutation and natural selection because there is no life to reproduce, these pieces somehow combine into the first non-living biological entity, awaiting only to have it's life 'turned on.' If dead is dead, how did the first non-living matter come to life?

    Silence ...

    The Evolutionists' creation story is not science. It is a dogmatic belief. It forms one of the doctrines of their church, and they all show great amounts of blind faith to believe this is how life first arose in this universe.
    "... A large part of what keeps the Axiom standing is an almost mystical faith, which the true-believers have in the omnipotence of natural selection. Furthermore, I began to see that this deep-seated faith in natural selection was typically coupled with a degree of ideological commitment – which can only be described as religious. I started to realize ... that I might be offending a lot of people’s religion!
    -- John Sanford, Cornell geneticist in his book, Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome --
    Mutations and natural selection do not operate as a creative force in non-living matter. There is no organizing selective agent in non-living matter. There is nothing, even theoretical, to explain how non-living matter overcomes the Second Law of Thermodynamics to create the most complex, interconnected and interdependent (irreducible complexity) information system known to exist anywhere in the universe.

    TAKE NOTE, that in the linked example to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the author MUST make an exception for how life would violate the Second Law. This is how Evolutionists try to explain what can't be explained, the origin of first life. Note how the author says that LIFE behaves differently allowing complex information systems to be built thus avoiding the entropy that destroys (order to disorder) all non-living systems. Go back to the link. What does the author start with? Life! The author can not start with non-life becoming alive because entropy does not construct, it destructs.

    Evolutionists ALWAYS start with life everywhere as they begin to tell their non-provable, unobservable and non-repeatable story of how life diversified from a single cell into every living thing we see. They must start with life because non-living matter is disordered by entropy. Non-living matter in a world of entropy does not produce information systems increasing in complexity. Evolutionists avoid this like the plague, and you can see, by the link to the Second Law above, how they explain this to unwitting students who do not have the experience and knowledge base to catch this avoidance of the first and inexplicable question: How did non-living matter become alive EVEN IF it could have been assembled into a complex information system which the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits?

    • The Second Law of Thermodynamics says non-living systems move from order to disorder.
    • Before there was life, there was no life.
    • According to the Second Law, this non-life could not have increased in order of complexity.
    • According to Evolutionist dogma, mutations and natual selection (survival of the fittest) create complexity and diversity in living things, but for that creative force to work life must already exist.
    • Non-living matter does not reproduce biologically and certainly not in the sence of 'survival of the fittest.'
    • Since life is the most complex information system known in the universe, it's appearance violates the Second Law.

    The origin of first life is BEYOND science. It is non-observable. It can not be duplicated because life would be trying to duplicate a one time event as an intelligent creator.

    So Evolutionists can never hope to explain how life originated, but they must keep trying in order to make their creation story complete. Explaining scientifically the orgin of life is no easier for Creationists or those advocating Intelligent Design. The origin of life is beyond science.


    As difficult as it is to accept intellectually, it is my educated belief that God exists and preceded all. Just as the universe has no end, God has no beginning or end. God is Alpha/Omega. God the Creator has always been and will always be. God is infinite. The Creation if finite. The finite can never totally understand the infinite, although we should try because there's a lot to learn and many problems to solve.

    God is the Creator of everything - all space, matter, energy, life. Aliens or Angels may have farmed and experimented upon human-kind. Who knows? But to argue that aliens created life on Earth and that explains away the lack of fossil evidence of Darwinian evolution is pure bunk. Evolution does not create life from non-life. That applies to aliens just as it applies to a one-celled creature.

    Since I believe God came first and created everything, I view science as the discovery of the attributes of God and the tools the Creator put into place to make things work. No subject is off limits to the objective observer/experimenter in this discovery process. No 'official truth' should stand in the face of evidence that falsifies a prior held world-view or theory -- even if it contradicts a religious doctrine of men such as the Earth is the center of the universe and even if it contradicts a 'scientific' theory or model of men such as the Big Bang and Darwinian macro-evolution. Any view that persists in the presence of falsifying evidence is a dogma. It does not belong in science. It belongs in church, and in my opinion, not even there.

    The Biblical Creation story belongs in church. It can not be repeated. It can not be tested. Teaching it as fact has no place in public school and in private school only if the Evolution creation story (just as non-provable) is presented for balance.

    The Evolution creation (origin of life) story that life evolved from non-life is non-provable and belongs in church, not in public schools without the balance of the Biblical Creation story being taught. Evolution's creation story can not be repeated. It can not be tested. Any policy that allows the teaching of the Evolution creation story without allowing the balance of the teaching of the Bible Creation story, is not objective, fair, academic or scientific. It is dogma, propaganda and proselytizing.

