Feb 12

Darwin Day sees evolution in primary schools

Rt Hon Michael Gove MP laying down the law.

Rt Hon Michael Gove MP laying down the law.

The Government has handed atheists a Darwin Day present by promising to indoctrinate primary school children with evolutionism.

Education Secretary of State Rt Hon Michael Gove MP has decided to force primary schools in England to teach evolutionary theory.  The announcement was made as part of last week’s English Baccalaureate climb-down statement.

It will be another triumph for the overwhelmingly-secularist arts world to chink the champagne glasses over as they celebrate the quite proper increase of status of humanities subjects such as music and art in secondary school examinations.

However, the decision raises questions about issues of conscience for primary school teachers, who cover more subjects than their secondary colleagues and cannot simply keep out of the biology department.

Richard Dawkins - not as nice as he looks.

Richard Dawkins – not as nice as he looks.

Shortly after being appointed two-and-a-half years ago Michael Gove bowed to pressure from evolutionary biologists including Richard Dawkins and banned from Secondary School biology classes any talk of a possibility that organisms show signs of having been designed.  If last week’s statement is followed through, it will be the first time evolution has been taught as a subject in primary schools.

The decision can be seen as an act of desperation by secularists, who are worried that the holes in Darwin’s theory of evolution are becoming increasingly visible and talked-about, not least in the scientific community.

Charles Darwin, 1809 - 1882. Published 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life' on 24th November 1859.

Charles Darwin, 1809 – 1882. Published ‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’ on 24th November 1859.

Today, 12th February 2013, is the 204th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, and is promoted as ‘Darwin Day’ by atheist bodies such as the British Humanist Association.  The BHA website boasts a ‘campaign against the teaching of Creationism in British schools’, which has been successful beyond their wildest dreams, and a ludicrous ‘international campaign’ to turn ‘Darwin Day’ into a public holiday.  These pages are worth clicking on to for intelligence as to what the enemies of Jesus Christ are up to.

Sadly, a link on the BHA website to ‘answers to 21 anti-evolutionary questions and arguments’ sends the visitor to the schools campaigning page instead and a google search reveals no such document.

Interestingly, there are webpages elsewhere claiming to answer creationist’s questions, but they fail to do so.  Here is one attempt; I love the admission that evolution needs time – lots and lots of time.

Yeast reproduces every 15 minutes.  Over the course of a day that is almost 100 generations, 35,000 generations in a year.  In human terms that amounts to 876,000 years, taking 25 years for a generation, or over a million years if you ascribe 30 years for a generation.

The Carlsberg Brewery have been using the same yeast for 130 years, during which time it has gone through over 4-and-a-half million generations.

The Carlsberg Brewery have been using the same yeast for 130 years, during which time it has gone through over 4-and-a-half million generations.

The yeast Saccharomyces carlsbergensis is named after the Carlsberg Brewery in Copenhagen, where it was first isolated in 1883, 130 years ago.  Carlsbergensis has gone through 4,550,000 generations and it is still the exact same strain of yeast as in 1883.  It hasn’t mutated into anything else for 4-and-a-half million generations.  One might say it hasn’t needed to, but where is the evidence that it could even try?  In human terms those generations amount to 130 million (130,000,000) years.

New Scientist, a bastion of evolutionism, claims our ‘evolution from apes’ began ‘6 million years’ ago.  But the evidence from the yeast is that 130 million years would not be enough time even to start the process.  6 million years of human ancestry is like expecting yeast after 6 years of brewing to jump out of the vat and become a mushroom.  No doubt it shares just as much of its DNA with something else as we do with monkeys.  But that genetic information relentlessly reproduces it as yeast.

Here is an attempt to answer a whole bunch of questions posed by the American creationist Kent Hovind.  Astonishingly,  barely one question is actually answered.

I don’t have a lot of questions for evolutionists, I just have one.  Well, actually, I do have a lot, but one will do, and it is this:

Who put the tuft on the head of the Tufted Duck?

Who put the tuft on the head of the Tufted Duck?

What is the evolutionary purpose, or what advantage is conveyed to the species, as a species, by the tuft on the head of the tufted duck?  And if I am allowed a supplementary or two: If there is no advantage to the species, what is the tuft on the head of the tufted duck actually for and how and why did it evolve?

You see, I know the answer, from a creationist point of view, at least.




Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)


Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.



2 pings

Skip to comment form

  1. Rox

    Perhaps you should be asking what the disadvantage is of the tuft. If it happened by a chance mutation, but is hereditary, it would continue to appear unless the tufted duck had a disadvantage compared to other ducks. What’s more, if tufted ducks liked the look of big ones, big ones might have the advantage of attracting mates.

    One needs to be careful with this kind of argument. Because if the tuft has no advantage to the tufted duck, why did God design them with tufts ?

    1. Stephen

      ‘happened by a chance mutation’? A two-inch tuft happens by a chance mutation? In both a male and female at exactly the same time? And all their friends without tufts just stop breeding? Give us a break.

      ‘if tufted ducks liked the look of big ones, big ones might have the advantage of attracting mates’. No, I asked what was the advantage to the species, not to the individual duck – or drake. And plenty of other species of birds manage to reproduce without tufts on their little heads.

      ‘if the tuft has no advantage to the tufted duck, why did God design them with tufts’?

      Same reason as the tail of the peacock, or the wing bars on the mallard, or the red breast of the robin, or the weird yellow bill of the cock blackbird.

      To show his glory.

      1. Felix

        Can I ask an inverse question: why do human beings have an appendix? It serves no decorative purpose, nor does it serve any practical purpose. The evolutionary answer satisfies: it is a remnant from a previous iteration of species, gradually shrinking and becoming increasingly redundant as our diet changes. The answer you would give me is that it’s part of God’s glory, but all that would mean is God has given us is appendicitis. Glorious.

        The larger point I’m making here is that either side can pick individual and miniscule examples without it proving anything about the wider argument.

        1. Stephen

          You need to keep up to speed with scientific developments, old thing. Scientists were suggesting a function for the appendix six years ago.

          1. Michael

            Then why do Whales have legs?

          2. Stephen

            They don’t.

          3. Robin Jones

            Whales have vestigial legs from earlier in their evolutionary history, seriously look it up.

          4. Stephen

            No, they have odd bits of bone which evolutionists have asserted are vestigial legs.

        2. Steve

          I’m sure Ray Comfort will not mind me reposting the following taken from his Facebook page.

          I was speaking recently to a group of university students. When I said that I didn’t believe in evolution–that it was unscientific and unobservable, an atheist called out, “But what about the tail bone?” The human tailbone is said to be vestigial—that is, it’s an evolutionary left-over proving that we are related to primates. I said that it’s not a “tailbone,” but that it’s the coccyx vertebrae, and that it’s the anchor for 12 muscles that make it possible for us go to the bathroom: “The tailbone derived its name because some people believe it is a ‘leftover’ part from human evolution, though the notion that the tailbone serves no purpose is wrong. The coccyx is an extremely important source of attachment for tendons, ligaments, and muscles, though it is structured quite differently than other parts of the spine.” Of course this believer in evolution didn’t concede for a moment, and called out, “What about the appendix?” I then explained that the appendix, like the “tail bone,” isn’t vestigial in the slightest, and that it’s tied in with the human immune system. When he mocked that thought, I told him to Google it. Duke University said: “Appendix Isn’t Useless at All: It’s a Safe House for Bacteria, By Duke Medicine News and Communications. Long denigrated as vestigial or useless, the appendix now appears to have a reason to be — as a ‘safe house’ for the beneficial bacteria living in the human gut.” And so it is with each of the “evidences” that are held up as proof for the bogus science that is believed by so many.

        3. Leslie Wood

          The appendix does have a use especially in infants; most supposed vestigial organs have now been found to have a use. A lot of the arguments for evolution used today have been shot out of the water by evolutionists themselves. The honest one say there is no evidence for evolution and they see the chances of it happening are mathematically impossible; and the only reason they cling onto it against hope is that they do not want to believe in or be accountable to God.

      2. Sam

        Couldn’t a smaller tuft come first, then grow over time? Why would it have to occur at the same time in males and females? And why would their “friends” need to stop breeding? Surely the ducks could diverge at that point?

        I am no Biologist, but I am a scientist. And these measures to teach evolution please me. Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom — it is not science!

        1. Stephen

          Why does the tuft need to arise in the first place and then why does it need to grow? What advantage does it give the species? It has to occur in both male and female to be absolutely certain of being reproduced. If the ducks have diverged, where is the non-tufted tufted duck?
          What is it about the suggestion that organisms might be designed that scares you? A true scientist would be thrilled to find evidence of design in nature.

          1. Sam

            Evidence is what a scientist thrives on. For design, there is none.

            Likewise, I’d happily believe in a God which has evidence for it.

          2. Sam

            PS. Why did it have to be certain of being reproduced? If you think that just because it exists now is an argument that at any point it *had* to be reproduced, you sorely misunderstand statistics.

          3. Stephen

            No, if it exists now, it is because it has been reproduced and reproduced down the ages. That’s not statistics, it’s biology.

          4. Craig

            “Why does the tuft need to arise in the first place”

            It doesn’t “need” to arise. There is no guidance, no reason, no method at work here, apart from random mutations that happen over extended periods of time.

          5. Stephen

            That is just an assertion. Provide some evidence for it.

          6. Janet

            Yes Stephen, I found this….

            “Researchers at Duke University Medical Center say that the function of the frequently discarded appendix is to produce and protects good germs for your gut. This theory is explained in an online edition of the Journal of Theoretical Biology. According to the study, there are massive amounts of bacteria in the human digestive system. Most of it is good and helps digest food. But sometimes this bacteria dies off or is purged from the intestines.

            When the diseases such as cholera or dysentery cause bacterial purging, the bacteria in the appendix are safely harbored. According to the researchers, the appendix’s job is to “reboot” the digestive system when that happens.

            It’s a common notion that vermiform appendix is a vestigial organ and many doctors believed it had no function. It is a blind ended tube connected to the cecum, from which it develops embryologically.

            The term “vermiform” comes from Latin and means “wormlike in appearance”. The cecum is a pouch-like structure of the colon. The appendix is near the junction of the small intestine and the large intestine.

            Medical literature shows that the appendix is not generally credited with significant function. The appendix is rich in infection-fighting lymphoid cells, suggesting that it might play a role in the immune system.

            The most common diseases of the appendix (in humans) are appendicitis and carcinoid tumors. Appendix cancer accounts for about 1 in 200 of all gastrointestinal malignancies.

            Appendicitis (or epityphlitis) is a condition characterized by inflammation of the appendix. Virtually all cases of Appendicitis require removal of the inflamed appendix, either by laparotomy or laparoscopy. Untreated, the appendix will rupture, leading to peritonitis, then shock, and, if continued untreated, death.

            Whether or not the appendix has a function, it is routinely removed without any notable ill effects or side effects. Hyperallergenic responses to the appendix’s contents may be a common cause of appendicitis in developed countries.

            But the scientists also stress that even though the appendix seems to have a function, people should still have them removed when they are inflamed because since leaving it untreated could be fatal.”

      3. Jinxo

        Let me address these issues as you have, one by one.

        1. No-one claims that a two-inch tuft happens necessarily by a chance mutation. It might possibly be a matter of special selection of a small change over time (trends develop very quickly; and yes, there are “fashions” amongst species other than humans)

        2. This is continues from the above. Perhaps (somehow naturally) green-haired people are no more successful reproducers than purple-haired. But supposing the cultural element of a society of people/ducks who valued one colour over the other were introduced; the dominant choice would be the societally approved colour. We see this all the time with all kinds of “allegiances”. There’s absolutely no mystery about this.

        3. There is glory in watching these wonderful animals, as there is in being honest, as there is in striving for a just society, as there is in living a life without BS. And if you really cannot grasp intellectually why a peacock, one amongst most of the male birds, has to display to gain a mate, then sir, don’t you think you’re missing something?


        1. Stephen

          1 ‘special selection of a small change’ assumes a change, and that assumes a mutation which has either produced the tuft in one go, or just as improbably, thousands of incremental increases in the tuft. How can anyone believe this stuff?
          2 It’s the same problem. The tuft has to evolve before the tufted duck version of Vogue decides that tufts are in fashion.
          3 If the peacock has to display a great big tail to gain a mate, then why are there so many starlings about?

          1. Adam

            1 ‘special selection of a small change’ assumes a change, and that assumes a mutation which has either produced the tuft in one go, or just as improbably, thousands of incremental increases in the tuft. How can anyone believe this stuff?”

            You are right, a super natural being far more wonderful than anything on this planet that just happens to have existed without any creator and with the ability to create an entire universe is a far more plausible explanation than a simple process small changes of thousands of generations.

            “2 It’s the same problem. The tuft has to evolve before the tufted duck version of Vogue decides that tufts are in fashion.”

            Are you saying that you don’t find particular physical traits attractive?

            “3 If the peacock has to display a great big tail to gain a mate, then why are there so many starlings about?”

            Um.. the starling is a different animal to the peacock and therefore has it’s own instincts about what makes an appealing and strong mate?

          2. Stephen

            1 Agreed.

            2 Everyone has sex appeal for somebody, or some of us wouldn’t be here.

            3 Evolutionists claim the reason for any dramatic plumage in a bird is to attract a mate. The evidence fails to support the claim. If other birds can attract a mate without a pretty tail or a red breast or whatever then the dramatic plumage is unnecessary for reproduction in any bird. So there must be another explanation for the peacock’s tail, the robin’s breast, the tufted duck’s tuft, and so on. I am brash enough to suggest what it is. It is to show the glory of God.

        2. Jack Lewis

          The one thing that you, and all the others evolution supporting people on this forum, are forgetting is that for a random genetic mutation to be a basis for increased complexity, it must add information to the genome. For an abbacus (very simple) to become a calculator (very complex) any random non-intelligently driven changes must add complexity. History has shown that a great deal of intelligence was necessary to gradually develop the abbacus into a calculator. A living organism’s complexity is in orders of magnitude greater than a calculators.
          What evolutionists are suggesting is that you can increase the amount of information in an encyclopaedia by randomly tearing out small bits of the pages as time goes by. Its just not rational.

          1. Paul

            Variations within a population, arising from mutations, are acted upon by natural selection resulting in the increase in information to which you refer. Mutations don’t necessarily delete information, they can simply alter it or even (in the case of gene duplication) add to it.

          2. Stephen


          3. Paul

            I was thinking particularly of polyploidy – here’s a reference, not so much for the detailed content but for the opinion of people much more qualified than I am that gene duplication occurs and also (which I was not aware of) that it is associated with speciation:


        3. Mike

          If the peacock needs its splendid tail to attract a mate, then how come it didn’t become extinct for want of interested partners before the tail had evolved?

          There are very many examples like this of features of species essential for their survival, which always beg the question of how the species survived before the features had evolved.

          1. Tom


            So you would only ever have sex with a woman with the *exact* characteristics that you like – i.e. you don’t think that people/animals pick the best mate available to them at that time?

            When I read comments like yours and Stephen’s, all I can think is that neither of you have ever actually read a book supportive of evolution. If you just hang around “Christian” websites, read “Christian” books etc, are you ever going to learn anything new? That is called ‘Confirmation bias’ – and just re-enforces your existing ideas. As a former Christian, I would advise you to open your mind, and think things through by yourself. You will be surprised what rubbish can accumulate over the years in religious organisations – just look at the Catholic church, and the beliefs they stand by that have no basis in the bible!

            Comments like yours above show a lack of critical thinking.

          2. Stephen

            Mike isn’t saying that at all.

            The accusations you level at us can equally be levelled at evolutionists. They hang around evolution websites and read pro-evolution books and never question the assumptions or anything behind it. We urge them to open their minds and think things through. You will be surprised by how much rubbish can accumulate in evolutionary bastions.

      4. Greg

        You display an common misunderstanding of evolution here Stephen.

        “A two-inch tuft happens by a chance mutation? In both a male and female at exactly the same time? And all their friends without tufts just stop breeding? Give us a break.”

        A random mutation does not need to have caused a two inch tuft at once. Maybe a mutation caused a smaller tuft at first. If this mutation was hereditary then it would be passed on to that duck’s offspring. It is not necessary for this to happen with both the male and female for this to happen. If ducks find other ducks with tufts on their heads more attractive, then these offspring will be more likely to find a mate and reproduce thereby producing more offspring with tufts on their heads. As these tufts are attractive to other ducks, then the ones with the slightly longer tufts will be more likely to mate. Eventually over a very long time the tufts become more and more common in the population of ducks and the average length of the tufts will grow until ducks with tufts are in the majority.

        “No, I asked what was the advantage to the species, not to the individual duck”

        For a trait to evolve it does not need to benefit the entire population of a species at once. The mutation which caused the trait simply needs to have made animals carrying the mutation more likely to produce offspring than those who do not possess it. This can be as simple as making them more attractive to the opposite sex. Which is for the “Same reason as the tail of the peacock, or the wing bars on the mallard, or the red breast of the robin, or the weird yellow bill of the cock blackbird.”

        I hope this answers your questions to your satisfaction.

        1. Stephen

          No, not at all.
          Firstly, too many lame guesses and suppositions, “if’s”, “will be’s”, “maybe’s” “needs to have’s” and “Eventually over a very long time” and not any evidence for any of it. Very typical of evolutionary argument, all that.
          Lastly, you misunderstand my question. I am not talking about the alleged courting benefit to a particular cock bird of having better plumage than the other lads.
          I am asking: How does the tuft on the head of the tufted duck, the tail of the peacock, the wing bars on the mallard, the red breast of the robin, or the weird yellow bill of the cock blackbird benefit their species?

          1. Greg

            “Very typical of the evolutionary argument, all that”
            You mean offering a perfectly logical sequence of events? What is it specifically in that explanation that you find it so impossible to believe?

            Also, I did not misunderstand your question, I pointed out that is a flawed question which displays your misunderstanding of evolution. A new trait is caused by a random mutation in an individual animals genetic code. For a trait to evolve it does not need to benefit a species, it simply needs to make those individuals who process the trait more likely to produce offspring than those who do not process the trait. Then those offspring will also possess the trait making them more likely to mate than their rivals. As this continues the proportion of animals possessing the trait grows relative to those who do not until many generations down the line, the majority now possess the trait.

            The examples you give are all traits that make the individual possessing the most impressive version of that trait more likely to mate and pass on it’s genes to the next generation.

          2. Stephen

            Exactly. Evolution is a belief. It’s a belief in a string of ‘ifs’ and ‘must-haves’ and ‘extended periods of time’ doing all the work.
            Just give us one example of an observed new trait in an animal which has been caused by ‘a random mutation’.
            How does the tuft on the head of the tufted duck ‘make those individuals who process the trait more likely to produce offspring than those who do not process the trait’? And how does that answer explain the origin of the tuft on the head of the tufted duck?
            You say ‘For a trait to evolve it does not need to benefit a species’ and yet according to evolutionary theory, ‘a more advantageous trait becomes more common in the population
            So what is the advantage of the tuft on the head of the tufted duck?

          3. Greg

            “Just give us one example of an observed new trait in an animal which has been caused by ‘a random mutation’”
            Antibiotic resistance by all sorts of bacteria. If you don’t believe in evolution only use antibiotics from the 1950’s and see how you get on.

            I have already answered the rest of your questions but again…

            “How does the tuft on the head of the tufted duck ‘make those individuals who process the trait more likely to produce offspring than those who do not process the trait’?”
            By making them more attractive to the opposite sex.

            “And how does that answer explain the origin of the tuft on the head of the tufted duck?”
            Originally caused by random mutation in genetic code.

            “You say ‘For a trait to evolve it does not need to benefit a species’ and yet according to evolutionary theory, ‘a more advantageous trait becomes more common in the population‘”
            What I meant was that it does not need to benefit a species as a whole, all at once, which is what you seem to be implying. It needs to benefit those individuals who possess the trait. The link you provided actually backs up my point. In that case the brown colouration makes the beetles less attractive to predators, thereby helping them survive long enough to mate and produce offspring. In other cases, a trait simply makes the individual more attractive to the opposite sex again making them more likely to mate.

            All new traits are caused by a random mutation in the genetic code. Many will be negative, some will be positive. If a mutation makes the possessor of that mutation more likely to produce offspring than those who do not possess it, then it will gradually become more common in the population.
            There are many different types of mutations that may be beneficial, such as making the animal more attractive to potential mates (e.g. colourful plumage), making it easier to catch prey (e.g. better eyesight), making it easier to avoid predators (e.g. colouration similar to surrounding environment), giving an animal the ability to digest a different food source, better resistance to disease, etc.

            Also how do you explain other evidence for evolution such as the fossil record and the genetic family tree of all living things. Every single fossil ever found and every genetic code sequenced has been what would be expected if evolution was true. Why has a fossil that disputes evolution never been found?

            Finally, science is producing the answers to many questions about the world around us but obviously not every single question has been answered yet. If there is a question that has not yet been answered by science (and evolution is not one of those questions), the response is “we don’t know, but let’s try to find out”. The response which you and other creationists give to everything you don’t understand is “God did it”. This “God of the gaps” argument eventually falls down as science answers questions and the gaps to attribute to God get smaller and smaller.
            Evolution doesn’t actually say anything about the existence of God so if you want to say that God started it all or created the conditions for evolution to be possible that’s fine but stop denying evolution. There is overwhelming evidence for it.