    Macro-evolution (Darwinian Evolution) advocates want us to believe that fish became amphibians and amphibians became reptiles and reptiles became birds and birds became dinosaurs. This is non-provable. It is a story that is not documented in the fossil record. It is a theory that defies what we know about biology, mutations, survivability, information theory and statistical probability. Macro-evolution is dogma. It is not science, but for academic purposes, a model can be constructed upon this theory to test its predictions. Unfortunately for Marco-evolution, the theory predictions are not borne out by comparing the evidence to the model. It hasn't been proven and the fossil record does not show it.

    Micro-evolution, biological variation within a kind but variation that does not produce a new kind, is real. It is observable. It is repeatable. Micro-evolution is not disputed, even among Creationists and Intelligent Designers. Micro-evolution qualifies as a valid topic of scientific inquiry. Micro-evolution in no way supports the contentions of Evolutionists advocating life came from the primordial soup. That story is as non-provable as the Creation story that God formed Adam from dust. Micro-evolution in no way supports the contentions of Evolutionists advocating all life diversified via mutation and natural selection from a single cell.

    Intelligent Design is science. A model can be constructed and observations compared to the predictions of the theory to see if they fit the model. It is noteworthy that the evidence fits the Intelligent Design model more closely than it fits the Macro(Darwinian)-evolution model. This evidence spans the gamet of biology, paleontology, information systems, statistical probability, cosmology and physics.


    A world-view must hold together. It must have context among all known facts. Three of the Big Questions in life are, does God exist, how did life begin and does life exist off Earth?

    One doesn't spend much time in UFO research before encountering these questions. It doesn't take long to understand UFOs are real based upon evidence, not belief. Then the questions come. Evolutionists are ready to allow aliens to be the creators of life on Earth including humans, but they have no answer for how the aliens originated biologically except to fall back on the Evolution argument.

    UFOs appear on cave walls and in art thousands of years old. UFOs appear in ancient literature. How do evolutionists explain that? How do Creationists explain that? It sickens me that there are many believers in both camps who see no need to explain it. They ignore it, while they pay good tax dollars sending probes to Mars to discover if life ever existed or exists off Earth. All they need to do is spend one week researching the hard evidence of UFO reality and the question of life off Earth is answered. On to the next and more important questions, please.

    Links to recommened books ...

    Qualified scientific and scholarly criticism of Evolution theory, written at the college reading level in science and logic. No appeals to religion or the Bible. Just science. Can you handle it?

        • Darwin's Enigma / free on line
    by Luther Sunderland
    (LACK of fossil evidence to support evolution discussed by 5 leading pro-evolutionists)
    Luther Sunderland falsifies the Evolutionists' myth concerning the fossil record as evidence for evolution. The implication is staggering. Fossils are the 'bed rock' of the evidence for evolutionists! If fossils don't prove evolution, then the foundation for Darwinian evolutionist claims crumble to dust.
    Begin your deprogramming regarding evolution here. This is the book that began my deprogramming process after graduation from a controlled public education career. It took years to accept and to understand, but the facts are there. Do not be afraid to look through the telescope and microscope. Do not be afraid to observe reality and draw your own conclusions. For whatever reason and for whatever agenda, we have all been lied to and programmed to believe the lies from early childhood.
    Many are eager to see in UFO's a possibility that life on Earth was seeded by some extraterrestrial race of aliens, but life is so complex that it could not and can not come about by chance. The Designer that created humans also created aliens and all life including the most simple of single celled life.
    What's more, life came first! The Designer/Creator had to come first in order to design and seed life throughout the universe. This is the staggering implication that you will come to appreciate when you read this book.

        • Evolution: A Theory In Crisis
    by Michael Denton
    (MD, scientist, biological researcher gives 'an account of the growing crisis in biology and enables us to understand why an increasing number of research scientists are questioning strict Darwinism.')

        • Darwin's Black Box
    by Michael J. Behe
    (assoc. Prof. of biochemistry at Lehigh U. surveys the scientific literature looking for explanations of how evolution is supposed to create the complex biological structures we see through the microscope and finds NONE.)

        • The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
    by Michael J. Behe
    ("For the first time in history Darwin's theory can be rigorously evaluated. The results are shocking. Although it can explain marginal changes in evolutionary history, random mutation and natural selection explain very little of the basic machinery of life. The "edge" of evolution, a line that defines the border between random and nonrandom mutation, lies very far from where Darwin pointed. Behe argues convincingly that most of the mutations that have defined the history of life on earth have been nonrandom.")

        • Darwin On Trial
    by Phillip E. Johnson
    (law professor looks at the language and argumentative tactics of evolutionists that avoid a discussion of the scientific evidence and attempt to shift the debate to religion)

        • Refuting Evolution [ 1 ] [ 2 ]
    by Johathan Sarfati
    (the easiest read and a quick summary)
    From the back cover...
    "In 1998 the National Academy of Sciences published and distributed a book to public schools and other institutions entitled 'Teaching About Evolution and the nature of Science'. This publication was designed to persuade and assist teachers to present the theory as fact and counter anti-evolutionist students with statements such as:
    1) "... no one saw the evolution of one-toed horses from three-toed horses, but that does not mean that we cannot be confident that horses evolved.",
    2) "... there is no debate within the scientific community over whether evolution occurred, and there is no evidence that evolution has not occurred.",
    3) "... scientists themselves use the word 'theory' loosely and apply it to tentative explanations that lack well-established evidences.",
    4) "... 'creation science' is the idea that scientific evidence can support a literal interpretation of Genesis ... scientists have looked at the arguments and found they are not supported by verifiable data.")

        • Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life On Earth
    by Robert Shapiro
    (Professor of Chemistry at NYU. From the back cover: "To walk though its arguments is to come upon the process of science, the veil of self-deception, and the questing nature of speculation." - Science '86 -

        • Uncommon Descent Archives

        • Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome Classroom Edition
    by John Sanford, Cornell geneticist
    "Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome Classroom Edition, is a further revised version of the original 2005 paperback (Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome). This book explores the weaknesses of Darwinian theory from the perspective of someone who has been at the cutting-edge of genetic research. Suitable for public forums, Genetic Entropy, Classroom Edition presents its critique of the “Primary Axiom” apart from any alternative model or any reference to intelligent design or any aspect of theism. This book provides interested teachers and students with a strictly scientific analysis of the weaknesses of the neo-Darwinian evolutionary mechanism. This should facilitate appropriate science classroom discussions without reference to either philosophy or religion. The author is uniquely qualified to address this topic (Ph.D. in plant breeding and genetics). He has engaged in genetic research as a Cornell professor for almost three decades, holds over 30 patents, and has published over 80 scientific publications in peer-reviewed journals."

        • Genetic Entropy
    by John Sanford, Cornell geneticist
    "In retrospect, I realize that I have wasted so much of my life arguing about things that don’t really matter ... Modern Darwinism is built on what I will be calling “The Primary Axiom”. The Primary Axiom is that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection. Within our society’s academia, the Primary Axiom is universally taught, and almost universally accepted. It is the constantly mouthed mantra, repeated endlessly on every college campus. It is very difficult to find any professor on any college campus who would even consider (or should I say – dare) to question the Primary Axiom ...

    "Late in my career, I did something which for a Cornell professor would seem unthinkable. I began to question the Primary Axiom. I did this with great fear and trepidation. By doing this, I knew I would be at odds with the most “sacred cow” of modern academia. Among other things, it might even result in my expulsion from the academic world ...

    ... I gradually realized that the seemingly “great and unassailable fortress” which has been built up around the primary axiom is really a house of cards. The Primary Axiom is actually an extremely vulnerable theory – in fact it is essentially indefensible

    "... A large part of what keeps the Axiom standing is an almost mystical faith, which the true-believers have in the omnipotence of natural selection. Furthermore, I began to see that this deep-seated faith in natural selection was typically coupled with a degree of ideological commitment – which can only be described as religious. I started to realize (again with trepidation) that I might be offending a lot of people’s religion!

    "To question the Primary Axiom required me to re-examine virtually everything I thought I knew about genetics. This was probably the most difficult intellectual endeavor of my life. Deeply entrenched thought pattern only change very slowly (and I must add — painfully). What I eventually experienced was a complete overthrow of my previous understandings. Several years of personal struggle resulted in a new understanding, and a very strong conviction that the Primary Axiom was most definitely wrong. More importantly, I became convinced that the Axiom could be shown to be wrong to any reasonable and open-minded individual ...

    "... every form of objective analysis I have performed has convinced me that the Axiom is clearly false. So now, regardless of the consequences, I have to say it out loud: the Emperor has no clothes!

    "... To the extent that the Primary Axiom can be shown to be false ... I have dared to write this humble little book – which some will receive as blasphemous treason, and others – revelation.

    "If the Primary Axiom is wrong, then there is a surprising and very practical consequence. When subjected only to natural forces, the human genome must irrevocably degenerate over time."

    Links to recommended websites ...

    Evolution Intelligent Design Creation Organizations
  • BioLogos
  • Darwin Online
  • Stephen Jay Gould.org
  • Talk Origins
  • Discovery Institute
  • Evolution News & Views (EVN)
  • Intelligent Design Network
  • Intelligent Design dot org
  • Answers In Genesis
  • Creation.com
  • Creation Science Evangelism
  • Institute for Creation Research
  • Reasons to Believe
  • Real Science Radio
  • Truth In Genesis
  • American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) Christians in the sciences
  • The Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation
  • The Robert Herrmann Lectures On Faith and Science

  • Scientists who have changed from evolution to ID
  • Dean Kenyon, Biology Prof Emeritus, SFSU
  • Dr. Francis Collins, Human Genome Project
  • Dr. Jonathan Wells
  • Rick Oliver
  • Fred Hoyle: Lecture: Was Hoyle Right?