          4. Stephen

            So bacteria develop resistance to drugs, and they remain bacteria.
            As to the rest of your essay, it is just a list of assertions. Provide the evidence for it!

          5. Paul

            Stephen, you often decry the language of science – “if’s”, “will be’s”, “maybe’s” “needs to have’s” and “Eventually over a very long time” – as if it’s a cause for criticism, and this isn’t justified. But we have to use this kind of language to make deductions from the evidence.

            This language also reflects the caution and humility of the scientific approach (although perhaps not that of individual scientists, I’ll grant you), where every conclusion is provisional and subject to revision in the light of new evidence. The contrast with creationism, based as it is on one of the creation myths and for which the evidence is an annoying inconvenience, could hardly be greater.

          6. Stephen

            No, it’s not humility, you have to use that language because you just don’t know and you have to force everything unwillingly into the evolution grid.

            And it is evolution which is struggling for evidence, as this entire post with its comments have shown. The evidence of design is all over creation for anyone open-minded enough to see it.

            But that would start you on the same journey I went on thirty-five years ago, from recognising design in the ducks on the pond, to acknowledging a designer, to seeing a personal creator, to believing in a forgiving, life-giving Saviour.

      5. Che

        All mutations happen by chance, that’s how it works. If a particular mutation increases an individuals chance of surviving or breeding, that mutation will carry on to it’s offspring, and so on. Just like how the tail on a peacock helps the individual animal find a mate. It doesn’t protect it against predators, it just makes it more appealing to other peacocks, and whichever peacocks breed more will predict what future peacocks look like.

        1. Stephen

          Is there any evidence of a single beneficial chance mutation having occurred?
          The evidence about which females prefer which males is not as categorical as that. From wikipedia (I know, but it is referenced): ‘Mariko Takahashi found no evidence that peahens expressed any preference for peacocks with more elaborate trains, such as trains having more ocelli, a more symmetrical arrangement or a greater length’. [Takahashi M et al. (2008). Anim . Behav., 75: 1209-1219.]
          And of course I asked what advantage the tuft or the tail gave the species as a whole, not individual males.

        2. Jack Lewis

          What you are forgetting is that a mutation is nearly always harmful to the organism but always removes information. It is possible that in a very rare case a mutation may help the organism to survive in its environment but it won’t make it more complex. As an example fish that get trapped in a dark cave may over time and through genetic mutation lose their eyes as they are unnecessary. Fish that kept their eyes may in time die through eye infection. Therefore the less complex blind fish have survived over their more complex sighted fish. This is true evolution at work. It is in fact devolution.

        3. Paul

          I think that generally these would be very hard to find in the wild, as new mutations would most likely be masked by imperfectly documented variation already present in the population. Nevertheless, here are a couple of links that give examples:



          1. Stephen

            Again, all the organisms in the first link stay as the same species, even after 800, 2,000 and even 10,000 generations. Put that into mammal years to see the complete improbability of evolution.

            The second link is fascinating but don’t rely on evolution as the sole possible explanation. My favourite quote from that atheist page was this: Our ability to see in three colours is apparently ‘the legacy of a past where good color vision for finding ripe, brightly colored fruit was a survival advantage’.

            Such narrow thinking. How do other creatures find which fruit is ripe?

          2. Paul

            I don’t think you can equate the evolution of the primitive organisms mentioned in the first link (in terms of numbers of generations) to the evolution of higher organisms. It’d be easier (it seems to me) to generate obvious changes in morphology by altering the genes responsible for development of the basic arthropod or vertebrate body plan than it would be for a micro-organism to arise that is radically different. Even so, one of the examples given in the link is of a unicellular alga that developed multicellularity under selection pressure, and the new organism was held to be different enough to merit re-classification.

            How do other creatures find fruit that is ripe? – well, that depends on how good their colour vision is, if they are active during the day. If they don’t have three-colour vision, the answer is “Not as effectively as those that do”.

      6. Lincoln

        You should consider becoming a scholar of evolutionary biology before attempting to debunk it. Otherwise you risk appearing the fool.

        “God did it” is an inadequate hypothesis. If you are going to claim all things beautiful are to show his glory, then what do the ugly parts of nature show us of your god?

        1. Stephen

          The fool says in his heart ‘There is no God’.
          What you call ‘the ugly parts of nature’ others might find beautiful or fascinating or a cause for study. Or even a challenge to mankind to help the afflicted, search for an answer or find a cure.

          1. Ron

            Onchocerciasis is facinating. Did God create that creature?

          2. Stephen

            That’s David Attenborough’s favourite. Christians see river blindness as a challenge to us to heal the sick. Atheists see it as a useful bit of point-scoring.

          3. Greg

            “What you call ‘the ugly parts of nature’ others might find beautiful or fascinating or a cause for study.”

            I’ll use a quote from Sir David Attenborough to respond here;

            “I think of a little child in East Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator.”

            What could be beautiful or fascinating about that?

          4. Stephen

            That’s David Attenborough’s favourite. Christians see river blindness as a challenge to us to heal the sick. Atheists see it as an opportunity for a useful bit of point-scoring.

          5. Lincoln

            If you’re going to quote scripture at me I’ll have to assume you support the ownership of other human beings. In for a penny, in for a pound.

          6. Stephen

            Click here: http://www.repentuk.com/laura.html

          7. Paul

            I was fascinated by the link you posted (http://www.repentuk.com/laura.html) as it says that some earlier parts of the Bible have been superseded by later ones. I wonder if it is clearly documented somewhere which bits theologians now consider to be obsolete? Apologies, I know this is off-topic.

          8. Stephen

            No, that’s fine. The book of Hebrews explains how the sacrificial laws are superseded by the sacrifice of Christ. The early church also decided (this is Acts 15 & 22 – the Council of Jerusalem) that the ceremonial laws, revolving around circumcision, were not necessary for the Gentile church. That leaves the moral and civil laws, or at least their ‘general equity’, and the physical laws of the universe, as continuing to exist for the benefit of creation, individuals and society at large. I hope that helps.

        2. Victor Meyer

          Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, of course, but the ugly parts are due to man’s falling into sin, e.g. Genesis 3:19-23; 5:29; 6:7. Everything was created very good in the beginning (Gen. 1:31), i.e. before the Fall. For more information go to creation.com/the-fall-into-sin

      7. Gareth


        1) Single mutations can produce quite large effects, e.g the loss or gain of an entrie limb. An ear tuft is not at all implausible as the effect of a single mutation, but it could have happened in a number of steps.
        2) There would not need to be separate mutations in male and female because there are not separate genomes for male and female, just a few switches for the bits that develop differently. So almost all mutations will appear in both sexes.
        3) Evolution works through the advantage to the individual (so far helping it reproduce is concerned) not to the species.

        I could go on, but I think if you wanted to understand this you would read The Selfish Gene. (Dawkins is cluless about religion and philosphy but very good on evolution, where he should have stayed).

        The point I want to make is that I recieve your newsletter, despite the fact that I am an atheist, because I support your stance on pro-life issues, supporting marriage, freedom of religion and most moral issues. Denying evolution just makes you look silly and undermines the other valid points you have to make. The CofE and the RCs and most other Christians came to terms with evolution long ago. Neither my mother (CofE) nor wife (RC) have the slightest problem with it. The earth is not 6000 years old. The biblical story of creation is not literally true. It is not just bad science but bad religion to ignore the overwhelming evidence for these truths.

        1. Stephen

          Sorry, Gareth, on your last paragraph, and the opinions you express, we can’t help saying it as we see it (and by the grace of God how God sees it, whether that is politically incorrect or not!

          Your three first points have now been done to death here, so I won’t duplicate.

          Thanks for your support on abortion and religious freedom.

      8. Mex

        “‘if the tuft has no advantage to the tufted duck, why did God design them with tufts’?

        Same reason as the tail of the peacock, or the wing bars on the mallard, or the red breast of the robin, or the weird yellow bill of the cock blackbird.

        To show his glory.”

        So you are saying he specifically designed every other type of dick to hide his glory?

        1. Stephen

          Excuse me?

          1. Paul

            I think he meant duck!

          2. Stephen

            Ah, the two letters are side-by-side on the keyboard. We could have had a popular singer of yesteryear if he had gone the other way.

      9. Terry Collmann

        It is perfectly possible for a mutation to happen by chance, to confer no evolutionary advantage, and still to spread throughout a population. The duck’s tuft may be completely meaningless.

        1. Stephen

          It that is possible, let us have an example of it actually having happened, please.

    2. Rox

      Sometimes human beings are born with complex and horrific extra growths or defects, which nowadays are removed or remedied if possible. It is not so very unusual for a farm animal or a pet to have a whole extra appendage, which has no advantage except to get them into a fair, or so it was in the not so distant past. None of this shows the glory of God. Cats often have extra toes, which is merely quaint, and does them no harm.

      The tuft is (as far as I know) simple in comparison, just a few feathers. It would, of course, have appeared in only one individual at first, and then been passed on to at least some of its children of both sexes. It is possible that a preference for the tuft by potential mates led to bigger and bigger tufts being selected, or it may have stayed the same size ever since its first appearance. Those individuals completely without a tuft would simply not be tufted ducks. I don’t see why you find this so difficult to believe when you believe so much.

      1. Stephen

        You make the point that chance mutations are always detrimental.
        Too many blind evidence-free assertions in the second paragraph.
        Forgive me for placing my trust in God rather than what you come out with, Roger.

    3. Jack Lewis

      The problem you have with evolution is that your starting argument is based on a huge assumption as are all the arguments put forward on this forum. Before you can consider anything to do with evolution you have to have a mechanism that allows inanimate chemicals to organize themselves into a very complex, self replicating organism. Until you are able to answer that evolution is dead in the water.

      1. Terry Collmann

        Well, 1) no you don’t, abiogenesis and evolution are completely unconnected. And anyway, 2) there are perfectly plausible explanations for how complexity can be built up from simple parts, quite naturally. Complexity from simplicity happens all the time. Go and look at a snowflake. Once you start getting stable self-replicating molecules, over billions of years complexity is inevitable. Try imagining how long billions of years is, Jack.

        1. Stephen

          Nonsense. Nitpicking. The two are very closely related. Without abiogenesis there could be no evolution. Evolution needs something to evolve. It has to start right at the bottom.

          Here is a quote from National Geographic: ‘What scientists have so far lacked is a convincing explanation for how an organic cell wall could have developed before there was the biological apparatus to build it’.

          I think you will find a snowflake is made pretty well entirely of water. It is not a self-replicating molecule.

          Billions of years? According to evolutionary theory, reptiles only appeared 250 million years ago and transitional primates 65 million years ago. Consider how fast flies reproduce, and how after generation upon generation they stay as flies, and then try imagining how short 65 million years is.

      2. Lincoln

        That’s abiogenesis and is entirely unrelated to the theory of evolution.

        1. Stephen

          Nonsense. Nitpicking. The two are very closely related. Without abiogenesis there could be no evolution. Evolution needs something to evolve. It has to start right at the bottom.

          Here is a quote from National Geographic: ‘What scientists have so far lacked is a convincing explanation for how an organic cell wall could have developed before there was the biological apparatus to build it’.

          1. Paul

            Not so. The nature of the starting point for evolution can be separated conceptually from evolution itself. So we can see that there is a mountain of evidence for evolution, but abiogenesis as its start is currently at the level of a conjecture. Here, by way of illustration, is an alternative conjecture: “Life, in the form of primitive organisms, was seeded on the Earth by intelligent aliens about 3.5 billion years ago”.

            Whether abiogenesis can be developed beyond the level of a conjecture remains to be seen. The National Geographic article referred to summarises a hypothesis (although it calls it a theory, that’s a misuse of the word) that abiogenesis occurred in minute cavities in rocks surrounding hydrothermal vents. If similar processes can be demonstrated to be happening in today’s hydrothermal vents, that would contribute greatly to its credibility – I hope someone somewhere is investigating this.

          2. Stephen

            I am still waiting for a someone to come up with a little molehill from this ‘mountain of evidence’ to demonstrate where a beneficial mutation has resulted in a new species.

          3. Paul

            I’ll leave aside the fact that the notion of a ‘species’ is a semi-arbitrary, man-made means of categorisation that Nature has never heard of.

            I don’t know of any example of a beneficial mutation giving rise to a new species, and I would be surprised if anyone comes up with one, for the following reasons:

            – The changes that led to the present range of species occurred in the past and the molecular basis of evolution (the mutations that caused them) is not preserved in the fossil record. Therefore, the question can only be answered definitively in the context of organisms alive today.

            – As others have pointed out, any mutation that makes a large change to the way an individual develops or functions is almost certain to kill it before it reproduces. Therefore, any potentially beneficial mutations are likely to have a limited effect on the individual(s) that possess them, and as such their influence would be hard to distinguish from the potential for variation already present and wouldn’t give rise to a new species.

            – Furthermore, the only way that a mutation can be unequivocally identified is by comparison of the genetic complement and/or DNA sequences of individuals that do and do not possess it. This is only likely to happen for species that are under intensive study, such as the fruit fly. This drastically limits the potential for detecting neutral or beneficial mutations.

            – Linking a mutation to a beneficial change in development, morphology or behaviour is not at all straightforward with the present state of knowledge and so even if a mutation were identified, it wouldn’t necessarily be possible to link it to such a change.

            We can say that in general terms that speciation occurs in reproductively isolated populations over many generations, as existing variations and variations presumed to be introduced by mutations interact with the selection pressure that the populations face. However, as far as I am aware, for the reasons listed above we can’t describe that process for any particular species in terms of an ordered sequence of mutations. The mountain of evidence comes from other sources.

          4. Stephen

            So that is it. No beneficial mutations observed, no respectable chance of a beneficial mutation producing a new species, not even a handful of soil quoted from the ‘mountain of evidence’, and yet you still cling to this out-of-date evolutionary way of explaining creation like a drowning man clutching at straws.

            All the comments left by evolutionists on this post have massively reinforced my belief that evolution is impossible, illogical, undemonstrated and unscientific.

          5. Paul

            Oh dear. I was trying to demonstrate that there are very good reasons why the validity of evolutionary theory doesn’t rest on the direct observation of mutations, and I have clearly failed lamentably.

            It’s hard to quote from the mountain of evidence as there is so much – and I know only a tiny fraction of it. In other posts, I have suggested reading “On The Origin Of Species”, as it’s still a good introduction. But broadly speaking, the evidence falls into the following categories:
            – From astronomy and astrophysics, the extreme age of the Universe.
            – From astronomy, physics and geology, the extreme age of the Earth, and our ability to date rocks.
            – The ever-expanding evidence from the fossil record, that we are able to date.
            – The evidence from changes in species under domestication (i.e. selection pressure from people).
            – The evidence of endemic flora and fauna (unique species arise in regions that are geographically separated, such as islands).
            – The evidence from comparative morphology (relatedness of flora and fauna can be established by study of their anatomy, such relatedness indicating common ancestors at some greater or lesser time in the past depending on its degree).
            – The reality of natural selection in the wild, where populations remain fairly constant under normal circumstances in spite of reproductive fecundity.
            – The evidence from genetics, that provides an underpinning mechanism for the inheritance of traits.
            – The evidence from DNA sequencing, that demonstrates relatedness and therefore a common ancestor for all life on Earth.

            That’s all the categories I can think of, off the top of my head. Maybe anyone else who thinks that the theory of evolution is valid can provide other categories.

          6. Stephen

            Not one of your examples makes a case for the beneficial mutations that must arise before natural selection can weed out the ‘less favourable’ traits.

          7. Paul

            No, they don’t – they are my handful of soil that you asked for from the mountain of evidence for evolution.

            The current position in respect of mutations is, I think, that scientists have deduced that there must be alterations of various kinds to the genome of organisms to account for the arising of variations upon which natural selection can act; and they have identified the nature, in general terms, of some of those kinds of changes, e.g. DNA base-pair alterations, gene duplication, polyploidy. However, for the reasons I gave earlier, relatively few specific examples are known at present. The key point here is that it isn’t valid to argue that because relatively few specific examples of genome alterations are known at present, they never happen(ed). Rather, it is an area awaiting clarification.

          8. Stephen

            That’s a ‘must be’ to go with all the ‘ifs’ and ‘probablies’ for which there is no evidence at all.

            The truth is, there is no example of a beneficial mutation leading to a new species. I have been asking evefry evolutionist on this post to come up with one. what has been the result, from the ‘mountain of evidence?’ Not one.

            If I watched several million motorcycles for signs of them turning into cars and not one did, I think it is more reasonable to conclude that it never happens than that it is an area ‘awaiting clarification.’

            It’s as clear as daylight, Paul, the evidence shows it DOES NOT HAPPEN. When will you get free from the restrictive evolutionary paradigm and admit it?

          9. Paul

            As I mentioned earlier, we wouldn’t expect to see a beneficial mutation leading to a new species – the process of evolution is much more gradual than that. I would go as far as to say that the theory of evolution predicts that what you are asking to see demonstrated does not happen. Therefore, it’s wrong to assert that the absence of such an observation presents a problem for it.

            I wonder if you are thinking of the ‘hopeful monster’ idea, which I thought to be discredited, but which I now find is being re-examined. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltation_(biology) and http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100217/full/463864a.html are a couple of interesting articles on this topic. Even this, though, I wouldn’t expect to give rise to something that you would accept as a new species.

            More generally, I wonder if you take the view that only evidence that can be directly observed is admissible, and therefore deduced or inferred conclusions are invalid. The reasons I ask this are that (a) you seem to find unconvincing the categories of evidence that I cited earlier, (b) you have consistently objected to the language of deduction and inference (‘if..then’, ‘probably’ etc.) used in other posts in this thread, (c) I heard another supporter of creationism explicitly state this view in conversation with Richard Dawkins a few years ago. If you do take this view, then I can certainly understand your position in respect of the theory of evolution – however, I would argue that this view (that only evidence that can be directly observed is admissible) is untenable.

          10. Stephen

            It does not matter how gradual or sudden it is, although it is hard to imagine how an evolving bat will survive with only half a wing. The truth is that for evolution to be remotely plausible there must be a plethora of mutations to provide the material for natural selection to select the most beneficial for a new species, and not one of these mutations has been observed. If the mutations do not happen, as you now admit, evolution does not happen, it’s as easy as that.

            Science works on evidence and demonstration. If there is no evidence for the mutations upon which evolution stands, and if this essential ingredient of evolution cannot be demonstrated by observation, as you admit, evolution ceases to be a theory and becomes a mere unscientific conjecture, not even a hypothesis.

          11. Paul

            I didn’t day that mutations don’t happen; I said that we wouldn’t expect to see a beneficial mutation leading to a new species. For the avoidance of doubt, by “a beneficial mutation” I meant ‘a single beneficial mutation’.

            The underlying question here is: how does one observe a mutation? I would be interested to know what might constitute a valid observation of a mutation for you, Stephen.

            For me (for reasons I previously listed), they are extraordinarily difficult to observe. Take the example of the hairless cats that have recently arisen. Some might say that these are a good example of a mutation, but they could have arisen due to a chance meeting of variations already present in the cat gene pool. To prove that a mutation has occurred, we would need to sequence the DNA of the first of these cats and that of their normal parents and demonstrate not just that a change has occurred but also how it gave rise to hairlessness; and this is all very difficult and costly.

            In fact, to stand any chance of observing a mutation, you would need to be sequencing the DNA of thousands of parents and offspring on an ongoing basis. But the technology to make such an exercise even approach feasibility has only been developed in the last ten years, so it’s hardly surprising that few mutations have been unequivocally demonstrated so far. And of course, this does not constitute evidence that it doesn’t happen.

            In spite of these difficulties, there are examples of observed mutations that I have referred to in another post, so it is incorrect to say that not one has been observed.

            Re bats with half a wing: the flying squirrels are good examples of analogous creatures and are probably on the same track.

          12. Stephen

            You are getting it. A new species would require thousands of beneficial mutations to happen to an existing species. How plausible is such a hypothesis?
            And a flying squirrel doesn’t fly. It glides. Which came first in the bat? The wings, or the sonar? And how?

          13. Paul

            In fact, we don’t know how many mutations would be required to produce a new species. I take it that whatever the number is (and I’m sure it will vary on a case-by-case basis), you consider it to be implausible; this boils down to an argument about unknown probabilities that I have covered elsewhere in this thread.

            Re your question about bats: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/13/bat.evolution gives a direct answer to your question. What’s noteworthy to me about this article, in addition to the obvious content, is that it took five years from the discovery of the fossil to the publication of the scientific article upon which the report is based – an indication of the amount of time and effort it takes to elucidate such questions.

          14. Stephen

            Of course my question about which came first, the flying or the sonar only applies to bats that have sonar. What your Guardian article does not admit is that there are bats today which do not echolocate in the normal laryngeal way. The insect-eating bats use sonar, the fruit bats do so only at a very restricted level. Judging by its size, and its lack of the sophisticated ears needed for laryngeal echolocation, all the palaeontologists have found is a fossilised fruit bat.

            The Guardian says: ‘Scientists have wrestled with three alternative theories for the evolution of bats: flight evolved before echolocation; echolocation came before flight; or both happened in parallel. The new pair of fossils – which date from around 52.5m years ago – resolve the issue’

            Except they don’t, because the article ignores the fruit bats.

            This is a pro-evolution article, but it admits that insectiverous bats use sonar, fruit bats don’t:


          15. Paul

            Stephen, it’s not ‘my’ Guardian article – it’s simply an article I found that gave an answer to your question.

            In fact, following this up a bit more, it seems that the jury is still out on this one – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onychonycteris and also the article you cited (very interesting, thank you for that).

            Can you please elaborate on what you are intending to demonstrate with your comment that Onychonycteris finneyi was a fruit bat? – as unfortunately it escapes me. Thanks.

          16. Stephen

            Fruit bats do not have the advanced sonar of insect-eating bats. Therefore finding this fossilised bat which does not have the advanced sonar does not make it any kind of missing link or transitional species. It’s just a fruit bat.

          17. Paul

            I thought I’d check out your assertion that O. finneryi was a fruit bat with Dr Nancy Simmons, one of the authors of the paper upon which the Guardian article was based; I asked her, via an email address that is publicly available, “Can we say anything about the diet of Onychonycteris finneryi?”. She kindly replied, “About your question: bats that eat insects have what we call “tribosphenic” teeth — that is, teeth with high, sharp cusps and crests arranged roughly in triangles on the cheek teeth, which interlock (uppers and lowers, I mean) to puncture and slice their food. We have hundreds of examples of this correlation between tooth morphology and diet in bats. Onychonyteris clearly had tribosphenic teeth of this kind, so it was clearly insectivorous”.

          18. Stephen

            2006: Phylogenetic relationships of the enigmatic harpy fruit bat, Harpyionycteris (Mammalia, Chiroptera, Pteropodidae) ; American Museum novitates, no. 3533 Giannini, Norberto P.; Almeida, Francisca Cunha.; Simmons, Nancy B.; DeSalle, Rob:

            ‘”Harpy fruit bats, two closely related species in the genus Harpyionycteris (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae), exhibit a suite of unique craniodental traits. For this reason, the affinities of these bats have remained unclear, and most systematists have placed them in a group of their own (Harpyionycterinae Miller, 1907). The multicuspidate pattern of the cheek teeth in Harpyionycteris has generated speculation that it may represent an ancestral tribosphenic pattern lost in other pteropodids. …

            ‘Regarding the dentition, our results strongly reject the tribosphenic hypothesis advanced by some authors. The multicuspidate cheek tooth pattern seen in Harpyionycteris appears uniquely derived and related to specialized feeding habits and it thus has no direct bearing on the evolution of the typical pteropodid dentition from the tribosphenic pattern of microchiropterans and other mammals”–P. [1]-2.’


            That seems to tell me that it is a matter of some debate whether tribosphenic teeth are the sole reserve of insectiverous bats.

            According to Wikipedia: ‘The molar design that is considered one of the most important characteristics of mammals is a three-cusped shape called a tribosphenic molar. This molar design has two important features: the trigonid, or shearing end, and the talonid, or crushing heel. In modern mammals that have tribosphenic molars the trigonid is towards the front and the talonid towards the rear.’

            I wonder how, if Onychonycteris finneryi was insectiverous, it managed to catch its insect prey without sonar and thus survive to leave a fossil. Just maybe it was created not to need sonar, or maybe the teeth aren’t the sole thing to look for to establish diet.

          19. Paul

            I read the paper to which you refer with interest – it’s mostly concerned with bat classification based on DNA sequencing of bats, but says at the end that a species/genus called Harpyionycteris is a fruit eater and makes some comments on its dentition that I don’t pretend to understand. Fortunately, one of the co-authors of the paper is Dr Nancy Simmons; I’ll get in touch with her again to ask her for her comments on this issue and get back to you.

            Re your final question, an insectivorous O. finneryi could easily have survived by being active during the day, like modern insectivorous birds.

          20. Stephen

            There we are then. If it was, and didn’t need sonar, it isn’t the missing link they and you claimed it was.

          21. Paul

            I’m not making any claims Stephen – I’m not an expert in bat evolution. I simply tried to answer your question about bats.

            Also, I don’t understand your reasoning. Why does it being insectivorous and active in the daytime prevent it from being a missing link?

          22. Stephen

            Because it just was and did what it did.

          23. Paul

            That doesn’t prevent it from being a missing link.

            (Note: I’m not asserting that it *was* a missing link. I just want to understand your reasoning.)

      3. Paul

        According to this argument, in order to know something you have to know everything – which is, of course, absurd. In fact we have an exciting process of discovery that has continued since the scientific endeavour started. And once the reality of evolution was established, it threw up further questions including that of the ultimate origin of life. That’s the nature of science.

    4. John Allman

      “One needs to be careful” [Rox]

      I agree. I wish Stephen hadn’t asked his question about the duck’s tuft. I fear he may have thought that it was a clever question.

      One of my earliest memories, is, at the age of four, noticing that different groups of adults were both trying to give me their authoritative answers to questions I hadn’t asked, about origins. Neither offered evidence I was equipped to evaluate at that age. One explanation involved dinosaurs and apes, and the other a garden in the east.

      I could see that at least one of the two groups of adults was (at best) sincerely mistaken, but not which group that was, if not both.

      I concluded that the world was dangerous. I had looked upon adults as safe and kind and (most important) all-knowing. But now I realised that adults hadn’t reached a consensus amongst themselves about something as basic as who we were. Yet adults had split into two factions who didn’t communicate with one another, each of which wanted to convince me of its theory, even though they couldn’t convince each other.

      I kept quiet about this early discovery, until after I had become a grandfather for the first time. For the time being, I simply pretended that I still believed that adults knew what they were talking about.

      During the past couple of decades, the years when I have had internet access, I have often witnessed adults having heated discussions about this still-controversial theory. Many, on both sides of the discussion, are embarrassingly uneducated, opinionated and rude. I have seldom seen any of the adult participants in the culture war present sensible, experiment-based evidence. Occasionally, I have been assured that there *is* evidence, but not that I’d be clever enough to understand.

      It is a waste of an opportunity to continue having yet another of those pointless online arguments here, between scientifically uneducated people who believe that creation is the explanation of our origins, and hence of our identity, and scientifically uneducated people who believe that evolution is the explanation instead. There is something far more important to discuss here and now, as follows:

      How are primary schools going to expose children so young, and in an age-appropriate way, to both sides of a controversy as important as this, in which the scientific evidence (such as it is) is barely comprehensible to undergraduates studying biology, let alone primary school children?

      Sure we can present to them with two conflicting doctrines, or mythologies. We can tell them that believers in one mythology claim that their belief is based upon one kind of evidence, whilst believers in the other mythology base their belief on a completely different kind of evidence. But how would that amount to making an improvement to our education system? And what more than that can we do, or what less, without justly exposing ourselves to the accusation that we are subjecting little children to an indoctrination that is intolerant of critical thinking on the part of those being indoctrinated?

  2. David

    Still beats me how evolutionists/big bangers can believe nothing turned into something with a bang and all we see around us is a result of this. They ridicule Christians’ faith but their belief is also based on faith in this mysterious bang/ evolutionary process which they cannot prove. I thought science was about repeatable experimentation which will always give the same answer. It is pointless arguing with these people though, the proof of the matter is what happens at the time of death. What if the evolutionists are right and Christians are wrong – well nothing according to them, we just get switched off easy, painless . But what if the Christians are right? Read about it in the Bible – the book you call fairy tales and delusions. Christians can’t loose either way.

    1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness”;
    1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

    1. Rory

      That is not what ‘evolutionists’ think. Evolution has been tested, and has been repeated in the lab many many times.
      Big Bang theory has nothing to do with either evolution (other than it was the first event in the universe in which evolution played a tiny part), or ‘something coming rom nothing’.

      Educate yourself.

      1. Shaun

        What are you talking about? “Evolution has been tested, and has been repeated in the lab many many times.” Who on earth told you that? Complete gibberish! The best that you can do in a lab is breed animals, plants or whatever. That’s what they do – and in each case the offspring turn out to be the same kinds of animals, plants or whatever. The one thing they do not do is evolve!
        BTW I did Natural Sciences at Cambridge if you really must know!

  3. Iftikhar Ahmad

    Bilingual Muslim children need to learn and be well versed in standard English to follow the National Curriculum and go for higher studies and research to serve humanity. At the same time they need to learn Arabic, Urdu and other community languages to keep in touch with their cultural heritage and enjoy the beauty of their literature and poetry.

    A Muslim is a citizen of this tiny global village. he/she does not want to become notoriously monolingual Brits. British schooling has been forcing them to become notoriously monolingual Brits. It is a fact that British schooling is the home of institutional racism and British teachers are chicken racist. It is a crime against humanity to deprive a child form his/her mother tongue. Arabic is a religious language and all Muslims must learn and be well versed in Arabic to recite and understand the Holy Quran.Ed is very proud of his comprehensive school because students were speaking 60 languages. After leaving school, all those who spoke different languages, could only speak English because there is no arrangement for them to learn their own languages at school. Even teachers discouraged them to speak their language in school. British schooling regards bilingualism as a problem and not an asset. Sadiq was the product of British schooling. He is very proud that he is unable to speak, read and write Urdu language. I do not blame him. It is the fault of the school.

    Legally, the state has an obligation to respect the rights of parents to ensure that ‘education and teaching(of their children) is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.’
    The schools must satisfy the spiritual, moral, social,and cultural needs of Muslim pupils. State schools with non-Muslim monolingual teachers are not in a position to satisfy their needs and demands. Bilingual Muslim children need state funded Muslim schools with bilingual Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods. There is no place for a non-Muslim child or a teacher in a Muslim school.

    Bilingual Muslim children need state funded Muslim schools with bilingual Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental period’ otherwise, they would be lost in the Western JUNGLE.There is no place for a non-Muslim child or a teacher in a Muslim school. At higher level of education, a Muslim teacher is not a priority.

    There are hundreds of state and church schools where Muslim children are in majority. In my opinion, all such schools may be opted out as Muslim Academies.

    Iftikhar Ahmad

    London School of Islamics Trust


    1. David

      sorry! but what has your comment about Arabic, bi-lingualism etc etc to do with atheistic, humanism teaching evolution. Does Islam not also believe in creation? Your schools like Christian ones will be forced to teach evolution as well if this becomes education “law”. that is the whole point of this post.

    2. Robert How

      No – the state is obliged to set a curriculum which produces well-rounded citizens who can function as a part of British society. This is actually even more important for schools with a majority of children of Muslim parents, since one of the problems facing modern Britain is faith communities diverging from the mainstream, speaking different languages and having completely different values to that of British society. If children of Muslim parents are to live healthy and productive lives within Britain, it’s essential that they learn good English and are taught the facts of science. It’s important for parents to teach them their cultural background, but it’s not the duty of the state or, indeed, the British taxpayer.

      1. David

        well said!

    3. Jack Lewis

      Saying that God did makes more sense and is far more rational than saying nothing did it. I don’t think anyone would subscribe to the notion that something can happen without outside help. If you went into a cave that nobody had ever been in before and you found an empty coke can, would you assume that it just appeared out of nowhere? I think not.
      Both hypotheses show a high level of belief.

    4. Jack Lewis

      Islam is a religion of violence. You do need a degree in anything to work that out.

  4. Mark

    Taken from the UCB Word for Today, hope you don’t mind me posting this? Today’s reading is rather appropriate:

    Wernher von Braun, ‘the father of the American space programme,’ stated in May 1974:

    ‘One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be a design and purpose behind it all…The better we understand the intricacies of the universe…the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based…To be forced to believe only one conclusion-that everything in the universe happened by chance-would violate the very objectivity of science itself…What random process could produce the brains of a man or the system of the human eye?…They [evolutionists] challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?…They say they cannot visualise a designer. Well, can a physicist visualise an electron? What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real, while refusing to accept the reality of a designer on the ground that they cannot conceive Him?’

    1. Rox

      Wernher von Braun was the first person to make possible what are now called “ballistic missiles” and “drones” and “guided missiles”, in fact he was responsible for destroying my parents’ home with a V2 . I wouldn’t normally consult his writings on anything of an ethical or religious nature myself.

      If he had been “marvelling” at the beauty and inherent design of some of the old London churches, he wouldn’t have been aiming at them.

      1. Stephen

        Now I didn’t know Wernher von Braun was in the forces firing missiles at churches.

        1. Rox

          He must have been very naive if he didn’t know where his V1s and V2s were going. They were aimed not only at important economic assets like the docks, but at Baedeker assets like Wren churches and, of course, St Paul’s Cathedral.

          You might as well tell Mark that you didn’t realise Werner von Braun had pointed a rocket at the moon.

      2. Geoff

        I don’t believe Wernher von Braun was a Christian during World War 2. People can and do change especially when the come to know Jesus Christ. So don’t judge him by what he did when before his conversion.

  5. ann farmer

    As G. K. Chesterton said, the only thing we know about the Missing Link is that he is missing.

    1. Greg

      What missing link?

      1. ann farmer


    2. Steve

      Lol Ann, that was priceless. I love it.

    3. Robin Jones

      But when a missing link is found then that just creates a gap where there are two more missing links right? Only with creationism could more data points be seen as a bad thing… The chain of evolution surrounding humans is one of the less documented ones in evolution but there is still a lot of compelling evidence for it: http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html

      Oh and there’s an epically bigger amount of evidence for evolution now than there was in the late 19th / early 20th century. You might want to stay a bit more up to date.

      1. Stephen

        Why don’t you come up with a missing link first?
        Actually, there is not any more evidence for evolution now and increasing evidence against it, from disciplines such as mathematics, genetics, molecular biology, information theory.
        The link given skims over the fact that all the alleged ancestral hominid bones in the world would not fill one coffin. Some are apes, some are people. Some, like Nebraska man, are wishful thinking, others, like Piltdown man, are elaborate frauds.
        In fact Piltdown man shows the lengths people will go to support their desperate belief in evolution. As Gregory Koukl says here, in a nicely-balanced article:
        “… there is another explanation for the evidence that fits perfectly what a person would expect if God created. Yet that alternative is never considered. Why not? Because evolution happened. It must have happened.”

  6. Valerie Collett

    Thank you for forwarding both sides of the creation debate. I long to hear believing scientists reasonings against all that the evolutionists perpetrate. The one above is helpful!!

    1. Jane McQueen

      It is not a debate, there is huge amounts of evidence that backs up evolution and not one bit of evidence to back up creationism. It’s like saying there are questions over the guilt of a killer who confessed to murder. It should not even be an issue, creationism has no place in a science class room at all.

      If you want to teach creationism in school as science then all you have to do is prove it to the same level that evolution is now and then we can consider it. Till then it should at most be taught in the RE class and no other place.

      1. Stephen

        Now this is interesting. Since a lot of the evidence of creation is in the design of organisms, not allowing any discussion of the possibility of design removes that part of the evidence, allowing the evolutionist to safely say ‘There is no evidence for creation’. It’s like ‘Don’t confuse me with any inconvenient facts, I’ve made my mind up.’ Refusing to look at the whole picture does not seem a very scientific approach to me.

        1. Jane McQueen

          No there is not, organisms show the history of evolution, they show how certain animals have evolved to adapt to their environment as it changes. You can look at the fossil record to show the development of animals over the history of life on earth.

          The reason you don’t like evolution is it punches another great big hole in christian mythology as the whole foundation that some “god” made everything would be proven to be wrong.

          1. Stephen

            Your first paragraph is just your opinion.
            And the reason you don’t like the idea of design is because it must lead to a designer. Evolution for you is a crutch so you don’t have to admit there is a God and be responsible to someone higher than yourself.

          2. Jane McQueen

            It is not opinion it is scientific fact, you can go in to any natural history museum in the world and see this. You can look at the evolutionary steps that animals took from one to another and so on. If you think evolution is wrong prove it is wrong, find the evidence that shows it is wrong.

            The reason i don’t like creationism or intelligent design or what ever label you want to stick on it, is because it is wrong. If does not fit the evidence or the facts. It is nothing more than religious dogma designed to propagate the christian mythology as being some how true.

            I note, however, you are not advocating teaching the creation arguments of non-christian cultures of which there are many too, in fact every culture and religion in the world has one. Yet you are only pushing the one that supports your beliefs not those of people you disagree with. Very odd that wouldn’t you say?

          3. Stephen

            No, the natural history museum may claim to show evolutionary steps but it shows the beauty of God’s design almost by accident.
            The evidence that shows evolution is wrong is things like the irreducible complexity of organisms, the clear evidence of design, the interdependence of creation and of course the mathematical improbability.

      2. David Kirk

        Why should there be any evidence for creation? If there is a Supreme Being who has created the world and all that is in it, there is absolutely no need and no reason for him to leave any evidence of the fact.

        Science cannot (and certainly does not) explain how something was created out of nothing. Even if all the evidence supported evolution following the creation of protons, neutrons and electrons, it does not explain how they came into being from a void.

        Also, the scientific method is ‘a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses’ (OED). None of this has been used in coming to the theory of evolution, beyond looking at evolution within the species – which I suggest can be taken as read, but proves nothing about evolution between species. The theory of evolution is not science, but a theory of history, and should be judged like any other historical assertion: either more or less probable, but ultimately unproven and unproveable.

        1. Paul

          Science can’t yet explain (as far as I know) how something was created from nothing. However, this doesn’t mean that we will never be able to explain it; and it certainly doesn’t justify saying “We don’t yet know how something was created from nothing, therefore a Supreme Being must have done it”.

          I wonder whether you read ‘On the Origin of Species’ before coming to the conclusions in your last paragraph.

    2. Martin Budd


      For some some reasonings against arguments for evolution, see


      Note that “10500” in the text (about half way through) should read 10 to the power of 500, i.e. 10 and 500 noughts on the end; (the 500 should be a superscript).

      The article doesn’t put a case for creationism; it says that the basic argument of evolutionists doesn’t add up.

      Also see other articles on this site, and check John Lennox, a mathematician.


      1. Paul

        That page seems to be accepting that evolution occurred pretty much as the theory of evolution describes, but was directed at crucial points by an outside agency. Correct me if I’m wrong.

  7. Kevin Jones

    Teach children the tools of reason and they will decide whether evolution was real or not.
    Show them proof of a god and they will believe.
    Until that can be shown, religion will continue is slide away from society.
    Religion, your time is up.
    And I’m very very happy about that.
    The real natural world, evolved over millions of years, is a beautiful place when seen with clear vision.
    Best wishes,

    1. Stephen

      No defence of evolution offered. No answer to the tufted duck. And of course children are being denied the tools to decide whether evolution is true or farcical.

    2. Jack Lewis

      Creationists do not need to prove anything since they admit that theirs is a position of faith. However since evolutionists believe that science vindicates them then all a creationist needs to do is to demolish evolution with its own science.

      Evolution is a system of belief just as creationism is. Evolution believe that chemicals can organize themselves into complex reproducing organisms. They have never seen it happen just a creationist has never seen God create. They just believe it. Evolutionists argue that maybe we don’t know that today but one day we will that is why we are looking to the stars. Excuse me but if that isn’t faith then I don’t know what is!
      Evolutionists cannot explain how by losing genetic information an organism can increase its information. They somehow believe that it can.You cannot punch a great hole in a belief in God but we can punch a great hole in evolution. Neither evolution or creationism should be taught in the science class.

      1. Robin Jones

        Learn the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. Seriously, if you don’t even know anything about a topic don’t try and pretend like you do. You’re not omniscient.

        1. Stephen

          You really are splitting hairs. Evolution (the belief that complex life forms arose from less complex life) depends on abiogenesis (the belief that life arose from non-life) to start the whole bangwagon rolling. Without the famed abiogenesis there would be nothing for evolution to get started on. Believers in evolution believe in abiogenesis (those, that is who do not believe it all dropped down from outer space.) But as there is as much evidence for abiogenesis as there is for beneficial genetic mutations producing new species I for one am glad you have distinguished between these two preposterous presuppositions of modern biology for our readers.

  8. Anthony Jacot

    Stop being ignorant. If yeast is always cultivated in the same environment, under the same circumstances, why would it need to evolve?

    And to your question, that’s like asking why black people are black and trying to get an atheist to tell you why they have to be black.


    1. Stephen

      Precisely. Organisms are perfectly designed for their environment and none has any reason to become anything else.

      1. Terry Collmann

        Stephen, yeasts DO change – they evolve all the time, to suit changes in their environment. Lager yeasts evolved in Bavaria to suit the environment – cold caves – where they were being kept. Brewers have to take enormous care to stop their yeasts evolving away from what they want, in fact – the reason why Carlsberg’s yeasts have remained the same over all those decades is that Carlsberg has invested considerable money in ensuring it keeps a pure line of yeast going. And in fact the genome of yeasts shows a clear evolutionary mechanism – the doubling, through error, of certain genes millions of years ago, which allowed modern brewing yeasts’ ancestors to become more efficient at making alcohol, which gave them an advantage over rival organisms. So your attempt to use brewers’ yeast to try to show that evolution doesn’t exist could hardly have picked a worse example.

        1. Stephen

          What do yeasts ‘evolve’ into, Terry? Over their millions of generations, what exciting new animals have they become?