  • Fraud Among Evolutionists
    Items of Interest
  • A Classic Polystrate Fossil
  • The Grand Experiment / Whale evolution fraud

  • Origin Debate Forums
  • Evolution Fairytale Forum
  • ForumBioDiversity
  • talk.origins
  • Thunderbolts Forum

  • Links to recommended videos & podcasts ...

    Video Debates Documentaries & Presentations Podcasts
  • VIDEO: Upheaval: How Old Is the Earth and Its Species? | Space News / Dating methods
  • VIDEO: The Evolution of Life on the Electric Earth | Space News / Dating methods
  • Hugh Ross vs Kent Hovind How old is the Earth
  • Intelligent Design and the Age of the Earth - Stephen C. Meyer, PhD
  • Should Christians Divide over the Age of the Earth?
  • Behe & Meyer Destroy Challenge to Flagellum Motor / ID & Darwinian panels debate Behe's irreducible complexity challenge to evolution. Scientific points preside. In addition, the point of bias by the journals Science and Nature is also clearly pointed out.
  • Is Intelligent Design Testable? / William A. Dembski, 01.24.2001
  • Is Intelligent Design Falsifiable?
  • VIDEO: LEE STROBEL The Case for a Creator Full documentary
  • Intelligent Design vs. Evolution - Stephen Meyer vs. Peter Ward (rematch)
  • Is There Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design in Nature? - Meyer/Gilder v. Shermer/Bailey
  • David Berlinski - Evolution destroyed in under 5 minutes
  • Forbidden Science - Shattering the Myths of Darwin's Theory of Evolution
  • Dr. Stephen Meyer: Darwin's Dilemma - Where did the information come from?
  • Phillip E. Johnson on Darwinism
  • The Creation Conversation - Part 2 - Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer and David Berlinski
  • Darwin's Black Box - A Debate - Michael Behe vs Keith Fox
  • What are the Limits of Darwinism? A Presentation by Dr. Michael Behe at the University of Toronto
  • Debate: Atheists vs Christians (Krauss + Shermer vs D'Souza + Hutchinson)
  • Creation / Evolution Debate on the Fossil Record - Dr. Don Patton vs John Blanton
  • Intelligent Design/Evolution Debate (1 of 8)
  • Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design
  • Richard Dawkins Stumped By Creationists' Question
  • The Great Debate - What is Life?
  • Is There Design In Biology?: William Dembski vs Lewis Wolpert
  • Lennox Vs. Dawkins Debate - Has Science Buried God?
  • Dr. Craig Venter Denies Common Descent in front of Richard Dawkins!
  • Christopher Hitchens 2010 'Does atheism poison everything' vs David Berlinski
  • Devil's Delusion Author David Berlinski
  • Richard Dawkins interviews creationist John Mackay (Part 1 of 2)
  • David Berlinski—Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions / Uncommon Knowledge - HooverInstitution - Devil's Delusion
  • David Berlinski on Science, Philosophy, and Society / Uncommon Knowledge - HooverInstitution
  • Distinguished Visitor Series: David Berlinski / Kings College
  • Richard Dawkins "destroyed" in debate by "wiser" Christian professor / Dawkins vs Lennox
  • Dawkins straightened out


  • Evolution Is Impossible, Not Just Highly Unlikely, But Impossible!
    Part 1
    Part 2 Bob Enyart, Real Science Radio, Denver interviews Lawrence Krauss about Neanderthal and Jack Horner (Mary Schweitzer) about soft dino tissue.
  • VIDEO: Lloyd Pye - Everything You Know Is Wrong / human origins
  • VIDEO: The Mysterious Origins of Man 1 / Secret Discoveries of Early Man, Charlton Heston
  • VIDEO: The Mysterious Origins of Man 2 / Ancient Alien Discoveries of Early Man
  • VIDEO: The Mysterious Origins of Man 3 Jurassic Art /

  • VIDEO: Third Eye In The Ancient Americas - Richard Cassaro, New Archaeological Find
  • VIDEO: Richard Cassaro Channel

  • VIDEO: part 38 "Impossible" statues, "Impossible" ancient jewellery, Moscow nuked, "Impossible" steel

  • VIDEO: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (full movie)

  • Real Science Radio


  • Image from: TimeMaps.com
  • HyperHistory Timeline

    • Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution 2.0- Perry Marshall debates Stephen Meyer
      "Evolution 2.0
      Published on Mar 2, 2017

      Click here to get 3 free chapters - a Communication Engineer’s adventure through the creation-evolution divide: http://cosmicfingerprints.com/evolution/

      Unbelievable Podcast host Justin Brierley welcomes Stephen Meyer and Perry Marshall to discuss a hot-topic in christian and science circles...

      "It didn’t make front-page headlines across the world, but many biologists are saying that something quite exciting happened at the Royal Society in London last year.

      "The Royal Society is one of the world’s oldest and most respected scientific institutions, and has been at the forefront of championing the theory of evolution. But at its meeting in November 2016, New Trends in Evolutionary Biology — that was the name of the conference—many are saying the door was opened to potentially alternative explanations for the way life, in contrast to the standard Neo-Darwinian explanation of evolution by natural selection acting on random mutation.

      "Dr. Denis Noble, who hosted the conference, brought together leading voices in the so-called “Third Way” movement in biology. People like James Shapiro, Sonia Sultan, and Gerd Müller, whose research some people say has challenged the prevailing orthodoxy.

      "What does all this mean for the future of evolutionary theory? Does it open the door to things like Intelligent Design or a role for God in the evolutionary process? Or something else entirely? Well, two people who were both there are joining me for Unbelievable today for what I’m sure will be a really interesting, scientific, philosophical and theological discussion."

      "We both see the fault in the current paradigm. The art is to convince the biomedical research community that there's a better way. I've been struggling with this issue more than fifteen years now, publishing and sharing meetings both in the US and Europe, and my own sense is that there's fear in the group that if they blink on the subject of Darwinian Evolution, the ID people will literally and figuratively eat their lunch. So the task is to switch to another paradigm while sustaining the existing one."
      - Perry Marshall reads an email he received from an evolutionary biologist. @27:22 in the video interview, Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution 2.0- Perry Marshall debates Stephen Meyer

      Later on (@37:30), Meyer says that this reaction is 'a statement of metaphysical panic.' They don't want to consider something that would take them outside of a naturalistic framework. And that same panic was in evidence at the meeting, and at one point, even Jablanca(?) was under pressure from one of the old-line neo-Darwinists in her talk ... and the neo-Darwinist said, "No we don't need to consider these alternatives, and Eva(?) unprompted said, 'I'm not talking about God.' ... God was the elephant in the room ... But terror as the alternative perspective, if you don't like for metaphysical reasons, is not a scientific justification for claims about the creative power of mechanisms that have not yet demonstrated that creative power. We need actual demonstrations ... I don't think it solves the prolem of macroevolution."

      Marshall @41:25 says, "I would propose ... that a cell is something like a quantum computer with a linguistic engine, and it can respond to the environment and create something new that never existed before because it is not merely a mechanism. It is a 'self' that is doing what it needs to do to maintain homeostasis ... Now this is going to make neo-Darwinists extremely uncomfortable, but if you look at what cells do ... it's obvious that they're doing something like this. I would like to suggest to you that if a protozoan can rearrange its DNA in a hundred thousand pieces and not not only still work but actually be better off than it was before, and if you can do that in twelve hours, then what can happen in ten years or twenty years or a million years? So this is the approach that I think we should be taking with the Cambrian ..."

      Marshall @1:02:30 claims that "The cell is an agent. There's a wonderful book by Bob Lanza called 'Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe' which makes an extremely robust case that the Universe is a consciousness first, matter second phenomenon - not the other way around. I would like to suggest to the Intelligent Design community that if you want to defeat scientific reductionism, which I am in agreement needs to be done. Science is not reductionistic. Biology is not reductionistic. What you need to do, instead of fighting ... macroevolution - you need to embrace it because what we don't know is how smart those cells really are. A bacterium can do more software engineering in twelve minutes than a team of Google engineers can do in twelve weeks ... If I take the old-school neo-Darwinist position, I will lose market share every year as more and more things turn out to be orderly instead of random ... If I take the Third Way view, my market share will grow and grow because the explanatory power of an integrationist - non-reductionist paradigm which also considers consciousness - it can in principle explain what's going on at the high level but it gives us scientists something to actually do. So I'm making a prediction that over time we are going to continue to explain more and more of the developments in taxa from species to phyla (Taxonomic ranks: species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain). I think the next twenty years are going to be fantastic and that people in technology can learn a tremendous amount from biology."

      Meyer's responds. "I think most of us would agree that we're smarter than bacteria, but we in our conscious minds have no idea how to respond to various environmental stressors to rewrite our DNA to express different proteins under different circumstances. So if this isn't done by our conscious awareness then there must be some pre-programming that is enabling the cell or the organism to do this ... A lot of the experiments that have been done already show that such pre-programming is present. In fact, that is Shapiro said. So really, the question is the origin of that pre-programming. I think it would be a mistake to imput higher consciousness to a bacterial cell. That would take us down the [path to some sort of mysticism] ... There's all kinds of great research projects. Let me tell you about one that is relevant to cancer research. There's a problem in evolutionary theory called the 'Waiting Times Problem.'"
      "Given the unique capabilities of humans, an evolving hominin population (as would give rise to modern man) would need to establish a great deal of new information."

      "It is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5%, representing about 150 million nucleotide differences."

      "The gene can range in size from about 1,000 to more than one million nucleotides long. A typical human gene is roughly 50,000 nucleotides long. A new gene is thought to arise from a previously existing gene, with the mutation/selection process establishing mutations within a long text string that is already established and functional."