          1. Paul

            They become different yeasts. I think it’s unlikely that you would today see a yeast become something that you would recognise as other than a yeast because (1) it would take a very, very long time and (2) the ecological niches it might colonise on a marginal basis and that would then drive further evolution are already occupied by other organisms.

          2. Stephen

            (1) It would actually take too long, wouldn’t it? An infinite length of time, to be precise.

            (2) Yes, creation is beautifully interlinked and interdependent, isn’t it?

          3. Paul

            Re (1), I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it took 500 million years.

            Re (2), so it appears to our pattern-seeking brains. But what do you mean by “beautifully”?

  9. James

    That was neat of God to create a tuft on top of the ducks head “for his glory”. I hope he glories equally in “his” creation of aids, and cancer, and excrement.

    Slightly less mischievously, I wonder what your god makes of the human brain he formed in his likeness that you so despise. And dont give me the “fall of man” argument, it is so full of holes it is a sieve.

    I genuinely pity anyone who does not believe in evolution – not least cos their kids will probably die young as they refuse them modern medication. You do do that, right? Disagree with science all the way through? Vaccinations, help in child birth, medical treatment?

    No, of course not, you strain at the speck in the worlds eye whilst ignoring the plank in your own. You have swallowed a cultural, scientific hippo and are gagging on a speck of dust

    1. Stephen

      If this is the level of argument from evolutionists, no wonder they are in such a panic that they won’t allow any dissenting opinion!

      1. chris

        Yes, really pitiful in the true sense. He clearly knows lots of snippets about both sides of the argument, but has little in the way of true knowledge and even less wisdom, there are none so blind as those who will not see. Or as Jesus put it: “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children”.

    2. Stephen

      Ranting ill mannered Dawkinism.

      Just one point, you mentioned cancer. This results from random mutations. Random mutations are supposed to be the creative mechanism in evolution, in fact they are the only creative mechanism available. Darwin (have you read him? I have) wrote ‘without variations, natural selection has nothing to work on’. Quite so, yet random mutation produces bad variations such as those which lead to all cancers. This is a repeatable scientific fact, indeed a law since there are no exceptions. (Michael Behe argues in his book ‘The Edge of Evoluktion’ why supposed beneficial mutations like sickle cell disease are merely examples of broken or bluonted genes giving limite situational benefit at heavy cost). Mutations are seen to degrade, not build, so why do Darwinists argue the opposite?

      Accumulating genetic mutations in our bodies are leading to reduced fitness and point to eventual extinction. This has been brilliantly described by Cornell geneticist John Sanford in his book ‘Genetic Entropy: The Mystery of the Genome’ in which he proves that not only can the human genome not have created itself, it cannot even maintain itself and is gradually being overwhelmed with accumuated copying errors. This is the strongest possible evidence against the Darwin mythos, evidence of a genome created perfect and becoming corrupted, genetic entropy.

      God evidently did not create us in this condition, our first parents sinned and fell. You may choose to refuse to consider this if you wish, just as you may choose to beleive that life is getting better in Britain as we jettison what’s left of our Cultural Christian heritage.

    3. Jack Lewis

      You seem to have a great deal to say about nothing. No argument, no rational opinion but a great deal of name calling and ridicule. Haven’t you n oticed that when some either loses or can’t argue they never admit it but resort to infantile behaviour.

  10. mj

    yeast evolving in 2 MONTHS give up creationists you are just wrong.

    1. Stephen

      No, if you read the link again, you will see that what the scientists did what would never happen in the wild. They mechanically took out yeast with a certain trait and grew them on. And their offspring had the same trait. And they remained yeast. Wow.

  11. Patrick

    Hi Stephen,

    Thought you might be interested to know that yeast does mutate. A lot. Most brewers will only re-use yeast around 10 times or so before re-propagating from a ‘pure’ strain in order to prevent such genetic drift.


    1. Stephen

      Any mutations are minor and do not affect the brewing process as yeast still stays as yeast.
      And vintners and cider makers have been been relying on strains of wild yeast for millenia.

      1. Patrick

        Hi again Stephen,

        To say that the brewing process isn’t affected is not true, as any brewer stuck with an incomplete fermentation due to an overly flocculent strain will tell you. I assume this is precisely the behaviour described in the paper referenced above, though whether this points to the development of multi-cellular organisms or not is beyond my level.

        What I would say is that it seems incongruous to argue against the validity of ‘artificial’ selection in the multi-cell experiment but effectively for it when it comes to the preservation of s.pastorianus.


        1. Stephen

          Brewing is not that simple. Flocculent strains can be useful. See HERE.
          There is no incongruity. Yeast remains yeast, whatever men may do to it.

    2. barriejohn

      You took the words out of my mouth!


      “They found that, like the previously studied mutations in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae had a very high rate of mutation from generation to generation.

      “‘The beer you make with this yeast is horrible,’ Thomas jokes.”

      1. Stephen

        ‘The approach used in this study allows yeast to accumulate mutations in the near absence of natural selection. By doing this, cells with mutations that might otherwise be lost because their cell is outgrown by others can continue to survive and be analysed for their mutations.’
        In other words, the researchers manipulated it. Without their intervention the mutations would die out.
        And at the end of the day, it was still yeast. Thanks, Barrie.

  12. patrick meehan

    You clearly don’t understand Natural Selection do you? Chance mutations happen all the time but it is only where there is a pressure in favour of a particular mutation that evolution tends to occur. I’m the case of yeast, bred for a particular purpose, the evolutionary pressure comes from human beings seeking to prevent change, in such a way that “rogue” mutated strains are not allowed to thrive and reproduce. I am sure that in “the wild” these yeasts will undergo constant evolution as they change to survive a changing environment. As for the tuft on the Tufted Duck’s head, I have no idea what it’s for. But not knowing what something is for doesn’t mean it hasn’t a function. Tufted Ducks dive for their food of insects and molluscs. Perhaps the tuft confuses their prey? Who knows? Perhaps it has only evolved through sexual selection as with the peacock’s tail. It is perfectly acceptable to challenge the theories of Charles Darwin – challenging existing ideas is at essence of science – but please, if you’re going to do so, try and formulate an argument against them that’s stronger than “I don’t understand how your theory can explain x,y,z, therefore your theory is wrong”. If you’re right and there is a God then surely he “created” man as a rational, thinking animal. Why not learn to praise Him by actually using the rational thinking tool that he endowed us with rather than by blindly following the teachings of a book written 4000 years ago by a bunch of desert-dwellers?

    1. Stephen

      I understand Natural Selection perfectly well, thanks. So when was the last time a beneficial chance mutation was observed to have occurred?
      In the wild, those yeasts will stay as yeast. They will reproduce ‘after their kind’ as the Bible says.
      ‘Tufted Ducks dive for their food’? Do they really? Quite unlike all the other ducks without tufts, then, who I suppose must simply paddle around waiting for someone to throw bread at them.
      The tail of the peacock has ‘evolved through sexual selection’ has it? How did it get there in the first place? What advantage does it give the peafowl species over other species?
      And I love it when ignorance and chronological snobbery combine. The whole of the Bible was written 4,000 years ago, eh, before most of its human authors were born, and people who live in the Middle East don’t know nuffin’, do they?

      1. Robert How

        Actually Sickle Cell Anaemia is a good example of human evolutionary change. Although a crippling disease, SCA gives the advantage that it gives some protection against malaria, which is why the gene has proliferated in certain African populations.

        An even better example is a whole set of mutations which have allowed peoples living in the Himalayas to adapt to high altitudes. Sea-level dwelling humans respond to altitude by producing more red blood cells, but this is actually dangerous since it blocks blood vessels and can lead to various health problems. Scientists have recorded three separate mutations in various high-altitude humans, which bestow advantages living at high altitude.

        Not to mention the obvious one – skin colour. Africans have dark skin, living in a bright environment. Northern Europeans mutated to have paler skin, enabling them to produce higher levels of vitamin D in a lower light environment.

        The examples of evolution are all around us, every day of our lives. You don’t have to be an atheist to believe in evolution – both the Catholic Church and Anglican Communion have accepted the fact of evolution for a long time now.

        1. Stephen

          They are all still people, aren’t they? Or do you believe with Darwin that Africans and Tibetans are separate species?

          Here’s Darwin in ‘The Descent of Man’ (1871), in his chapter titled “On the Affinities and Genealogy of Man,”:

          ‘At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla (p. 521).’

          1. Rox

            Stephen and his supporters keep on asking for examples of evolution by natural selection which can be readily identified and observed, but when somebody gives one, they argue that this has not actually led to a new species.

            Evolution is a long process, and it has to be admitted that the definition of a “species” is somewhat arbitrary. What creationists mean by a “kind” (the Biblical word) is even more arbitrary. I have heard them say that all rats and mice are the same “kind” of animal, so the evolution of the house mouse since the Garden of Eden does not count. In the case of people, phrases can sometimes be heard like “You go and live with your own kind”, and it must be agreed that Tibetans and Negroes are different kinds of people. But Darwin does not use the word “species” for them ! “Race” is not the same thing as “species”. It’s more like “breed” in animals.

            Darwin was not the founding prophet of a religion. You cannot condemn “it” (darwinism or evolution) on the grounds that he possibly thought the extermination of “savage” or otherwise undesirable tribes might be good for civilisation, an idea less fashionable now than it was then or in Biblical times.

          2. Stephen

            No-one is disputing minor changes within species happen. We just want some of this alleged ‘mountain of evidence’ for macro-evolution.
            It is not forthcoming because it does not exist.
            ‘Tibetans and Negroes are different kinds of people’? Good grief.
            “There are two kinds of people in the world, those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig.” – Clint Eastwood, 1966, “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly”

          3. Terry Collmann

            Macro-evolution takes tens to hundreds of millennia. Polar bears developed from brown bears perhaps four million years ago, but they can still interbreed, because the macroeveolution hasn’t progressed far enough for that not to be possible. Give it another million or three years (excluding global warming) and it will have. Hoiwever, Polar bears and brown bears mostly don’t interbreed because they have evolved enough to need to live in completely different environments, and their paths seldom cross. To ask for “evidence” of macro-evolution happening now is disingenuous: macro-evolution doesn’t happen in front of your face. But the evidence is clearly there, in the fossil and genetic records.

          4. Stephen

            Or maybe polar bears and brown bears are just a different sorts of the same species.

            People have different colour skins. I hope you are not going to start suggesting they are different species.

      2. Richard Church

        If you did understand natural selection you wouldn’t pose the question about yeast. Natural selection is more likely to occur when an organism is under stress, competing for food or other resources. If you constantly reproduce yeast happily with nothing for to cause selection it is unlikely to produce mutations with an advantage over others. The tufted duck quesion is equally an irrelevance, what glory does god get out of sticking tufts on ducks? S/he clearly moves in very mysterious ways.

        1. Stephen

          ‘Natural selection is more likely to occur when an organism is under stress’
          That’s just an assertion, with no evidence provided to support it.

  13. Mike

    If anyone ever wanted to see a prime example of the phrase ‘faith over reason’ then some of teh comments here fit perfectly.

    I am almost literally gob smacked at the ignorance levels of some of the anti-evolutionist commenters here. I fear my comments will have almost zero effect on the type of people who most probably have the ability to push a pencil through one ear and out the other without meeting any resistance in between.

    I’m perfectly happy for you to believe in your personal God, but to deny evolution is real (many Christians believe in evolution as well) shows me that education just waved as it passed some of you by.

    Yes, we do have intermediate fossils; thousands of them. Yes, there is proof of macro evolution etc. But those of you blinded by your God goggles just can’t be bothered to put the effort in and research these facts for yourselves. That’s a shame.

    1. Stephen

      No evidence offered to support evolution; no ‘intermediate’ fossil named. And he accuses us of ignorance and blindness!

      1. barriejohn

        ALL fossils are “intermediate” unless they are the last of their kind!

        1. Stephen

          No, all fossils are buried animals and plants. Some have died out, some exist today.

          1. Patrick

            Hi Stephen,

            I’m slightly confused. If all animals are perfectly designed by God for their particular environment, why do some species die out? Apologies if I misunderstood your comments re: perfect design above.


          2. Stephen

            Mainly because their environment changes or they get eaten, I guess.

          3. Greg

            Q. “If all animals are perfectly designed by God for their particular environment, why do some species die out?”

            A. “Mainly because their environment changes or they get eaten, I guess.”

            But Stephen, if God designed all creatures perfectly to suit their environment, why didn’t he design them so they could survive changes to their environment, which since he’s God, he caused or at least knew were coming?

          4. Stephen

            I suggest you pick an example, get on your knees and ask him about it.

  14. Ian Looker

    Before I toss a small spanner into the works let me say that I am a convinced creationist. Now it seems to me that if evolution were true then we should expect to see creatures with physical features which had only partly evolved and as yet had no useful function. The tuft of the tufted duck could therefore be regarded as a “work in progress”, being useless now but wait tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of year and you’ll see what it was on its way to becoming.

    One of the arguments against this line of thinking is just how few “works in progress” there are in nature. Look closely enough, I am bold to say as a non-biologist, and you’ll find just about every organ in a creature performs one useful function or another. In some cases two organs have been found to be mutually dependent, which makes their evolutionary history problematical.

    It does seem that in the economy of God very little is wasted, not even perhaps the odd tuft.

    1. barriejohn

      How about turning that argument around and explaining the purpose of vestigial organs, like the “feet” that snakes still possess? Not “on their way to becoming something”, but quite clearly on their way out!

      1. Stephen

        Well, according to yahoo answers, and you can’t get more authoritative than that,
        ‘Boas have somthing like feet that help push them forward faster but they are the only snakes i know of that have that. heres info from
        ‘”These single claws appearing on either side of the vent are the vestigial remains of the hind legs snakes lost during their evolution from lizard to snake millions of years ago”‘

        Let me get this straight. Snakes are lizards that have lost their legs? Lizards exist today. They look like they get about just fine.
        As Lady Bracknell might have put it, ‘To lose one leg, Mr. Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune. To lose all four looks like carelessness.’

        1. Terry Collmann

          Why do you keep going on about how, eg, snakes can’t have evolved from lizards because lizards still exist? Yes, lizards get on fine. Some lizards, millions of years ago, started crawling on their stomachs, gradually lost their legs, and found they got on fine as well. The existence of lizards today is no argument at all against the descent of snakes from other lizards that existed millennia ago. To try to argue, as you seem to be doing, that it does shows a very poor grasp of logical argument.

          1. Stephen

            And you saw these lizards losing their legs, did you? Did they lose them all at once or bit by bit? And how did their bodies get so long at the same time? Logical argument? Try it.

            “Unfortunately, the fossil history of snakes is very fragmentary, so that it is necessary to infer much of their evolution.” Colbert. E. H., M. Morales, and E. C. Minkoff. 2001. Evolution of the vertebrates: A history of the backboned animals through time, 5thed., New York: Wiley-Liss, Inc. p. 154

            See more revealing quotes from evolutionists here: http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=89

  15. Bob Arthur

    Much work has been done on the evolutionary advantage of bids’ displays. See here for an overview.

    Just because you say your questions are unanswered does not mean that they are. You just lack the willingness (and, in all likelihood, the capacity) to understand the answers you are given.

    1. Stephen

      In the link it claims: ‘birds with colorful plumage have many advantages over their drabber brothers’.
      Within the species that may be true – I don’t know how much research has been done to follow colour traits down through generations.
      However, from wikipedia (I know, but it is referenced): ‘Mariko Takahashi found no evidence that peahens expressed any preference for peacocks with more elaborate trains, such as trains having more ocelli, a more symmetrical arrangement or a greater length’. [Takahashi M et al. (2008). Anim . Behav., 75: 1209-1219.]
      But ‘birds with colorful plumage have many advantages over their drabber brothers’ is simply not true across species. You don’t get much more drab than a crow and yet they are one of the most successful birds around. There are lots of hedge sparrows, warblers, wrens, buzzards, thrushes, starlings, none of whom exactly set the hedgerows ablaze with colour.
      When someone comes up with an answer, that’s when the understanding of it can begin.

      1. Bob Arthur

        The link I gave barely scratches the surface of research that has gone into plumage as a selection benefit. Citing one paper that reports a null result is far from disproving the underlying mechanism. The fact that not all birds expend energy on this form of courting display simply demonstrates that there is no one extremum to which all species will gravitate. For humans, the increased brain size required to process our visual stimuli has allowed intelligence to be a dominating feature, but that doesn’t imply that all species will evolve in this direction—the cockroach will probably outlast us all.

        But like I said, you are clearly neither willing nor able to appreciate this. You cite one paper on peahens but ignore the mountain of research that clearly demonstrate evolution by natural selection. The shame is that if there is a God, you are cutting yourself off from probably His most beautiful creation.

        Fortunately, those responsible for deciding whether or not our children deserve a meaningful and useful education are not so willfully blind.

        1. Stephen

          All you evolution defenders have had ample opportunity to quote from the ‘mountain of research that clearly demonstrate evolution by natural selection’ and not even a molehill has been forthcoming.
          The one piece of research you yourself cited was, as I pointed out, laughably wrong.

          1. Ron

            Lets see if we can sway you one step at a time.

            You’re happy to accept random mutation but believe no mutation would ever be beneficial. As a first question:

            Are you willing to accept that if there were a mutation that led to even the tiniest advantage in producing offspring that this mutation would become more prevalent in a population (perhaps birds on an island) over many hundred or thousands of generations?

          2. Stephen

            Can you provide an historical example in real life of the mutation you are talking about?

          3. Bonzodog

            There are plenty…. nylonase for example

          4. Stephen

            Well that’s one in which the genetic information shifted but nothing new was added. But it’s a start. Only another few million species to go.

          5. Ron

            Please don’t avoid answering my question but just asking one yourself.

            One step at a time. It’s a very simple question.

            Are you willing to accept that if there were a mutation that led to even the tiniest advantage in producing offspring that this mutation would become more prevalent in a population (perhaps birds on an island) over many hundred or thousands of generations?

          6. Stephen

            So may I take it that the fact that you cannot give me an example of a mutation which has conferred this alleged advantage means there is no evidence it has actually ever happened? Why stake all your belief on something which is so evidence-free? Its totally illogical to do so.

  16. Clive Addison

    I have just finished reading “The case for a Creator.” by Lee Strobel – the author of “A case for Christ.” You will find all you need Valerie, and more! It convinces me [and my background is in the sciences] that evolution is now a myth. The problem is that our secular and unbelieving society [and atheistic scientists] must have the myth to hang on to, because the alternative obvious answer [that there is a Creator], is not the answer they want to hear!

  17. geoffreysmith1

    Dawkins et al are like men building a house without knowing how the bricks are made. They have yet to explain how the DNA helix, the very basis of their theory of evolution, came into being. Only the creationist explanation of design for a purpose can provide a satisfactory rationale for the structure of the most basic material in the production of life.

    1. Terry Collmann

      Geoffrey, your own limited understanding is shown by your claim that the DNA helix is the basis for the theory of evolution. Darwin formulated the theory of evolution without knowing anything at all about DNA. DNA is the mechanism, but the theory answered so many questions about the variety of life on Earth even without knowledge of the mechanism that enabled descent with modification to take place, it was clearly the most satisfactory answer to the origin of species. And certainly vastly superior to “God did it”, which explains nothing.

      1. Stephen

        He said Dawkins, not Darwin.

  18. Darren

    Your yeast argument is flawed. Here is one place of many that you can research how yeast is used in the study of evolutionary mutation.


    Search on yeast, evolution & genomics for many more. But by all means take a brewers marketing material as a foundation for your argument, it more cogent than the guff you normally peddle.

    I’m discussing the evolutionary drivers for homosexuality in modern secular societies, and the positive benefits that has for social cohesion and peace, at a talk in my local primary next week. Based on the scientific observation of bonobo primates, which we are of course closely related to.

    Much nicer than those brutish chimps! We have a lot to learn from these liberal primates.

    You nice folks keep talking about Darwin and picking holes in his works, whilst we move the argument on ;0)

    1. Stephen

      In that study, the yeast stays as yeast.
      We like insults. They show you have run out of arguments.
      If it is true that you are promoting homosexuality in a primary school, have the parents all been informed?

      1. barriejohn

        How can anyone possibly “promote homosexuality” in schools? A person is either gay, straight, or bisexual. Far better, anyway, than promoting fascist, racist and misogynistic ideas in schools, as many Christian spokespeople do!

        1. Stephen

          Because an adolescent boy or girl going through a temporary phase of homosexual attraction can get fixed into it if some authority figure tells them they are homosexual. That’s how homosexuality is promoted in schools. That’s what the anti-bullying lessons from homosexual organisations are designed to do: increase the client base. This link is from ‘Facts About Youth’, a project of the American College of Pediatricians.

          NARTH say (Barrie won’t like this): ‘When schools label some teenagers gay, there is a serious risk of mislabeling a portion of sexually confused students. A 1992 study of 34,707 Minnesota teenagers published in Pediatrics reported that 25.9% of 12-year-olds are uncertain if they are heterosexual or homosexual. (In contrast, only about 2-3% of adults will self-identify as homosexual.) This means that the majority of these “sexually questioning” teens could erroneously be identified as homosexual if they are affirmed as gay by a school counselor or an on-campus gay club.’

          I should love to know who these Christians are who are promoting (a) the centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism linked to national socialism and social Darwinism, (b) racism and (c) the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Can you name any?

          1. Rox

            I agree with this. The view in the 1940s and 1950s, probably later too,. was always that children around the age of 12 or so very often went through a marked homosexual stage which was temporary. It is not usually anything dramatic. It is most familiar as “I don’t like soppy girls” or “boys are stupid”, which unfortunately was useful in persuading the young people to choose a single-sex secondary school. which a few years later most of them would come to deeply regret. I am always stunned to hear people who should know better labelling quite young teenagers as “gay”.

          2. Jon

            ACOP is biased, one of their core values is promotion of abstinence until marriage, such a value would exclude most people outside the religious, so not surprising they should be anti homosexuality. Agree people shouldn’t be defined as anything other than their choosing though.

  19. paul & jane marshall





    1. Bob Arthur

      Or how about you explain why God gave us an appendix?

      1. Stephen

        We’ve done the appendix above.

        1. Bob Arthur

          No you didn’t—I didn’t ask what scientists have to say about the appendix, I asked what God gave it for. If you’re going to ignore/dispute the entire corpus of evolutionary science, you don’t get to fall back on science whenever you please. Now are you going to rebut the scientific articles I cited above, or will they remain “awaiting moderation?”

          1. Stephen

            The reason for the appendix has been covered elsewhere on this page and Angela has actually quoted the research showing how the appendix ‘reboots’ the digestive system.

            And of course we can refute your belief in evolution and rely on science to do so.

            Don’t know about your ‘scientific articles’. You did try to post a whole lot of unspecified links on the ‘here and here and here’ manner. They are useless for those who do not have the time to click on them. Post what they are about and then provide the link. That’s how it’s done here.

          2. Bob Arthur

            Evidence of speciation within recorded history: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v336/n6194/abs/336061a0.html

          3. Stephen

            And they all stayed as fruit flies. None evolved into anything else.

          4. Bob Arthur

            Only by naming convention. They are separate species. Go through speciation enough times and they won’t be the same by name either. “Micro” versus “macro” evolution is a myth. Speciation happens or it doesn’t.

          5. Stephen

            Bob, they are still fruit flies, no matter how many names they are given. Get over it.

  20. Dave

    The appendix is like religion. We don’t need it anymore but it’s gonna take evolution a while to get rid of it sadly.

    1. Stephen

      Or some men with guns as in North Korea? As for the appendix, see comments above.

  21. Robbie Bone

    Wow. How deluded can one get?

    You think it’s plausible that a man walked on water 2000 years ago, turned water into wine, was resurrected from the dead… yet you think a scientifically proven fact is false?!

    Perhaps you should recalibrate your reality detector.

    1. Shaun

      So this is not an argument about evolution at all – but about God. Guess what? God does not believe in atheists. Read Romans 1:18-25.
      OK – so let’s agree that it is about your religion. So where do you think you originated? Biologically – evolution takes a lot of faith. Physically – you have to believe even more – something just came out of nothing. Psychologically – how do you think you came to have a personality – if there was no personality in the big bang?
      Seems it is a lot easier to trust in God than in the things that you trust in. Who really needs to check his reality detector here?

  22. Ian Collis

    Reading the comments here shows how futile it is to try to get people to understand and accept the elegant simplicity of evolution once they have been indoctrinated with superstitious beliefs. It is very important that evolution, and also critical thinking, is presented to children before their minds are corroded by religious influences.

    1. Stephen

      What self-serving arrogance.
      Catch ’em young and make sure you don’t let their parents know what you are teaching them, eh?

  23. charles mortlock

    The article is about suppressing the truth in unrighteousness as the apostle paul teaches in the book of romans. In any society, calls to ‘ban’ ideas come from the weak and fearfull in heart. In a rational society it is not neccesary to ban ideas or philosophies which are harmfull because people will avoid them anyway. The militant secularists who wish this do so because they know that the baseless and irrational philosophy of ‘evolution’ needs the support of the state to survive. People ‘believe in evolution’ because God has given them up, He has chosen their delusions and becaise they are outside Christ they are outside reason. The evidences of the global genesis flood are obvious to those with some basic geology and geomorphology and the idea that the genetic code could write itself and develop a system of informtion storage retrieval and exchange belongs outside reason.

    1. David

      Well said! from looking at all the evolutionary arguments i am inclined to say “well get on with it” You will know the truth one day but unless you turn to God it wont be pleasant for you. But woe to them who lead children astray. Mark 9:42 “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea.

  24. Mike

    Don’t “believe” in evolution?
    That’s your problem. Denying it won’t make it any less real and factual.

    If you can’t accept mountains of scientific evidence, then there really is no hope for you, cognitive dissonance has gone too far.

    1. Stephen

      What I love about evolutionists is how they witter on and on about this ‘mountain of scientific evidence’ which allegedly supports them but do not actually provide so much as molehill of it.

      1. Bob Arthur

        Except when we do and you withhold our comments. I had hoped that you were merely misinformed, but it is now evident that you are engaged in conscious, wilful deception. You are a disgrace to your religion—one for which, for the avoidance of doubt, I have a great deal of respect.

        Shame on you.

        1. Stephen

          When someone actually comes up with some serious evidence for macro-evolution, or for a genetic mutation conferring a benefit and becoming adopted, or for the related topic of abiogenesis, I’ll publish it. But no-one has. Because there isn’t any.

          1. Bob Arthur

            Except for the evidence you ignore, dismiss without refuting or refuse to print.

            Here are 29+ examples of macroevolution for you. I await 29+ refutations.

          2. Stephen

            What they and you see as ‘evidence’ of macro-evolution someone not already assuming the evolutionary theory which is to be proved will see evidence of similar design.

  25. Donald Burling

    I believe in evolution – anyone can see tha way motor cars, aircraft and computers have evolved over the years. Each type incorporates characteristics derived from previous models. But will anyone argue that it all happened accidentally by chance?

    Every inventor works by producing prototypes and then improving on them. Is there any reason to think the Inventor of life did not work the same way?

    1. Shaun

      The very good reason that God says he did NOT work the same way. Leaving aside arguments about millions of years, natural selection depends on death. God says that his creation was very good. Later, death came as the result of evil – not God – so God did not use death to “evolve” his creatures. He made them as he wanted – very good.

  26. Piku

    As it seems we only need one creature we don’t understand to provoke our point, what sort of malicious God or Gods created this? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiocordyceps_unilateralis – an ant eating fungus?

    1. Stephen

      That depends on whether you are looking at it from the ant’s point of view, or that of the fungus.

  27. NWPilgrim

    The scientific method, we are told, has four steps:

    1 Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
    2 Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
    3 Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
    4 Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

    If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature. If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified.

    So the foundation of the scientific method is observation and repeatable experiments are its pillars.

    Evolutionists make amazing assertions about how life began, and where human life came from, yet they neither observed these things, nor can they repeat by experiment any one of their evolutionary hypotheses, nor has their theory predicted any demonstrable event. They even disagree amongst themselves as to the form evolution takes. Yet not one of them rejects evolution because it is, for them, a matter of faith.

    God’s word to Job is equally appropriate to the evolutionist:

    Job 38
    2 “Who is this that darkens counsel By words without knowledge?
    3 “Now gird up your loins like a man, And I will ask you, and you instruct Me!
    4 “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding,
    5 Who set its measurements? Since you know. Or who stretched the line on it?
    6 “On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone,

    21 “You know, for you were born then, And the number of your days is great!

    In trying to justify himself Job had failed truly to explain and vindicate the divine dealings and government of God. He had got out of his depth and exceeded his knowledge and in consequence he had “darkened counsel by words without knowledge.”

    And to show him the limitations of his knowledge. God says to Job, “Gird up thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.” Since you have spoken with so much confidence, I will test your knowledge. “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding,

    Today, I believe God addresses these very words to those who put their faith in evolution. Do not these scientists so-called darken counsel by words without knowledge? For in their pride they have a great deal to say and tell us about what they say happened billions of years ago. Well, let them try telling it to God! Let them try to instruct Him about these matters!

    They make senseless statements about the origin of life: statements that contain no true explanation, and explanations that convey no light but tend only to darkness in the mind and spirit and morals of men.

    How could the evolutionist have made any scientific observation of what happened then? Neither he, nor mankind, even existed. And what is there, in his observations of the present, that make him leap to conclusions about the past that he cannot now demonstrate? Not only can he not create life, he cannot even observe or reproduce the change of species from one to another.

    His theory therefore, that the origin of life on earth arose from the random interaction of lifeless matter, without the involvement of supernatural power, but by the natural forces of physics and chemistry alone, must be received by faith.

    By his own scientific method it ought to be rejected out of hand. Yet millions cleave to it as an article of faith and assert its veracity in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

  28. Jack Lewis

    The Following letter has been sent to Dr. Brian Cox. I don’t expect to get an answer as the questions will be too difficult.

    Dear Dr. Cox,
    I haven’t been watching your TV series about the origin of life because you were unlikely to answer the question. In fact I would go so far as saying, with confidence, that you would have left out the three most vital questions that need to be answered.

    1 A mechanism that allowed inanimate chemicals to organize themselves into an incredibly complex, self replicating first organism?

    2 How the scientific laws, that you so eloquently feel has the complete answer, account for and describe the DNA ‘code’ and its information?

    3 Finally a question, famously put to Richard Dawkins which he famously didn’t answer but perhaps you can, in which he was asked to give an example of a genetic mutation that adds more information to the organism and increase its complexity?

    Even in the absence of answers to the three above questions you, like the majority of scientists in the world, ‘believe’ evolution to be a fact. How can the word ‘believe’ be used in the same sentence as the word ‘fact’? I have no problem with people wanting to ‘believe’ in evolution as I also have no problem with people who want to ‘believe’ in an intelligent origin. My complaint is that the ‘belief’ in evolution is promoted as though it is a fact to the exclusion of all else. This is an insult to genuine use of the scientific method in seeking the truth about the world we live in. If science hasn’t got an answer then it should be honest enough to say so instead of giving the respectability of ‘fact’ to ‘speculation’.

    Was it not Joseph Goebbels who said?

    ‘If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.’

    I rest my case.

    Yours sincerely

  29. Michelle

    For those looking for a recent example of natural selection I suggest you look up the research on the Peppered Moth.

    1. Stephen

      In which genetic material was removed not created and they all remained peppered moths.

      1. Terry Collmann

        What are you on about? Genetic material ‘removed’? In mutations, genetic material is altered, not removed. Eg in the mutation that led to so many of Queen Victoria’s descendants suffering from haemophilia, nothing was femoved, only altered.

        Now, that’s an example of a harmful mutation. Here’s an example of a mutation that appears to have been beneficial


        1. Stephen

          Off we go again. A surfeit of ‘may have’ ‘could have’ and ‘possibly’ with no evidence for these extra sweat glands being a mutation at all.

          For example: ‘One possibility, the researchers say, is that the extra sweat glands helped humans to keep cool in the warm and humid Chinese climate of 30,000 years ago.’

          ‘Hunter-gatherers often bring down prey in long-distance chases, and being able to keep cool is essential for endurance running.’

          The greatest endurance runners today are the Kenyan Kalenjin.

          But they, and other humans on the Equator, don’t have the extra sweat glands.

          ‘Alternatively, it could be all about sex. Men in Asia may have found small breasts more attractive,’

          You would need a heart of stone not to laugh at such clutching of straws. Funnily enough, the researcher was a woman, and the research shows that women prefer their breasts smaller than men do; don’t worry, there is no Kate Middleton topless on that link!.

          And there seems a paucity of evidence to suggest that men’s appreciation of women’s breasts varies from continent to continent. Everyone has sex appeal for somebody, or some of us wouldn’t be here.

          Oh dear, back to the drawing board.

    2. Caleb

      The so called Peppered Moth ‘evidence’ has long fallen into disrepute when it was discovered that evolutionists had placed the lighter moths on the sooty trees deliberately so that they would be picked off by birds. Wow such deceit. Furthermore, my old school evolutionary evidence through “Embryology” has likewise been discredited with the (I think German) scientist having substituted fish and amphibian embryos for bird and mammalian ones for like comparison. We poor Grammar school pupils were certainly fooled and taken for a ride with that one

      Can I broaden the debate by asking the evolutionists the following questions which convince me that there must be a creator:

      1) How did the pitcher plant, venus fly trap and say spiny Holly leaves evolve when according to evolutionist theory, their prey, namely insects or in the case of holly leaves( protection from presumably) mammals, as both of these phyla would not have appeared until millions of years later?

      2) How did the great white shark evolve into a seal eating machine design, when mammals are supposedly to have evolved millions of years later?

      There are many of this type of example that for me totally refutes evolution.

      That most prominent aethist (before Dawkins), named Sir Anthony Flew, gave up his evolutionary leanings because of the sheer complexity of DNA alone. He famously said that there was obvious design here in these base helices. Well said Sir Anthony and Amen say I.

      1. Paul

        On the contrary, it is this calumny against scientists investigating the peppered moth that has long been discredited. Wikipedia gives a good account – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution.

        The position with regard to Haeckel is much less clear than Caleb suggests. As far as I can make out, it’s the idea of recapitulation in the embryo that’s been discredited – not, of course, evolution itself. Again, Wikipedia gives a good account – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel

        Re the questions:

        1) This question is rather confusingly worded, but apparently assumes that in evolution theory, pitcher plants and venus flytraps arose before insects and that holly evolved before herbivores. In fact, all these plants are angiosperms (flowering plants), which arose long after the groups referred to.

        2) The great white shark isn’t specifically a “seal eating machine design” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_white_shark) – it’s a generalist predator that eats what is present in its environment. As such, it’s a modern representative of a line that goes back hundreds of millions of years.

        The case of Sir Anthony Flew is interesting – I hadn’t heard of him. From my admittedly brief reading around this, he seems to have fallen for the ‘God of the Gaps’ fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps), and the god he came to believe existed was very different from that of any of the major religious groups.

        1. Stephen

          Good old wikipedia – the fount of authority.

  30. Michael Stone

    The answers to virtually any question on creation / evolution can be found at http://www.creation.com There are numerous articles, papers, book reviews and explanations all given by serious scientists who recognise the reality of the Christian creationist world view.

    Why not give it a try? You will find real science there and not muddled, wishful thinking!

  31. Angela

    Researchers at Duke University Medical Center say that the function of the frequently discarded appendix, an organ often credited with little importance and often dismissed as having no significant function, does it seems have a role to play after all.
    Researchers in the United States say the appendix produces and protects good germs for the gut by “rebooting” the digestive system.

    The team of immunologists at Duke University Medical Center say the human digestive system contains massive amounts of bacteria most of which are good and help the digestion of food.

    However the researchers say sometimes the bacteria die off or are purged from the intestines as in diseases such as cholera or dysentery.

    According to the researchers, the appendix’s job is to “reboot” the digestive system when that happens with the bacteria safely harbored in the appendix.

    Many doctors believe the appendix is a vestigial organ with no function and is no more than a blind ended tube connected to the cecum, from which it develops embryologically.

    The cecum is a pouch-like structure of the colon and the appendix is near the junction of the small intestine and the large intestine and has abundant infection-fighting lymphoid cells, which suggests it plays a role in the immune system.

  32. stephen [ the other one ]

    it is so sad to see people parroting the words of others
    if only they knew how stifling and narrow minded the scientific community is
    if only they knew that scientists have proved GOD’s creation week to be true but were gagged and thier research suppressed
    i have come to the conclusion that these so called ” scientists ” have become so puffed up in thier intellectualism that they are desperately trying to hide the discovery that thier theories are fatally flawed
    only the other day i found that ” scientists ” are spouting what new ager david icke was espousing years ago that we are all living in a holographic matrix
    talk about the parrots ” parroting ” the parrot
    i suggest the dissenters towards creation here read TRUE SCIENCE AGREES WITH THE BIBLE by MALCOLM BOWDEN to find out what really goes on in the scientific community
    they will learn the truth of who the REAL proponent of evolution is [ sadly darwin was used by this individual who took advantage of his awe over his gallapagos discoveries ]
    as YESHUA truthfully said ” as in the days of NOAH ”

  33. TippyT

    I am so glad, my scientist ex husband and now also my scientist partner, have brought up our daughter as a Athiest. To question the stupidity of creationism, and the mass mind meld of the church, personally I would like Mr Hunt to go stage further and ban faith schools. RE teaching should be re named mythology, and the true horror of the dark ages taught. So that hopefully the continueing stupidity of creationism can be negated and reason can rule!

    1. Stephen

      Mr Jeremy Hunt MP is HM Secretary of State for Health.

    2. NWPilgrim

      What?! You mean you actually imposed your views on her instead of leaving her to find out and decide for herself as any good atheist ought. Shame on you!

      1. TippyT

        No I have taken her to churches, mosques and temples, and given her choice. However when questioned by her on what why and when we believe or not I have been open and honest. She has heard the mythology from the bible, but also heard the tales and other mythology from Norse gods to Roman gods etc.

        She has been given choice which a lot more then “Christian friends (yes I do have friends of all faiths ) have given thier own children. Who will not let them go to the science museam, or experience other faiths, or entertain Darwin. So instead my child has been given freedom, most children of faith parents do not give! Last school hoildays she requested we visit St Paul’s to see the whispering gallery and spoke with a ‘priest’ on why the baptism font exists, then declared she found it very funny thing to do.

        I have Jewish, hindu, sikih friends and gay friends and she is open to ask any questions about whatever she wishes. This she has done about everything, however she identifies herself as an Athiest. I think her comment about the scientifically proven evidence that Prof Brian Cox discussed say it all, why has no one corrected the bible in how the universe was formed and the soler system? Can the those Christians not understand.

        Just so you know she is 8 and clearly has more common sense than most adults who blindly follow a book written 2000 years ago.

        1. Stephen

          How long ago was “On The Origin of Species. by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” written? It was more than 150 years ago! And people are still blindly following it!

          1. Paul

            It’s just as compelling and convincing a read now as it was then – especially as science since has elucidated the nature of the mechanisms of heredity that Darwin predicted. Definitely a work of genius.

          2. Stephen

            Compelling and convincing isn’t the point. The lady says if things are old they are worthless. And 150 years is old.

            If, on the other hand, old is not worthless, then the Bible is compelling, convincing, intellectually coherent, inspiring, inspired and currently outselling Darwin’s ‘work of genius’ by several thousands to one.

          3. Paul Cook

            I think this portrays the most uneducated own goal you have written on here.

            How old is the bible and yet you still believe it. Known and PROVEN to be not one book but many. Written not by a supreme being but by men. Many men. Re-written. False and full of inconsistencies. You aren;t worthy of people giving you a debate because you really don’t deserve their intellect a you portray such ignorance yourself.

          4. Stephen

            It is just plain ignorant to dismiss material because it is too old! If historians did that …

            The Bible was written by many human authors under divine inspiration and it remains logically consistent, intellectually coherent – and true.

          5. Paul

            I wouldn’t argue that something is worthless because it’s old. If it stands up to examination in the light of present knowledge and methods of enquiry, then all credit to its author(s).

  34. Tim C

    Amongst other things, one thing that helps me see a Creator, is the reproductive system in our bodies. If we didn’t have reproductive systems, I wonder how we’d develop them, and would we live long enough to find out they were there and what they were for . . . though I suppose you could argue our forefathers were simple living cells that felt the urge to divide, and didn’t worry about these sort of things.

  35. Francis Codjoe

    The ‘unknown truth’ about the evolution and creation controvery which was settled in the 19th century

    Professor Thomas Huxley was the original Darwin’s Bulldog . He defended Darwin’s Evolution theory in 1862 during his tournament with Bishop Samuel Wilberforce. Huxley had another tournament with Prime Minister William Gladstone. which he ‘won.’ Darwin spok ehighly of Huxley. A Secret Service Agent took Professor Huxley into the ring. He “knocked out” the champion of Darwinism, and “killed” Darwin’s Bulldog. The Agent discreditted Darwin’s theory of evolution. The controversy was settled in 1896. Prof. Richard Dawkins – the 21st century Darwin’s bull dog, is just a ‘ghost’ of Professor Thomas Huxley. Supporters of Darwin’s theory must do their homework. They are treading on worn out path.

    None of today’s Darwinists and atheists would have qualified to share the same platform with ‘God’s Barrister’ – the lawyer with an extraordinary mental power. He wrote about EU – how it would develop, its character and future prospects even before the French Founding fathers of EU – Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman – were born in 1888 and 1886. He warned England would become a province of Europe and Britain would not be saved if she joined a confederation of European nations which would develop through a great European crisis. He had been vindicated. The EU evolved from the ashes of the Second World War.

  36. Stotty

    Stephen your answers are brilliant – I have just written a book which will blow the ‘deceivolution’ brigade apart. They talk about fairy tales, but they believe in the biggest fairy tale of all “It all came from Nothing!” The reason they believe there is no God is because they don’t want God interfering in there lives. ” The reason an atheist cannot find God, is the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman” It’s called avoidance.