      "It is now generally recognized that beneficial mutations are rare, and that high-impact beneficial mutations are extremely rare. In higher life forms where population sizes are modest, the mutation rate per nucleotide per generation is normally extremely low (about 10-8). This means that the waiting time for a specific nucleotide within single chromosomal lineage would be 100 million generations."

      "We simulated a classic pre-human hominin population of at least 10,000 individuals, with a generation time of 20 years, using the numerical simulation program Mendel’s Accountant (Mendel version 2.4.2, now being released as 2.5)."

      "Biologically realistic numerical simulations revealed that a population of this type required inordinately long waiting times to establish even the shortest nucleotide strings. To establish a string of two nucleotides required on average 84 million years. To establish a string of five nucleotides required on average 2 billion years. We found that waiting times were reduced by higher mutation rates, stronger fitness benefits, and larger population sizes. However, even using the most generous feasible parameter settings, the waiting time required to establish any specific nucleotide string within this type of population was consistently prohibitive."

      "Even given very substantial fitness effects, the waiting time for a specific point mutation ranged between 1.5 and 15.9 million years" which "is very sobering, since it is estimated that mankind evolved from a chimp-like creature in just 6 million years."

      "As string length increased linearly, the increase in waiting time was of an exponential nature. When there were as many as six nucleotides in the string, the average waiting time (4.24 billion years) approached the estimated age of the earth. When there were eight nucleotides in the string, the average waiting time (18.5 billion years), exceeded the estimated age of the universe."

      "Our results generally represent best-case scenarios in terms of minimizing waiting time. When we use more realistic parameter settings for our simulations, we consistently get much longer waiting times."

      "When a population faces a specific evolutionary challenge, a specific fix is needed, and it must arise in a timely fashion. Positive selection cannot generally begin to resolve an evolutionary challenge until just the right mutation (or mutations) happens at just the right position (or positions). Selection for the required trait can only begin after the mutation (or mutations) result in a substantial (selectable) improvement in total biological functionality."

      "The creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man" who has "a genome with over three billion nucleotides."

      "We need multiple point mutations to arise on the same short strand of DNA, which is very difficult. While a population is waiting (through deep time) for the correct string to arise, genetic drift is systematically eliminating almost all the string variants. Nearly all of the time there will be essentially zero strings anywhere in the population that are even close to the target string."

      "It is widely thought that a larger population size can eliminate the waiting time problem. While our simulations show that larger populations do help reduce waiting time, we see that the benefit of larger population size produces rapidly diminishing returns. When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million, the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years. This amount of time approximates the estimated time required for the evolution of worm-like creatures into people. When we extrapolate our data to a population size of ten million we still get a waiting time of 202 million years. Even when we extrapolate to a population size of one billion we still have a waiting time of 40 million years."

      "A bigger population increases the number of mutations arising per generation, but does not increase the number of mutations per short DNA strand (mutation density). To create a complete set of linked mutations requires many mutations arising on the same short stretch of a given DNA molecule."

      "Numerous other researchers have come to similar conclusions. The long waiting times we report here are even supported indirectly by the papers that have argued against a serious waiting time problem. When examined carefully, those papers indicate that for a hominin-type population, waiting times are as long or even longer than we report here."

      [It is true that] "during the waiting time period for a functional string to be established at a given location, other beneficial mutational strings can be happening in other parts of the genome."

      "However, those other strings are not likely to meet the same specific evolutionary need that our target string can meet. Evolution often needs a specific fix to a specific problem, and that fix must be timely in order to retain relevance."

      "Even if all of the ~20,000 genes in the hominin genome were already poised for a significant enhancement and all of them were waiting for their own specific string, each one of those potential enhancements would have its own severe waiting time problem."

      "Furthermore, this would be happening in the context of countless nearly-neutral deleterious mutations throughout the genome which would drift to fixation within the same deep time. Unless there was very strong purifying selection operating for all the nucleotides in the general region of the string, the context of the string would be erased long before the string itself actually arose."

      "The waiting time problem becomes very severe when more than one mutation is required to establish a new function. This is a very interesting theoretical dilemma."

      -- Sanford, John, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith and John Baumgardner. September 17, 2015. The waiting time problem in a model hominin population. Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 12, No. 1, Article 18, 28 pages, DOI: 10.1186/s12976-015-0016-z.

    • Web search: The Waiting Times Problem in evolutionary theory
    • Meyers continues. "The kind of research we are doing actually quantifying those waiting times could be very useful in cancer research, and it's actually predicated on the understanding that there are limits to what evolutionary mechanisms can produce. When we examine not only neo-Darwinism but these Third Way mechanisms we're seeing clear evidence of limits as well as capabilities. So mapping where those boundary lines lie is a crucially important part of understanding what happened in the evolutionary past, but it's also crucially important to addressing disease in the present like cancer and anti-biotic resistance."