    Look at Dawkins statements that the atheists applaud every time he trots them out: “Isn’t it enough to see a beautiful garden without believing in fairies at the bottom of it?” Well yes Richard, a fairy would be a delusion, but I would have to assume that a Gardener or owner of the house had been out there laying and then mowing the lawn and planting seeds. I wouldn’t believe that it all just happened, like you obviously do. And what of his statement, every time he ‘performs’ a debate with a Christian. You know the one about “If you had been born in Iran or India, or Tibet, you would have been a muslim or a sikh, hindu or a buddhist” And off go the atheists again applauding the faulty logic or the unfinished argument. Let’s finish that argument shall we? Yes Richard if I had been born in those countries I would have grown up belonging to those religions. But as you and I know, literally thousands of people, after looking at their beliefs in snake gods and elephant gods, or the call to jihad and the killing of infidels that is placed on every single real muslim in the Koran, or the belief in re-incarnation and that we will come back as a lowly animal if we live a bad life and will move on to nirvana if we live a good life – they look at this and then hear of the love of Christ and the call to ‘love your neighbour as yourself’, how he paid the price for our sins and for our salvation – then they leave their inherited religion behind and become Christians. Why would they do this when they are persecuted for it to the point of death. Thousands of them. Millions in China. And Dawkins would also have been one of these religions if he had been born in a different country too, But given his personality, he would have eventually become the atheist he always wanted to be! If you are born in China, you grow up as an atheist, so why then do millions there become Christians, knowing they will be persecuted? His arguments are always flawed, but let’s start pointing it out. The man gets away with murder. Albert Einstein believed in a Creator God and tha’ts ofiicial , ask Dawkins. The man who eclipses Dawkins in intellect had to bow to the overwhelming Design in the universe. Try laughing at him for a change. Professor Antony Flew, the most notorious atheist of the 20th century, crumbled under the weight of fine-tuning of the universe evidence and DNA digital information (information always needs an Intelligence that formed it). After declaring that he now believed in God and wrote a book about it, he stated of Mr Dawkins: “Dawkins is not interested in discovering the truth, he is only interested in winning the argument!” A damning indictment from a former colleague.

  37. Philip Snow

    CHANCE MUTATIONS, comparatively speaking, are an irrelevance to Neo-Darwinian Theory, which has no base to begin with. No life is possible in the first place without Information, and as that is non-material, it could not possibly accidently ‘evolve’, not could it be subject to ‘Natural Selection’, [as deliberately mistaken for chance, blind evolution by the likes of Cox or the Prince of Dawkness], until it appears! Then No DNA = NO Cell, and NO CELL = NO DNA etc….
    Suchlike are the Hallmarks of Design, and teaching children we are the accidental side-effect of some random Big-Bang in Nothingness/Nothing Much, Chance chemical Soup, & Trillions of Genetic Mistakes – will predictably produce a generation with even less brain, initiative and meaning in their lives than their ‘educators’ possess now – as hard as they might appear!
    And as the Main Man said, to paraphrase, any who ‘stumble little children’ will find themselves in deep doo-dooh….’Choose this day whom you will serve’ whilst you still have the chance…..

  38. peterpam

    The whole of creation declares the glory of God. It is a song of praise to Yahweh creator of all things. Science is the art of observation and discovery of the great principles of the universe. Scientists hear the tune of creation and interpret it in a way that they can formulate. It is not possible for anyone to comprehend the great symphony played by creation unless the heart is in tune with the composer. Do not be too hard on those who do not hear what is clear for us to enjoy!
    That goes for both sides of the argument. There are many scientists who believe but struggle with traditional creation understanding in the same way that there are many who claim to be Christian that cannot fully believe in a 6 day creation.
    God’s glory endorses the gospel of salvation through Christ alone but it cannot declare it as those who have benefitted from it can. I would suggest the new creation is the important message to get across.
    We have never been able to rely on the state for the declaration of the glorious gospel and so we must never expect that to be the case now. It has been said that when the wold is at it’s worst then the church ought to be at it’s very best! BUT ARE WE?

  39. Mark


    Yes, I’m well aware of Von Braun and the Nazi space programme thank you very much, merely used one example of a quote and his subsequent role in the US space programme. Plenty of others but one example, maybe should have used CS Lewis!!!

    Suggest people check out Answers in Genesis and Ken Ham who earned a bachelor’s degree in Applied Science, with an emphasis in Environmental Biology at Queensland Institute of Technology.

  40. Mark

    “It’s life Jim, but not as we know it – Can anyone join in?” Darwin’s theory is simply that, a theory – kind of ‘unproven’. Before you throw bottles at me – some examples:

    ‘Gravity’ is a principle = Proven
    ‘Mathematics’ is a principle = Proven
    ‘Aeronautics’ is principle = Proven
    ‘Thermo-dynamics’ is a principle =Proven
    just to name a few.

    how about…

    ‘Time Travel’ is a theory = Unproven, though I enjoyed the car, I must say!
    Oh and the ‘Theory of Evolution’ or as I like to call it Evil-lution, is again unproven.

    Darwin’s Origin of the Species states that all life on earth came about from single cell organisms which somehow miraculously morphed into the life we see and enjoy today. lol, in your dreams dude. since then Scientist have come to understand that cells are like a ‘universe’ in there complexity and there can be no question as to the logical order of there structure – this is not from some archaic, and random natural selection but an ordered creation. The only reason you don’t hear real scientists stating so, is because they’ll be ruined by their paymasters to disagree with the status quo – in other words – ‘the Lie’.

    How can nothing quantify into something by a ‘big explosion’? Since when did an explosion ANYWHERE, result in an ordered outcome. I challenge anyone to strip down a car, a bicycle or any inanimate object and blow it up and what you’ll get, will not be a brand new shiny car or bicycle; but debris and bits of matter scattered everywhere. Only people incapable of understanding ‘Truth’ will swallow the spoon fed nonsense handed to them from childhood to adulthood. The ‘theory-tail’ of evolution is like believing in Father Christmas all your natural life. Rather sad really.. Since when did 0+0 = anything, even maths teaches you natural numerical order.

    You cannot argue with principles they are Laws and are therefore ‘Absolute’ something most people are unfamiliar with today. Darwin’s theory is therefore a ‘theory-tale’ and I stop believing in those when I became an adult.

    1 Cor 13:11
    “Don’t be a ‘sheeple’, be a disciple – of Christ that is”. He is Truth!

  41. chris

    Stephen, Can I suggest from far-off Australia that getting into these arguments with Atheists or misguided Christians can be folly. Unless you are an expert in the field of Creation Science and absolutely up to date with the very latest information in all fields of science, the Atheists in particular will try to trip you up with superficially impressive information, that nevertheless can be firmly challenged. The key is having the correct knowledge at your disposal to challenge it. There are many extraordinarily good Creation science websites but for me the best and most comprehensive is creation.com. It Contains thousands of articles written by Phds who start with an assumption that God created the universe and everything it and find that the data fits that very well indeed, just as Kepler, Bacon, Galilei, Descartes, Pascal, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Babbage, Pasteur, Kelvin, Planck and thousands of others did, and do. We all have the same data, the difference is in the interpretations and starting assumptions. I know some will never be convinced but EVERY argument against creation is scientifically rebutted on this site. I find it deeply saddening to see the UK become such a hateful, Godless place, and unfortunately much of the Western world will soon follow, All of it caused by one of your own citizens, a man who had an argument with God over the death of his young daughter, and so created a fairytale (mostly debunked, but only quietly corrected now) to remove God from our heritage. Finally NEVER confuse macro evolution, “from goo to you” with natural selection, they are very different propositions. No Creation Scientist worth their salt challenges the latter, but virulently the former. I beg readers to please extensively read creation.com with an open mind, to some whose whole world is built on Atheism it may be the hardest thing you do in your life, but do it anyway.

    If you are a Christian pray about if first.

    1. Stephen

      Well they haven’t tripped us up yet, but we are grateful for the link to http://www.creation.com

    2. David

      Great Chris but would these people ever demean themselves by looking at a creation web site?

    3. Paul

      “start with an assumption that God created the universe and everything it and find that the data fits that very well indeed”.

      The very antithesis of the scientific method.

      1. Stephen

        The irony is that modern biology does something similar, it starts with the assumption of evolution but then, finding the data does not fit very well, it makes it fit.

        1. Paul

          I must admit I get a bit fed up with the glib explanations for biological phenomena in evolutionary terms that one comes across, particularly on TV – I think it likely that what really happened in such cases was much more complex. Nevertheless, there is so much evidence for evolution, and it is so convincing, that it has become the current paradigm in biology and is used to interpret research. I’d be interested to hear about any data that doesn’t fit very well; you haven’t mentioned any of the examples that I know about, such as the ‘faint young Sun’ paradox – currently an open issue and not “made to fit”.

          1. Stephen

            No, evolution has become the current paradigm because it frees a lot of people from their responsibility to a being higher and more intelligent than them. Evolution MUST be true.

  42. André

    Can anyone of these scientists and evolutionists tell me when did the big oxygen and carbon dioxide conference occur? I find it quite incredible that every living creature uses oxygen en exhales carbon dioxide, and every existing plant species uses carbon dioxide and exhales oxygen. That could not have happened by chance! It HAD TO BE AGREED UPON! And remember, the living creatures had to agree to this BEFORE they “developed” their lungs, so that they don’t waste a million or two years “developing” the wrong kind of lungs. Ahhh, wait…. I have the answer! It must’ve been somewhere when nothing became a single cell, which then miraculously existed for a couple of million years, living on……. WHAT?…. before it split into two cells, the one which was the father of the living creatures, and the other one which was the father of the plant species…. they must’ve figured it all out then between the two of them…. you go for oxygen, I’ll go for carbon….. yeah…. I can just hear that conversation….. but wait….. how would they have talked/communicated? Sign language? The one thing I’m REALLY impressed with, is their ability to hide their deceased in such a way that we can NOT FIND A SINGLE CREATURE OR SPECIES with a skeleton history showing the changes that occurred ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE SINGLE CELL. Apparently Jane McQueen has that evidence…. won’t you please share it with us, Jane? It’s not nice keeping it all to yourself, you know! How I would LOVE to trace my ancestry back via skeleton example right down to my amoeba grandpa!

    1. Paul

      Yes indeed, and the answer is (I think) quite awe-inspiring. The early Earth’s atmosphere had no oxygen. Photosynthesising organisms – not plants, but similar to today’s cyanobacteria – arose first. Over an inconceivably long time, perhaps a billion years, they gradually filled up all the oxygen ‘sinks’ on the early Earth, resulting in, for example, the ‘banded iron formations’ found in Western Australia and other places. Then free oxygen began to accumulate in the atmosphere; this gave an opportunity for new forms of life to arise that could use it to drive their metabolism, which also took an inconceivably long time. Your suggestion that plants and animals had somehow to agree to have complementary metabolic processes is mistaken.

      I’m not sure what you mean by “skeleton history”.

      1. Stephen

        According to your hypothesis, where did the ‘Photosynthesising organisms – not plants, but similar to today’s cyanobacteria’ come from and how?

        1. Paul

          It’s not my hypothesis – it’s my understanding of the current scientific consensus. The details of how early photosynthetic organisms arose aren’t known and are, I think, unknowable – as the molecular basis for evolution is not preserved in the fossil record.

          1. Stephen

            Exactly, those details are neither known nor knowable, and yet you depend on them for your belief and countless biologists depend on them for their employment.

            Actually, Paul, can you admit that the fossil record is that of various deceased animals and that no evidence for evolution is preserved in the fossil record?

          2. Paul

            As you say, the fossil record is that of various deceased animals – a tiny, random sample, imperfectly preserved, of those that have existed since life first arose on Earth. In spite of these problems, it presents plenty of evidence for evolution. For example, I remember doing a project in school over 40 years ago on the evolution of the elephant. See http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/mesozoicmammals/a/elephants.htm (not my project!)

          3. Stephen

            The link claims that mammals somehow came into being ‘just like that!’ 65 million years ago. They were, it says, ‘tiny mouse-sized mammals’. 5 million years later, ‘a small, squat, pig-sized herbivore’ with a snout (not a trunk) just ‘popped up’. And that pig-sized herbivore evolved into an elephant. Are we supposed to take this seriously?

          4. Paul

            Come on Stephen, it’s a popular science article that I referred to to show what my school project was about, not something from a learned journal. Even so, it doesn’t say “that mammals somehow came into being ‘just like that!’ 65 million years ago” – it refers to ” tiny, mouse-sized mammals that survived the K/T Extinction 65 million years ago”. And why shouldn’t we take it seriously? There is plenty of fossil evidence of elephant development over the intervening period.

          5. Stephen

            Where is the fossil evidence of elephant development? It seems to have eluded this pro-evolution website:

            I love it that the nearest living relative of the elephant is the hyrax. And this comment:

            ‘It is believed that 50-60 million years ago, mammals approximately the size of current day pigs, were the roots from which the proboscideans evolved from. Interestingly, based on both morphological and biochemical evidence, it is agreed that the manatees, dugongs, and hyraxes are the closest living relatives of the today’s elephants. It is incredible to believe given the vastly different sizes, external appearance and the fact that they occupy completely different habitats.’

            Note: ‘It is believed that …’ (yes, evolution is a belief-system) and ‘It is incredible to believe …’

            Sure is.

          6. Paul

            This page gives an overview of the fossil evidence: http://www.sanparks.org/parks/kruger/elephants/about/evolution.php. If you would like some more, I will do a bit more research.

            Unfortunately, I can’t remember what were the sources upon which I based my school project!

            Re your comments on how the article you found is worded: I despair at the way people who write articles on evolution shoot themselves in the foot with sloppy wording. Maybe evolution is a belief system to that writer – but if it is, that person isn’t a scientist. The final sentence you quoted suggests this – the fact that creatures can differ greatly from their remote ancestors is certainly wondrous but not incredible to those familiar with the evidence.

          7. Stephen

            Paul, you have cited yet another apparently scholarly article hedged about with reservations:

            ‘Fossil evidence
            ‘It is thought that’ … ‘may have originated’ (in a place where no fossils have been found! SG) … ‘Moeritherium was relatively small with no trunk. … It is not a direct ancestor of elephants, as it has no known descendants’. (Then why mention it?)
            ‘… the early Palaeomastodon and Gomphotherium bore little resemblance to modern elephants. However, as the Proboscidean species evolved, the animals grew larger with longer limbs, their skull, teeth and tusk size increased and a mobile trunk developed.’ (Er, why would that happen? How could it happen? Where is the fossil evidence that anything like that happened outside the figment of someone’s imagination?)

            ‘Primelephas’ had four tusks. He appears in the fossil record and then disappears. The so-called ‘modern’ elephants, including mammoths, also appear suddenly in the fossil evidence. We are invited to believe with no intermediate fossil evidence at all that Primelephas acquired four tusks through evolution then lost two of them through evolution. These are ‘Just so’ stories.

            This page sets out the retreat of major evolutionary biologists from the evolutionary Darwinian standard quite succinctly:


          8. Paul

            There’s a problem here that can’t be overcome. Intermediate forms from the fossil record are derived from an individual at a single point in the evolutionary sequence and by definition can’t present the full sequence. So it will always be possible to say “You’ve shown me A and B, but as there are no intermediate forms, you can’t prove that there is an evolutionary relationship between them”. The point, though, is that the fossil record demonstrates that those individuals did exist in the past, and the relationships between them can be inferred. Of course, there is a lot of uncertainty around these inferences, hence the reservations; this is simply the language of science, as I have described in other posts in this thread.

            I read your reference with interest. It seems to be based on misunderstandings and misrepresentations of some of the initial responses to the first publication of Eldredge and Gould’s ideas on ‘punctuated equilibrium’ – I think it’s significant that all the references date from 1977-1985. Of course, there has been no “retreat of major evolutionary biologists from the evolutionary Darwinian standard” – punctuated equilibrium is simply an elaboration of the evolutionary model. Here are a couple of useful references: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIIA1bPunctuated.shtml, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/5/l_035_01.html.

          9. Stephen


            It is not just that you don’t have all the ‘intermediate forms’, you don’t have any. To infer you must start from a certain position. Start from a belief in evolution and you will come up with an evolutionary inference.

            As to your links, the first one has a conjecture of snails adapting to a new environment. But they remain snails. We are not arguing about tiny changes in species. We want evidence of species changing into new ones, crucial for evolution to be proven.

            Your second link supports what was said in my link, by talking about Gould and Eldredge’s proposed explanation of “punctuated equilibrium.”

            Look a little further: http://www.macroevolution.net/stephen-jay-gould.html

            ‘Eldredge (1995: 68) asserts paleontologists have hesitated to emphasize the observed pattern of stasis in the fossil record because it is inconsistent with neo-Darwinian theory:

            ‘For the most part it has been paleontological reluctance to cross swords with Darwinian tradition that accounts for the failure to inject the empirical reality of stasis into the evolutionary picture.’

            Evolution is a belief system. And without any evidence to support it its days are numbered.

          10. Paul

            Thank you for the site reference in your last post – it’s fascinating. There is so much information there that I haven’t yet been able to read it all – a whole book’s worth, according to the site’s author. Broadly speaking, he proposes that new species can arise very quickly through chromosome rearrangements and hybridisation (I have made reference to these processes in previous posts). He cites the work of Hugo de Vries (http://www.macroevolution.net/hugo-de-vries.html#.UY9qN7Vtg8o), who demonstrated the arising of new species of evening primrose (incidentally, and much to my surprise, this work satisfies your oft-repeated request for evidence of new species arising through mutations). Apparently, though, his ideas aren’t credible (see http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/17/ankylodillos-and-other-chimeras-another-crackpot-alternative-to-evolution/ for a critique), although (as I have said in other posts) it seems to me plausible that new species can arise in this way.

            Although evolution theory may be a belief system to some people, primarily it is the best explanation we have for the observed facts, and I have cited some of the mountain of evidence for it in other posts. Like any scientific theory, it remains provisional and will continue to be refined and altered as new evidence comes to light.

          11. Stephen

            As it isn’t even a logical or plausible explanation, how can evolution theory be ‘the best’ explanation?

          12. Paul

            Not only does it seem logical and plausible to me, but it is also backed up by the mountains of evidence that I have summarised in other posts.

            I need to correct my previous post, where I said that evolution is the best explanation we have for the observed facts; I should have said that it is the *only* explanation we have. The conjectures of creationism, intelligent design etc. can’t be dignified with the label ‘explanation’, as they don’t explain anything.

          13. Stephen

            Don’t flatter yourself. Neither you nor any evolution advocate have advanced so much as a molehill of evidence. Where is your evidence of all the beneficial mutations which had to occur? Where is your experiment showing life arising spontaneously from non-life. Hot air, fantasy lala land.

  43. EddieD

    If we were once apes, why do apes still exist? They should have all evolved into homo sapiens or, at least, be at various stages of doing so. I was assured 50 years ago at school that by now we would be ‘up to our armpits’ in fossil evidence of human evolution but the ‘missing link’ is still stubbornly missing and there are no signs of it being discovered.

    1. Ian Collis

      This comment shows a complete lack of understanding of evolution.

      Humans did not evolve from species of apes that exist today but from a common ancestor; there are still apes today because they have evolved to fit their environment, as we have evolved to fit ours.

      Can you explain what you think you mean by the ‘missing link’? Fossil evidence certainly hasn’t been discovered yet for every individual stage of human evolution but it would be pretty unlikely that it ever would be, given the time-scales involved and the fragility of biological material. There is plenty of evidence to support the process of continuous evolution from a common ape-like ancestor though – and there are no huge ‘gaps’.

      That said, scientists are always willing to modify their theories based on new evidence – unlike creationists.

      1. Stephen

        Er, no, scientists are concerned to make the evidence fit evolutionary theory, otherwise they lose their funding.

    2. Paul

      This post is surely a joke. The logic suggests that no organism can exist, because by now it ought to have evolved into something else. That’s really rather funny.

      Also, the poster is out of date with current knowledge of the fossil record. Even though fossilisation of a dead organism is an incredibly rare event, we are fortunate enough to have found a series of intermediate forms of hominid going back 7 million years. This was beautifully elucidated in the recent (2011) BBC TV series ‘Origins of Us’ (and no doubt in lots of other sources).

      1. Stephen

        We have covered the paucity of hominid remains elsewhere. Alice Roberts was really funny in that programme, though. Our ancestors were in trees then when they saw the African Savanna they decided to walk upright. Hands adapted to hold tools rather than tools being made to suit hands. We were in stitches.

  44. JDLP

    About Bombardier Beetles: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

    To EddieD, what ‘missing link’ are you talking about? First of all, please understand that chimpanzees and other living apes are NOT human ancestors. The last common ancestor of humans and chimps, for example, was not a chimp (chimpanzees keep evolving, so the apes today are not the same as the ones who lives 5 or 7 million years ago).

    Now, if what you are refering to is a link between apes and humans, that is not missing. Far from that. In fact, there are lots and lots of known evolutionary links. Here you can see a few examples: http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/origins/images/brain_size_cultural_evolution.gif

    1. Stephen

      And the reason we can only see ‘a few examples’ is that those are the only ones the evolutionists have. And they don’t even do the job they claim. See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/origin-of-humans

  45. Martin Budd

    There is evidence that points to evolution: from Galapagos tortoises to DNA patterns. But no-one has seen the process in action. Some evidence one would expect, is not there. Four billion years is a long time, but just isn’t enough for the extremely improbable leaps of evolution to have occurred by chance and natural selection. The design of life and the purposefulness of humankind point to divine intelligence. Again see my article referred to above, http://www.wasdarwinright.com/chance.htm (note superscript numerals appear normal)

    What is more, it doesn’t stop there. If any one of silicon, gold, copper, beryllium, tantalum, iron did not exist, or had slightly didn’t properties, or if any one of scientists Newton, Faraday, Clerk-Maxwell, Hertz, Planck did not have the intense Christian faith that drove and inspired them in their work and led to the miraculous development of radio, computing and modern technology, then we might not be writing these comments to one another!

    Children should not be schooled into a particular interpretation of reality. Their natural sense of wonder and inquiry should be nourished and equipped, so they can discover for themselves what is true at an appropriate time in their development.

    “Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.” Newton

    “He who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed.” Einstein.

    1. Terry Collmann

      Four billion years is a long time, but just isn’t enough for the extremely improbable leaps of evolution to have occurred by chance and natural selection.

      And your proof for this assertion is?

      I genuinely don’t think you understand how long four billion years is. If something changed just 0.1 per cent every century, it would have changed completely 40,000 times over four billion years. That seems plenty long enough to give every variety of life we see in the world today and in the fossil record.

      1. Stephen

        Oh dear. There are upwards of 8.7 million separate species on earth. Wikipedia lists 300 different cell types in the human body. The body has trllions of cells each with its piece of information and its tiny molecular cell motor.

        All the evidence shows that genetic information does not change from generation to generation. Yeast is still yeast. Dogs can’t mate with cats. Where is any evidence at all of any beneficial mutation which has led to a new species?

        Where is any evidence at all that our genetic information, or that of any living species, has changed at all in the last 100 years, yet alone by 0.1%?

        What does it take to get you to acknowledge you are clutching at straws?

        1. Rox

          I notice you have already written “So bacteria develop resistance to drugs, and they remain bacteria.”. This combines both my points. Bacteria are not a species. To say that bacteria are still bacteria is like saying that birds are still birds. You make up the rules so that evolutionists could not possibly win ! We are all going to have to live to a very ripe old age to see bacteria evolving into things which are not bacteria, and birds evolving into things which are not birds, although it could possibly happen eventually (sorry about the “possibly”).

          1. Stephen

            No, it couldn’t. Let me put that another way. There is no evidence it has ever happened, and the mathematics is totally against it. There is no evidence of a beneficial mutation going even part of the way to creating a new species, genus, or anything not like itself. Don’t fool yourself. You will never live to see bacteria or birds evolving into anything else, and what is more, you will never live to see any evidence that they evolved from anything else either.

          2. Rox

            You are as so often missing the point, Stephen, I’m afraid. The book is modestly called “The Origin of Species”, not “The origin of Phyla” or anything else. There are many many species which are very similar to each other, for example (as I keep pointing out, but you never publish it here) the tufted duck is very similar to the scaup, and it is easy for most people to imagine one evolving from the other. In fact, as we so often say, it is obvious that they are closely related.

            Obviously if you can’t easily observe the evolution of one species of bird or bacterium into another in a lifetime, you are not going to observe the coming of a new genus or of any bigger grouping. But the survival of fitter forms of bacteria is all too obvious to people working in the health service. They are moving along an evolutionary path. God did not create the bacterial population many moons ago exactly as it is now. That is a certainty.

            What about sub-species of birds, not quite the same in one country as another ? Of course, they are still birds, they are not crocodiles.

            One distinctly peculiar aspect to all this is that you are unwilling to accept that 8 million different species could arise unobserved over billions of years, but happy to accept that they could arise unobserved in a week !

          3. Stephen

            As I replied to Greg, how many mutations do you think you need to produce a new species? And what is the mathematical probability of just one of them happening? Now multiply that by the number of mutations needed and multiply it again by 8 million for the number of extant species.

            You will find that the probability of a new species arising by mutation – let alone 8 million of them – is vanishingly small. ‘God did it’ is the only remaining logical possibility.

            You may accuse me of believing in an impossible, unprovable cause for creation, namely God. But you believe in sheer billions of impossible things. We are only talking maths, logic and plain common sense.

          4. Rox

            One has to admit that Stephen’s mathematical approach seems to make a lot of sense, and I find it a little alarming that somebody who knows a lot more about these things than I do has not explained it from a biologist’s point of view. However, even if there is a flaw there somewhere, I don’t agree that creation of all the species in a week is the next best theory.

            If the numbers of necessary mutations are too big to fit as things stand, it might simply be a question of increasing one or both of the numbers being multiplied. It was longer ago (and “billions” is already an immensely large number) and/or there were more mutations at various periods in the past than now. Could this be because the Earth was being subjected to much greater radiation at various periods in the past ? It is still possible to believe that God created a universe which worked in that way and evolved in that way .

          5. Stephen

            Radiation won’t help you, Rox.

          6. Rox

            Of course radiation causes mutations !!!
            Madame Curie didn’t know this at first, but she found out the hard way.

          7. Stephen

            Beneficial mutations, Rox, beneficial mutations. Madame Curie found out the hard way that it does not cause beneficial mutations.

          8. Ian Collis

            The flaw in Stephen’s mathematics is simply that he’s working backwards. If the question is ‘what are the chances of a dinosaur evolving into a robin? – I’d have to say ‘pretty long’.

            But, evolution doesn’t have a plan, random mutations are likely to be passed on if they provide an increased chance of survival up to the point of an organism reproducing. Those random mutations are not pre-ordained, so, if you could run evolution again, you would not end up with exactly the same results, but the chances are very high that they would be better suited to their environment than their ancestors.

            If you can understand probability (not many people seem to be able to) and comprehend the length of time involved (not easy for any of us) it makes perfect sense.

          9. Stephen

            But if the mutations are indeed random, why claim that for an organism subject to them ‘the chances are very high that they would be better suited to their environment than their ancestors’?

            What evidence on earth do you base such a cavalier assertion on?

            And where is the evidence that random mutations have resulted in the 7 or 8 millions of different species of plants, insects, fish, reptiles, birds, mammals, not to speak of fungi and microbes alive today?

            Is it not the case that the chances of any of it happening, even the chance of the first primitive life-form, with its intricate mechanisms inside its protective cell-wall, arising from non-life, are not just ‘pretty long’ but vanishingly small, given any amount of billions of years?

            Before it will make any kind of sense, let alone the perfect variety, you should really get away from the abstract and offer some probability calculations of your own.

          10. Ian Collis

            ‘why claim that for an organism subject to them ‘the chances are very high that they would be better suited to their environment than their ancestors’ – because the environment has changed and they have changed to survive in it. You don’t see the ones that haven’t evolved to survive because they’re, er, dead.

            ‘What evidence on earth do you base such a cavalier assertion on?’ – the evidence that lots of creatures are alive

            ‘And where is the evidence that random mutations have resulted in the 7 or 8 millions of different species of plants, insects, fish, reptiles, birds, mammals, not to speak of fungi and microbes alive today?’ – their genomes provide a useful audit trail

            ‘Is it not the case that the chances of any of it happening, even the chance of the first primitive life-form, with its intricate mechanisms inside its protective cell-wall, arising from non-life, are not just ‘pretty long’ but vanishingly small, given any amount of billions of years?’ – No

            I don’t claim to be a mathematician, but I don’t need to be one to see the flaws in your logic.

            I’ve enjoyed our discussion but, ultimately, your position is no different from the ‘earth is the centre of the universe’ argument of your predecessors. Fortunately, the church is no longer in a position to routinely put people to death for disagreeing with them!

          11. Stephen

            Sorry, but lots of creatures being alive is only evidence for them being alive. It is not evidence for evolution, or mutations. It is just a circular argument.

            If an animal’s environment changes so that it cannot survive without a beneficial mutation saving it, and given the absence of evidence of any beneficial mutation enabling a animal to survive in those circumstances, it does not change, it dies. That is what the evidence of defunct species shows.

            So, give us the genome audit trail for the housefly.

            For evolutionists, man and his prejudices are the centre of the universe, and the scientific community is in a position to put biologists out of a job for disagreeing with them – and they do.

          12. Paul

            This numerical argument doesn’t stack up.

            “How many mutations do you think you need to produce a new species?” – We don’t know.

            “And what is the mathematical probability of just one of them happening?” – We don’t know.

            As we don’t know these figures, there is no justification for the assertion that they result in a probability too low to be feasible.

            Also, the 8 million species doesn’t offer an obstacle as the species existing at any particular time evolve in parallel. To illustrate this point with a back-of-the-envelope calculation: if you started off with a single species that diverged into two species over time through the arising of variations and the action of natural selection, and this was subsequently repeated with the resulting species, you would only need 23 such divergences to result in 8 million species. Even if it took 10 million years for a divergence to occur, that would only be 230 million years – less than 10% of the time that life has existed on the Earth.

          13. Stephen

            Oh dear, Paul, you are depending on an undemonstrated ‘if’ again. The 8 million species might well ‘evolve in parallel’ only if (sic) you can show mathematically that it is probable that each cell or groups of cells in each of them evolved by beneficial mutation and then multiply that probability (or improbability) by 8 million.

            To say ‘As we don’t know these figures’ is a bit like the man who sells air rifles, some of which are so powerful they need a firearms certificate and could potentially reduce the market for them to firearms certificate holders, not knowing the actual power of any of the air rifles he sells. He does not just ‘not know the figures’, he does not want to know the figures.

            Come on, it’s not at all persuasive finding fault with the probabilities calculated by creationists if you don’t have any of your own. Has any evolutionist been honest enough to get out his calculator or not?

          14. Paul

            You don’t need to sic your ifs, Stephen, I’m quite happy with you using that word!

            The relevant mutations would arise in single cells of an individual’s germ line, not in all cells. They would then be present in the cells of that individual’s descendants and would spread if they conferred reproductive advantage.

            In my example, I was trying to demonstrate that the ‘8 million’ argument is a red herring because any particular speciation event is linked only to the ones that preceded it and is not linked to those happening in parallel. As an analogy, it’s like throwing dice, starting with a single die but every time a 6 appears (=speciation event), you add another die. So after 100 throws, the average number of 6s that has occurred will not be 100/6 (~16) but 2^100/6 (over 60,000). (I must emphasise that this argument relates to the structure of the problem and not to the real-life probabilities).

            I simply reject your air rifle salesman argument, as I would personally love to know what the figures are.

            Also, I haven’t yet seen any probabilities calculated by supporters of creationism – I have only seen assertions based on assumptions. I’d be glad to follow up on any reference you can provide. I can’t provide a calculation myself, for the reasons I gave previously.

  46. Charles

    Dinosaurs did not evolve over more than 250 million years. Woodlice haven’t evolved over thousands of millions of years. Chimpanzees and apes have hardly evolved since they came into being.

    What is entirely remarkable is the extreme rapidness of the appearance of humans. To put things in perspective, the number of DNA strands affecting intelligence being about 50 in dolphins, 70 in orang-utangs and about 120 in chimpanzees. In people, it is around about 3000.

    Scientists have absolutely no idea about this, in fact they haven’t a clue how man appeared so rapidly.

    We know of God’s creation of man, and gathered evidence entirely supports this sudden appearance of mankind!

    According to Darwinism it should have taken hundreds if not thousands of millions of years or more for man to ‘evolve’ and this is manifestly not the case!

    I think those wishing to fob evolution off to children are missing more than a few of their own intelligence strands!!!!

    1. Paul

      Each and every one of the statements in this post is either untrue or nonsensical.

      1. Charles

        Sorry Paul, truth is recognized in the eye of the beholder, but many truths are hidden from those/them who do not believe!

        1. Paul

          In science, truth is suggested by observation and articulated in hypotheses in which confidence grows (or not) over time as they are tested by prediction of consequences that may arise as experimental results or as further observations. Such a hypothesis may be elevated to the status of a theory when there is a consensus that it is the best explanation available for what is observed. It is always regarded as provisional.

          Those who “believe”, as you put it, live inside a bubble of delusion, so that what they see is the inside of the bubble reflected back to them. In fairness, I think everyone lives inside such a bubble to a greater or lesser extent, but science gives us a way of seeing through it and establishing what is really there.

          1. Stephen

            And it is a pity scientists have not adopted that approach in biology, preferring to exist within their own ‘bubble of delusion’ where the evidence must be forced into the evolutionary grid.

          2. Paul

            I’ve just replied to an earlier similar post of yours.

            Also – I wonder if you need to add astronomers, geologists and physicists to your categories of scientists deluding themselves? – as these disciplines amass evidence for the physical evolution of the Universe, the solar system, and the Earth.

  47. Graham

    Is it just me or does anyone else find this continued debate about evolution vs creationism rather artificial and sterile? Where is the inconsistency in believing both in a Heavenly Parent and the theory of evolution, which seems to offer a reasonable explanation of the development of human life.

    Surely the relevant question is “Who designed the evolutionary framework and the principles embodied therein?” And the answer — a Supreme Being of unbounded intellect, emotion and will.

    The only people who might contest this are those whose notion of an all-knowing God leads them to believe that everything from the beginning to the end of time has been pre-planned. How boring that would be for our Heavenly Parent! To me, the universe is analagous to a kaleidoscope with God as both the creator and viewer. Each turn of the wheel brings new and remarkable results. The possible patterns are well nigh infinite. They are not pre-planned. Yet they are indisputably the creation of the creator.

  48. David R

    I have read most of the comments in this thread and do not think that the point has been made that most branches of modern science were founded by believers in Creation. After all, Creationists assume that that an orderly God made an orderly universe. For information about this see the link below:


    Evolutionists often make the debate one of science versus religion. It is no such thing. It is a debate between science as understood by the young earth creationist believer and science as understood by the evolutionary theory believer. Also there are two types of science, (a) origins science and (b) observational science. The debate is about the science of origins, not about observational science. Observational science is about what the observer can observe today. Any experiments conducted are only considered of value if they can be repeated with consistent results. I cannot conceive how an experiment can be devised which repeats the origin of life. Perhaps an atheist or a Christian evolutionist can describe how such an experiment can be set up to verify life’s origin.

    The young earth creationist believers assume that the biblical descriptions of creation are historical and base their scientific understanding upon the assumption that God created the earth and the original life forms in six days. It is assumed that God is all-knowing and therefore intelligent and that he is orderly.

    Atheist evolutionist believers assume that without any input from any intelligence, all life came into existence from non-life. It is assumed that this process is random.Their view ultimately leads logically to the conclusion that non-life leads to human life including human thought processes. In this belief system a random process leads to the atheists’ thought processes telling them that they are right to believe that evolution is fact. Is it sensible to trust thought processes which are the result of random activity? Does an atheist have any basis for absolute belief of any kind?

    Christian evolutionist believers assume that life came into existence from non-life with the input of God, This is inconsistent with the teaching of Jesus and of St Paul and with the doctrine of original sin. I know Christian evolutionists who genuinely love Jesus but do not understand that their belief is contrary to a
    consistent understanding of Holy Scripture.

    I have observed two chief weapons which are used against those who hold to a Creationist viewpoint. These are the ridiculing of the viewpoint and of its proponents and the total ignoring of sound creationist arguments. In my opinion, in our current culture in the UK ridicule is considered acceptable against Creationists but not against evolutionists.There are other propaganda devices which have been used to challenge the traditional Christian culture of the UK. One was to promote “equality” the other was to promote “tolerance” and on the surface these two words seem to promote extremely good ideas but the results of marginalising bible believeing Christians are not good in my view. The push for “equality” by those opposed to Biblical Christianity I think has been happening since at least the 1970s. It used to be accompanied often by the term “tolerance”. But as Christianity in the UK has been challenged more and more, the term “tolerance” has become less used.

    Atheists cannot accept that God loves them and wants a relationship with them. If they do, they cease to be atheists.I have met a man who came to faith in Jesus Christ because he finally understood that God created the world in the way it is described in Genesis.

    Evolutionist propaganda has been very effective in the UK. But that is what it is, propaganda and not proven historical or scientific fact. It is my opinion that the concept of “missing link” will remain as long as evolutionary theory remains. I do not believe that the concept of “found link” will ever become a reality.
    The concept of long time on earth is another propaganda tool. It is assumed but not proven that the earth is of an extremely long age. Young Earth Creationists who have analysed and trusted the bible come to a different conclusion, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. According to the web page


    Creation Ministries International have a list of over 200 PhD scientists from a wide variety of fields who support creationism.

    I am sorry that the doctrine of evolution is keeping so many people from understanding that all of humanity suffers from sinfulness and that this has its origin in the historically recorded sin of Adam. I am sad that this doctrine prevents many from reaching out to Jesus Christ as the only one who can remedy our fallenness. It is a shame that Jesus’ offer of eternal life is being rejected because of belief in a doctrine which people mistakenly believe has been proven.

    I would urge all who are not already Christians or Messianic Believers to examine their assumptions to see if they are valid, and to embrace the love of Jesus Christ. And please do not mistake the relationship which many have with Jesus Christ as “religion”. It is a relationship with the one who has defeated death and is alive for ever.
    A good prayer for an agnostic or atheist who is genuinely seeking the truth is to ask God “If you are there, please reveal yourself to me in a way I will understand.”

    Finally,don’t expect Christians to be perfect. We are works in progress.

  49. Neil Schoch

    Dear Stephen
    I get your emails from Australia and we have very similar problems here.
    Look up Creation Ministries International as the link below is excellent for sharing with evolutionists – they have no answers.
    God bless,
    Neil Schoch.

    1. Paul

      This link was broken when I tried it today (16-Feb-13).

    2. Martin Budd

      Paul – re link from Neil Schoch http://www.creation.com/15-questions

      Copy and paste the link to your browser.

    3. Paul

      Cheers Martin it now works (19-Feb-13).

  50. Nick Cowan

    Hey, what’s with this annual “Darwin Day” on February 12th?

    Evolutionists already have such a day – April 1st (Psalms 14v1, 53v1).

    They are without excuse (Romans 1v20).

  51. Gareth Iwan Jones

    One of the many ironies of this debate is that as humans evolve religion will slowly die out as it’s no longer needed, it’s not strictly a physical evolution but an evolution of consciousness. On of my favourite quotes written by Heinrich Heine in the early 19th century sums it up perfectly

    “In dark ages people are best guided by religion, as in a pitch-black night a blind man is the best guide; he knows the roads and paths better than a man who can see. When daylight comes, however, it is foolish to use blind, old men as guides.” Heinrich Heine

    What a dude!

    1. Stephen

      Heinrich Heine was the man who preferred dogs the more he saw of people. He did have a rather bleak view.
      I love the ‘as humans evolve’ stuff. There is no evidence we are becoming any cleverer or higher-thinking than those who lived before us. You need the humility to recognise that those who made hunting knives out of flint were people like us.
      The irony of the Heine quote and your endorsement of it is that our present age, with the inhumanity of modern man and the uncertainty of the geopolitical and economic spheres is looking increasingly dark. As the storm clouds gather, by your argument, more people will turn to the divine for a rock of stability in the crashing waves. I pray it will be the Lord Jesus Christ they encounter as they start their spiritual journey, for there is salvation in no other name.

      1. Paul

        Like all populations, human populations evolve in response to selection pressure – there is no reason why we should become any cleverer or higher-thinking unless such people are consistently more successful than others in producing offspring. However, where selection pressure is strong, new varieties of human are arising; for example, in central Africa a strain of people who are resistant to the AIDS virus has developed. Yes, I know they are still human beings, but that isn’t the point – evolution is happening wherever there is selection pressure.

        Your assertion that things are looking increasingly dark is wrong – this impression arises because modern technology allows us to see more of what is going on. See this interesting essay for a counter-argument: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html. I do accept that new perils are arising as a result of over-population, and it remains to be seen how these will be resolved. I hope that the new pope will do his bit to help by endorsing the use of contraception.

        1. Stephen

          Hallelujah. And they aren’t, and part of the reason for that is society’s emphasis since before the time of Moses to care for the sick and less well-off than ourselves, something not remotely seen in animals, and totally at odds with Darwinian presuppositions. Don’t you thank God we do not order man’s affairs as natural selection demands?
          As to your bizarre assertion that the world is over-populated, did you know the whole population of the world, given one square yard each, could stand in the three counties of Carmarthenshire, Pembrokeshire and Ceredigion?

          1. Paul

            It may well be that there is less selection pressure at present for increased intelligence, in the affluent West at any rate. An exciting area of research at the moment has arisen from evidence for wildly fluctuating climatic conditions in East Africa at the time our hominid ancestors were living there, exerting selection pressure for more flexible (=more intelligent) hominids.

            Altruistic behaviour *is* seen in animals other than humans; for example bonobos, dolphins, elephants.

            Natural selection doesn’t *demand* that we order our affairs any particular way, it just favours, over time, attributes that lead to reproductive success. This remains true however we choose to order our affairs.

            Your last made me laugh – can I choose who’s going to be in the square yards next to mine?

          2. Stephen

            So now ‘selection pressure’ brings about a favourable mutation? How, exactly? Any actual examples (I ask for the umpteenth time)?
            You can even choose somewhere else for the world’s population to stand. You need 2,260 square miles, or just less than a 50 mile square.
            At 2,405 square miles, the county of Devon would do equally well to accomodate the whole population of the world.
            See a useful list of the area of UK counties here.