      The host of Unbelievable, Justin Brierley, asks Perry Marshall how long he thinks it will take for text books to catch up with the new knowledge of how biology actually works.

      Marshall responds. "There's an old saying that 'Science progresses one funeral at a time,' and it's certainly true that a lot of scientists have to die before new theories get a chance ... But you might have been right a few years ago to say the text books would be slow to catch up this, but given the Internet and the information age, I think this will be fast. Not slow. I think this will be like the Berlin Wall where once it went down and once Communism started tumbling, I think we're looking at three to five years before there's a complete paradigm shift - not only inside the sciences but in the pop culture."

      Meyer makes a point about the predictive power of ID in regards to the issue of 'junk DNA'. He notes that the evolutionists predicted initially thought that 97% of the DNA was junk DNA representing the residual of the trial and error of random mutation, and that only 3% of the DNA was functional. ID scientists predicted that, while mutations are real processes, the signal would not be dwarfed by the noise, so IDers expected to find function in that allegedly non-functional region of the genome ... and especially with the publication of the ENCODE Project (ENCODE: Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) the ID perspective has been borne out. "And in fact, Jim Shapiro, one of the scientists who was writing on this, gave credit to Rick Sternberg, Richard Sternberg, formally of the Smithsonian, one of our ID collegues, for being the first guy to see this. And he [Shapiro] he did so in the Huffington Post of all places ... That's just one of many examples of where ID has heuristic value ... So we think that [ID] is not a science stopper - it is a science starter."

      Meyer states, "I don't think we have a Third Way here. I think we just have people who are not addressing the fundamental question of the origin of information after the key question of the origin of life. I love what Perry says about the origin of life. He's absolutely right. But that question of the origin of information does not go away as you ascend up the biological hierarchy ... You can't get higher level body plan structure out of genetic information alone. So when you have these mechanisms like horizontal gene transfer or natural genetic engineering, their not going to give you that level of complexity. Their going to give you some new proteins ... There are real limits to what these mechanisms can do. They're demonstrable. It's really cool science ... I understand why [neo-Darwinists] are upset. They're being passed by. I don't think the Third Way solves the information problem. And that's not a matter of 'God of the Gaps' ... it's a matter of doing some fundamental science and tracing the information flows. If you trace them back to your source you get the singularities where no evolutionary mechanism accounts for the origin of the programming that is necessary."

      Perry Marshall makes the point on page 192 in 'Evolution 2.0' that all codes are created by conscious minds and therefore the code in DNA must have been created by a conscious mind. According to Stephen Meyer, Marshall is making the ID argument for the origin of first life, "but when it comes to biological evolution as opposed to chemical evolution, he thinks that these 'third way' mechanisms are sufficient or promising enough that we ought not consider design as an explanation after the poinit of the first life."

      Meyer makes this point regarding DNA and epigenetics beginning at 36:00. "The problem of epigenetic information. Not all the information necessary to build a body plan is in DNA. DNA codes for building proteins, but proteins have to be organized into biosynthetic pathways that would characterize different kinds of cells and cell types. Different cell types have to be organized into differnt tissues. Different tissues have to be organized into different organs and organs and tissues have to be organized into whole body plans. The information for doing that is not solely in the DNA. Higher levels of information stored elsewhere are required to organize all those different levels of the biological hierarchy. Shapiro is focusing on natural genetic engineering and as such you might get proteins out of this but he's not going to explain the origin of body plans. And that is the crucial question ... Where does that higher level of inovation come from? ... So these [Third Way] mechanisms solve those problems ..."
    • Evolution 2.0 Origin of Life Video / Perry Marshall

    Alternatives to evolution by natural selection are emerging under the title of the 'third way'
    • Web search: Alternatives to evolution by natural selection third way
    • Website: THE THIRD WAY: evolution in the era of genomics and epigenomics
      "The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon intervention by a divine Creator. That is clearly unscientific because it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process. The commonly accepted alternative is Neo-Darwinism, which is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation. Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis. Many scientists today see the need for a deeper and more complete exploration of all aspects of the evolutionary process."
    • A Third Way: James Shapiro and the Post-Modern Synthesis
    • Neo-Darwinism has failed as an evolutionary theory / May 19, 1995
      "Darwinism is a theory of evolution based upon inherited variations in organisms and natural selection of fitter variants to produce species adapted to their habitats. Twentieth-century biology added a theory of inheritance, the science of genetics, to give Neo-Darwinism ...

      "There is no doubt about the importance of the insights that have resulted from this increased genetic and molecular focus. The problem is that the claims made for these revelations are frequently so misleading and distorted that the whole field becomes tarnished by exaggeration and real scientific problems are obscured ...

      "A widely quoted example with which many biologists agree is the description by Delisi (American Scientist) of what the human genome project will reveal about human development. "This collection of chromosomes in the fertilised egg constitutes the complete set of instructions for development, determining the timing and details of the formation of the heart, the central nervous system, the immune system, and every other organ and tissue required for life."

      "... Lewis Wolpert delivers the same message as Dawkins: "DNA provides the programme which controls development of the embryo and brings about epigenesis" (The Triumph of the Embryo) ...

      "What is wrong with these statements is that they define scientific positions that need to be backed up by models that demonstrate precisely how a knowledge of genes in the developing organism will lead to an understanding of the three-dimensional form of the human heart or limb or eye, the arrangement of leaves on a plant and the organs of the flower, or the wings of a fruit fly. But this is not provided. The discussion always stops at the spatial patterns of gene products in developing organisms, if indeed it gets even that far. The crucial step of generating the actual three-dimensional structures that characterise the distinctive morphology of species is left unexplained."

  • Bible Verses Pertaining to Creation & Science

    Isaiah 45:18 (KJV) "For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else." ( AMP, ASV, KJV, NIV )

    Proverbs 25:2 (ASV) "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing; but the glory of kings to search out a matter." / Solomon ( AMP, ASV, KJV, NIV )

    Romans 1:20 (KJV) "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" ( AMP, ASV, KJV, NIV )

    2 Corinthians 4:18 (AMP) "Since we consider and look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen; for the things that are visible are temporal (brief and fleeting), but the things that are invisible are deathless and everlasting." ( AMP, ASV, KJV, NIV )

    Ephesians 3:9 (KJV) "And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:" ( AMP, ASV, KJV, NIV )

    Isaiah 45:12 (NIV) "It is I who made the earth and created mankind on it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts." ( AMP, ASV, KJV, NIV )

  • Defining Evolution

    Defining Evolution | NCSE NCSE History of the Definiion of Evolution

  • Consensus Science

    "There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period."
    - Michael Crichton, MD.

    “I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

    “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

    “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” [Crichton gave a number of examples where the scientific consensus was completely wrong for many years.]

    “... Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”

    -- Source: Crichton, Michael, Aliens cause Global Warming, 17 January 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology (here or here)

  • MicroEvolution vs MacroEvolution

    "This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution.

    "Microevolution looks at changes within species over time-changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species.

    "Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related ...

    "... The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation."
    -- "Scientific American, 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

  • Planetary Magnetice Fields

    "The mechanism for generating the geomagnetic field [of Earth] remains one of the central unsolved problems in geoscience."
    -- National Geomagnetic Initiative Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources

    At what rate is Earth's magnetic field decaying? Websearch here.

  • Abiogenesis: "Abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth ... While the hypothetical process of spontaneous generation was disproved as early as the 17th century and decisively rejected in the 19th century, abiogenesis has been neither proved nor disproved." Britannica
  • Artificial life: creating a whole new artificial life system
  • Synthetic life: re-designing the cell chromosomes
  • Non-adaptive order: The Biology of the Baroque
  • Null hypothesis is a hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify.
  • Phenotypic Plasticity: "Some organisms can change their appearance, physiology, and development in response to changes in the environment. This is called phenotypic plasticity."
  • NRAO Radio Astronomy Glossary
  • Fact v. Theory (Stephen Jay Gould): Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.
  • Euclidean n-space, sometimes called Cartesian space: "In geometry, a two- or three-dimensional space in which the axioms and postulates of Euclidean geometry apply; also, a space in any finite number of dimensions, in which points are designated by coordinates (one for each dimension) and the distance between two points is given by a distance formula. The only conception of physical space for over 2,000 years, it remains the most compelling and useful way of modeling the world as it is experienced. Though non-Euclidean spaces, such as those that emerge from elliptic geometry and hyperbolic geometry, have led scientists to a better understanding of the universe and of mathematics itself, Euclidean space remains the point of departure for their study." - Encyclopedia Britannica
  • Riemannian geometry: "Riemannian geometry, also called elliptic geometry, one of the non-Euclidean geometries that completely rejects the validity of Euclid’s fifth postulate and modifies his second postulate. Simply stated, Euclid’s fifth postulate is: through a point not on a given line there is only one line parallel to the given line. In Riemannian geometry, there are no lines parallel to the given line. Euclid’s second postulate is: a straight line of finite length can be extended continuously without bounds. In Riemannian geometry, a straight line of finite length can be extended continuously without bounds, but all straight lines are of the same length. The tenets of Riemannian geometry, however, admit the other three Euclidean postulates (compare hyperbolic geometry).

    "Although some of the theorems of Riemannian geometry are identical to those of Euclidean, most differ. In Euclidean geometry, for example, two parallel lines are taken to be everywhere equidistant. In elliptic geometry, parallel lines do not exist. In Euclidean, the sum of the angles in a triangle is two right angles; in elliptic, the sum is greater than two right angles. In Euclidean, polygons of differing areas can be similar; in elliptic, similar polygons of differing areas do not exist." - Encyclopedia Britannica