          3. Paul

            ?? I never said that selection pressure brings about a favourable mutation. Selection pressure simply makes the best adapted variants in a population reproduce more successfully than the rest, leading to that variant (whatever it is) become preponderant.

            I have linked to some examples of favourable mutations in a previous post. However, I think it’s also worth saying that such mutations will be hard to identify as they are likely to have a minor effect and that effect would be on developmental processes that are imperfectly understood.

            Thank you for your indulgence, but I’d be quite happy with your original suggestion as Wales is almost all beautiful!

  52. Andy

    It seems to me that there is very little point in arguing over such matters. Evolutionists cling to their belief system just as strongly as Creationists, and here’s why..
    It’s not because they have the evidence. They don’t. It’s because if they were to concede for one second that there could be a God who made everything (and made people), they suddenly become ACCOUNTABLE. That is the crux of the matter.
    As it says in the Bible.. “Since the creation of the world, God’s qualities have been clearly seen, and men are without excuse.”
    Not only that, but all morality disappears so that there isn’t even any right or wrong. So convenient!
    Survival of the fittest dictates that young men go out and kill each other. Watch the animal kingdom and you’ll see the males fighting for the right to mate. Those who are strongest get all the food etc. With that sort of rationale we end up killing children fathered by another (watch Lions), killing all the elderly, raping women(because they’re weaker) etc etc.

    1. Ian Collis

      Why do religions think they have the monopoly on morality? Just look at history for the results of ‘religious’ morality.

      1. Stephen

        Dis you really want to be drawn into a head-count of the worldwide victims of atheist regimes?
        Not counting the 3,500 victims of legalised abortion every week in the UK, and the same number every day in the US?

        1. Ian Collis

          No I don’t, because I’m not arguing that atheism provides a moral framework. It is not a replacement for religion – education, reasoning and humanity do that.

          1. Stephen

            Suppose a culture reasoned and then educated people that Jews were vermin, and that humanity would be better off without them, what kind of moral framework would that provide?

    2. Paul

      Try reading ‘On the Origin of Species’ – there was a vast amount of evidence in Darwin’s time and it has greatly multiplied since, with corroboration from fields of research that were inconceivable in his day. This gives scientists a high degree of confidence that the theory of evolution provides a good explanation for how life developed to the extraordinary variety that we see today. Creationism, in contrast, has no explanatory value whatsoever, and has no evidence to support it.

      Your remarks about ‘”evolutionists” are as misconceived as any generalisation about a supposed group. To illustrate this point, it would be just as wrong for me to say that ‘creationists’ refuse to accept the reality of evolution because they are afraid of recognising that humanity is a population of intelligent apes that has arisen on a planet in orbit around an insignificant star, that the Universe is indifferent to our fate, and that our lives end permanently when we die.

      Your remarks about morality are wrong – we are not lions. Morality is built into us regardless of our background. In recent work (apologies – I can’t find a reference), people from wildly different backgrounds were presented with various ethical conundrums and came up with the same answers. We are social beings and we need a moral sense to work together; I would speculate that this was crucial to our survival and was selected for during our evolution. Of course, game theory suggest that in a law-abiding (moral) population, a small proportion of people will seek to take advantage of the morality of the majority – we call these criminals. And we don’t need to look very far to see people, no doubt deluded, doing evil things in the name of religion.

  53. Paul

    Given the differences in how the males and females look, the tuft is likely to make male more attractive to females, so the females mate with them rather than other males. Now, I don’t know anything this specific duck, this is my prediction based on how the duck looks, evolutionary theory, and specifically the theory of sexual selection. There are some simple experiements you could do to test whether this is true, based on similar experiemnts on other species. They may have been done already – have you tried googling or looking for published studies?

    Of course this is the benefit to the individual, not the species as you asked. The answer to that is there probably isn’t one, and there doesn’t need to be, based on evolutionary theory. (Creationism of require does demand a rationale for God creating organisms one way rather than another, I guess. You would know more about that).

    You seem to have issues understanding the difference between natural selection working on individuals, and on entire species. Rather than blame your ignorance of the theory, I’d say this is understandable. The distinction is complicated and I was only taught it studying biology at university. If you are interested, you could start here, for example

    1. Stephen

      Once again, it’s all ‘must have’ or in your case ‘is likely to’.
      When is some evolutionist going to put up proper evidence to support the bizarre contention that life spontaneously arose or that a species has become a different species?

      1. Paul

        Stephen, in your ‘one’ question above, you asked if anyone could explain why the duck has a tuft on its head. My answer is above: its purpose to is attract females, and it evolved through sexual selection. You have criticized that answer because it doesn’t give evidence to support how life spontaneously arose, or that a species has become a different species.

        There’s a reason my answer didn’t address those questions Stephen, and that reason is that you asked me a question about ducks. I’m taken the time to answer the question you actually asked, you could seem a little more grateful to be honest. If you wanted an answer about something else, ask a different question in the first place. (I suggest you write another article or thread if you want answers to question other than the duck-tuft).

        Regarding your first point. The reason I say “is likely to”, is that I do not know about this particular duck, as I made clear. I am not an expert in this duck (or any duck in fact). What I’ve given you is a prediction, based solely on evolutionary theory and the fact that the males and females look different. My answer is the correct one for similar features in other animals; I predict it is also correct for this duck.

        This prediction can be tested by measuring the tufts of males, and seeing whether males with tufts/larger tufts are able to mate with more females than males without tufts / smaller tufts. Pretty amazing hey, given I know almost nothing about this particular duck in the first place? So not only have I given you an explanation, I’ve given you an example of how we find out that things are true are not.

        Now, this is a prediction, and the results of the research will be evidence for or against evolution. If you’d like to carry out that research or find someone who has, be my guest. I’d love to hear about it.

        If I understand it correctly, ID or claims about the will of God make zero predictions about why the duck would have this tuft, or what the tuft is for? There’s no way to get evidence for or against it. God wanted it that way, or in similar ducks without tufts, I guess he didn’t. This is why evolution is a science, and ID isn’t. Evolution makes testable predictions that scientists then test with evidence.

        Kind regards,


        1. Stephen

          Maybe drakes with longer tufts are preferred by ducks looking for a mate and maybe they aren’t. But no-one has yet come up with a plausible benefit to the species as a whole from the tuft. Some say there doesn’t need to be one. But given how evolutionists love to claim that species are so well ‘adapted’ for what they do, you would think they would be falling over themselves showing how the tuft has made the tufted duck well ‘adapted’ for this or for that.
          ‘Evolution makes testable predictions that scientists then test with evidence.’ Except they don’t. Or can’t.
          ‘Evolution’ is not a science. Biology is a science. Evolution, like Intelligent Design, is an explanation for the origins of species.

  54. Threlfall

    Many of the advocates of evolution admit that evolution is a religion a fully fledged alternative to Christianity. The EU is behind the teaching of evolution among the member states, they want a secular heathenistic world system without any mention of God. If they could have removed the history of Christianity- how it civilised Europe and brought it out of the dark ages they would have. One german scientist at the time of Darwin said this: It is necessary for us to believe in spontaneous generation that everything made itself by random chance over millions of years because the alternative is Creation and that is unthinkable. This is the mind-set of humanists who have invaded our science faculties across the world. It doesn’t matter about all the hidden assumptions in radiometric dating for the age of the earth, that it is not science, it doesn’t matter about the insurmountable evidence against evolution. These humanists have no consciousness of what is right or wrong, they don’t want to retain God in their knowledge. They have abandoned true science, they are hypocrites as they do not practise what they teach. The scientific method is to continually evaluate a scientific theory in the light of current scientific knowledge and if the theory does not stand up to scrutiny it is abandoned! They will not do this with evolution because the alternative is Creation and that is unthinkable. The false teachers of Baalam have arisen in the land to polute the minds of the people with their enchantments.
    Richard Dawkins is of his Father the devil and he will receive the reward of unrighteousness.
    I could say more but until next time.

    1. Terry Collmann

      Many of the advocates of evolution admit that evolution is a religion a fully fledged alternative to Christianity.

      No they don’t. You don’t have an iota of evidence for that.

      And evolution has stood up to every test that has been asked of it. There is NO evidence that evolution is untrue. Creationism, however, is nonsense from beginning to end. If we are “intelligently designed”, why do we get cancer? Why do women die in childbirth? Why do I need to wear glasses? Why do people develop allergies? None of that is very “intelligent” on the part of an alleged designer.

      1. Stephen

        Here is one iota of evidence from Michael Ruse

        And here are some more.

        You really are desperate for evolution to be true, aren’t you?

  55. Bob Arthur

    Hawthorn fly.

    1. Stephen

      Same to you.

      1. Bob Arthur

        Another example of speciation within living memory. Evolution: happening.

        1. Martin Budd

          The hawthorn fly is an example of genetic variation, not speciation.
          Lab cross-fertilisation between the two varieties has not been disproved as far as I know.

  56. Bob Arthur

    Wikipedia article documenting exaptation of the auditory ossicles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammalian_auditory_ossicles

    1. Stephen

      Just a string of unsubstantiated assertions and probablies.

      1. Bob Arthur

        Unsubstantiated? Did you check the references? Can you even refute one of them?

        Among the morphological changes that occurred during the ‘fish-to-tetrapod’ transition was a marked reorganization of the cranial endoskeleton. Details of this transition, including the sequence of character acquisition, have not been evident from the fossil record. Here we describe the braincase, palatoquadrate and branchial skeleton of Tiktaalik roseae, the Late Devonian sarcopterygian fish most closely related to tetrapods. Although retaining a primitive configuration in many respects, the cranial endoskeleton of T. roseae shares derived features with tetrapods such as a large basal articulation and a flat, horizontally oriented entopterygoid. Other features in T. roseae, like the short, straight hyomandibula, show morphology intermediate between the condition observed in more primitive fish and that observed in tetrapods. The combination of characters in T. roseae helps to resolve the relative timing of modifications in the cranial endoskeleton. The sequence of modifications suggests changes in head mobility and intracranial kinesis that have ramifications for the origin of vertebrate terrestriality.

        1. Stephen

          Oh, no, not fish growing legs and lungs. Someone said above that the evolutionary reason for yeast not evolving is that it has not had a need to. So what was the need for fish to grow (over millions / billions of years) legs and lungs?

          How can anyone seriously believe evolution? It is ludicrous. As in having a mathematical probability of as close to zero as it is possible to get.

          1. Paul

            It’s not a question of need; its a question of what was successful at reproducing and passing on its particular set of genes.

            Richard Dawkins has elegantly refuted the probability argument you that cite, in his book ‘Climbing Mount Improbable’.

          2. Stephen

            The idea of Prof Dawkins doing anything elegantly is quite challenging, as apparently is coming up with any evidence of a beneficial chance mutation being passed on by reproduction.

          3. Bob Arthur

            I’ll take that as a “no” then. Your comment regarding probability just shows you don’t understand the theory.

          4. Stephen

            Oh, I see. Now evolution is exempt from the laws of mathematical probability. How convenient.

          5. Bob Arthur

            P.S. The yeast comment was mine, except you unsurprisingly failed to understand it. It’s not that the yeast doesn’t need to evolve, but that it has no reason to.

            Until you can distinguish between the two, you will not understand evolution by natural selection. This is the common denominator between those who disbelieve it.

          6. Stephen

            Exactly. The very first form of life would have no reason to evolve. For the almost 9 million species around today, you need 9 million reasons to evolve. Fish, for instance, have no reason to evolve feet or lungs. And if their environment changes, for instance if the river-bed dries out, in real life (but not of course in evolutionary thought!) they don’t evolve, they die.

            Here is a quote from National Geographic: ‘What scientists have so far lacked is a convincing explanation for how an organic cell wall could have developed before there was the biological apparatus to build it’.

          7. Paul

            I’ve answered elsewhere many of the anti-evolution arguments in the string of posts above – but I must respond to the comment on “fish growing legs and lungs”.

            It seems clear to me that in an environment of shallow pools subject to drying out, fish that were capable of scrambling from one pool to another, even in a very limited way, would have a survival advantage over fish that did not have that capability.

            In respect of this, I was fascinated to read in the 16-Feb-13 issue of New Scientist about work that took place in the early 2000s, which I summarise as follows:
            – We think that the fins of some fish evolved into limbs about 375m years ago, but we have no fossil evidence.
            – Let’s look for surface rocks of that age using geological maps.
            – Oh, here’s some on Ellesmere Island, Canada. Let’s go and dig there.
            – (4 seasons’ digging later) Eureka! A fossil of a fish with four limbs!

            A splendid example of making a prediction from the theory of evolution and successfully testing it.

            See http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060501_tiktaalik for more details.

          8. Stephen

            Oh dear, Paul.

            Yes, the fish that have that ability would survive. But if you are expecting real fish with no legs to suddenly find that some of their number get legs by a beneficial mutation in time for the drying-out, dream on. In other words, there is no evidence for it.

            You don’t have to travel to Ellesmere Island in Canada to find a fish with legs. You do have to travel, but only to mangrove swamps to see the mudskippers, and they have proper little legs, not fins which look a bit like legs. And guess what, when they reproduce, they beget other mudskippers, perfectly designed for their environment.

            As for the Canadian TiTaalik, Jennifer Clack of Cambridge University says: ‘It’s impossible to tell if Tiktaalik was a direct ancestor of land vertebrates,’ which is an admission which you do not hear very often from people like you, Paul, who are trying to talk up the fish-to-land-animals myth.

            On this evolutionist webpage we read: ‘The move to land was a very gradual process, and the evolution of limbs wasn’t a simple adaptation resulting from animals crawling onto the shore and never looking back.’

            But it’s still all conjecture and supposition beginning with the evolutionist assumptions and then trying desperately to find arguments which support them.

          9. Paul

            Thank you for that – I was delighted to read about mudskippers – the fact that they exist and that this is a viable body plan and lifestyle for organisms now, shows that animals like this could have arisen in the remote past. And then your other references, which demonstrate that they did!

            Re Jennifer Clack’s comment, that is obvious and I agree. We are trying to build up a picture of what happened an inconceivably long time ago from tiny fragments of evidence – it’s astonishing that there is as much evidence as there is. There is much uncertainty, which (I’m sure) will diminish over time as scientists continue with their painstaking and diligent work.

          10. Stephen

            No, the existence of the mudskipper does not show that any animal could have ‘arisen’.

            It merely shows that it exists.

            So even on your own admission, evolution is based on ‘tiny fragments of evidence’.

            That makes a change from the ‘mountain of evidence’ which is normally claimed, I guess.

            But none of the tiny fragments supports the contention that a beneficial mutation to create a new species has ever happened. Therefore they are not evidence for evolution.

          11. Paul

            From the viewpoint of evolution theory, all organisms have arisen.

            I didn’t say that the theory of evolution is based on tiny fragments of evidence – there is certainly a mountain of evidence for it. It’s elucidation of the detail of how vertebrate life established itself on land that is currently based on tiny fragments of evidence; and very encouraging that more evidence is found when we look in the places where we predict it will be found.

            I have shown in my other posts that it’s incorrect to claim that the theory of evolution requires demonstration of beneficial mutations that created new species.

  57. Rick O'Shea

    It’s unfortunate that we (the so-called educated of the world) are being bamboozled by the conscious bias of those who by illogical and irrational reasoning have compounded error upon error until we are persuded to accept a lie trading as scienctific fact. There is no evidence to support macro-evolution of the species; spontaneous generation of life, the creation of order out of chaos, or the complexity, diversity and inter-connectivity of the various bio-geo-ecological systems that make our world possible as a viable habitat for plants and animals.

    What we tend to find is that where the arguments are shaky and faltering – there is an attempt to seek the support of Governmental powers to enforce their opinion, while at the same time employing highly emotive, extremely biased, ridiculing and demeaning rhetoric at those who oppose their view. As if by gaining Government support that validates and justifies things.

    Our Governments is elected to maintain law and order, ensure that the economy and infrastructures of society are running properly & effectively, and to administer judicial punishment on those who transgress the laws. Lately, these days, our Government has sought to impose its will and sense of morality upon the nation – a task for which it was neither elected, equipped nor qualified.

    1. Ian Collis

      It’s also incumbent upon government to ensure that we have the scientists and engineers to ensure our country can compete in the modern world and meet the challenges that we face in the future.

      Relying on ‘god’ to sort our problems out will inevitably end in disaster for everyone.

      1. Stephen

        Placing your faith in government to sort out problems is something of a triumph of hope over experience.

        1. Ian Collis

          I don’t have faith in government any more than I have in religion. We do need it though and we have to hope that it makes the right decisions more often than not.

          1. Stephen

            I should pray if I were you. It will need a miracle for any government official or minister to order things so they benefit the population rather than the ruling class.

          2. Ian Collis

            I don’t want to be drawn into a political argument – too many shades of grey for me.

            I’ll stick to religion where it’s very black and white 😉

    2. Rick O'Shea

      I thought I’d better clarify one of my statements above, in that in my haste I meant to convey that

      “the theory of evolution cannot explain why there is …..complexity, diversity and inter-connectivity between the various bio-geo-ecological systems that make our world possible as a viable habitat for plants. animals and mankind”

      1. Bob Arthur

        In fact it can and does.

        Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.[3] Contrary to claims by creationists, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.[4][1]

      2. Paul

        Re §1, try reading ‘On the Origin of Species’ – even when Darwin wrote it, there was a vast amount of evidence to support macro-evolution etc., and it has multiplied since, with (for example) the development of genetics and the discovery and analysis of DNA. Only the ultimate molecular origin of life and the development of the cell remain unclear – and the rational approach is to leave them so and thus open to further research, not arbitrarily choose one of the many creation myths – just stories not based on evidence – to explain them.

        §2 of the post is just paranoia, not worth serious consideration.

        Re §3: like it or not, the Government is in charge of education and any introduction to science needs to cover evolution due to its importance to biology. I think it’s more important, though, that kids are taught to think critically and logically, to develop their powers of reason. They will just accept as true anything they are told, true or not, and it’s very hard to get rid of it later on – this is how religions have kept going through the centuries. I wouldn’t be happy to see evolution taught as received wisdom. As so often happens, “the devil is in the detail” – how exactly is it going to be taught?

  58. Richard

    I am always amazed at evolutionists avoiding this particular quote from Darwin himself:

    “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

    It would seem that even Darwin doubted the theory that now holds his name.

    God is our creator!

    1. Ian Collis

      I don’t think evolutionists ignore it at all, I’ve seen a number of explanations for the evolution of the eye.

      With the timescale of billions of years an unimaginably large number of mutations can take place, and once an organ has evolved to fulfil to perform one function it will often evolve further and perform another, different function in different circumstances.

      Darwin, genius as he was, new nothing of DNA and lacked any knowledge of what we understand as genetics, so it’s not surprising that he struggled to understand everything it could achieve.

      Science still has a lot to learn about the universe but the gaps in our knowledge that we used to fill with ‘gods’ are getting smaller.

      1. Stephen

        ‘With the timescale of billions of years an unimaginably large number of mutations can take place’
        Can they? Is there any evidence for that, or is it blind faith?
        No, man still has a lot to learn. Science investigates God’s creation. The first scientists were Christians. Science tries to show us how. Religion tries to show us why. The conflict thesis of science v religion is too simplistic and self-serving. A more nuanced view makes better sense.

        1. Paul

          “‘With the timescale of billions of years an unimaginably large number of mutations can take place’
          Can they?” – Yes they can – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate for an overview.

          1. Stephen

            They can … but as far as beneficial ones are concerned, they don’t.

        2. Ian Collis

          ‘Can they? Is there any evidence for that, or is it blind faith?’

          There is plenty of evidence for mutations. Faith is the opposite of science – blind belief in something without evidence.

          Sadly, no matter what evidence science uncovers there are those that refuse to accept because it contradicts their ‘faith’.

          Taking a ‘more nuanced view’ as you put it, would entail attributing weight to arguments with no evidence – despite there being thousands of years for this evidence to emerge.

          It is at this point that believers usually start quoting verses from their particular holy book!

          1. Stephen

            You say ‘There is plenty of evidence for mutations’. So why has nobody on this post come up with a single one?

          2. Ian Collis

            There are numerous examples (but as you’ll choose not to accept any I won’t waste too much time on it!).

            a) A well conducted scientific experiment – http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full

            b) Any example you should be familar with – the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Pathegenic bacteria that used to be killed by specific antibiotics, no longer are, in many cases. The antibiotics haven’t changed so the bacteria must have done i.e. they have evolved to survive. Geneticists can ‘see’ the changes in the genome of the bacteria. (or perhaps ‘god’ wants to punish us so much he’s given them superpowers)

            c) What colour skin did Adam and Eve have? How did their descendents end up with different skin colours in different parts of the world? Of course, I don’t accept the existence of Adam and Eve, but the evidence does point to a common point of origin for the entire human species. As our ancestors migrated from Africa the amount of sunlight falling on their skin reduced and as a result the amount of vitamin D their bodies could manufacture was reduced. This produced an evolutionary pressure i.e. lighter skinned individuals were better suited to their environment and therefore had a better survival rate and produced more offspring inheriting these traits. That’s where the many generations come in. Again, geneticists an trace these changes in the genome.

            If you could imagine for a moment a world view that didn’t include an omnipotent superbeing, you would see the elegance, simplicity – and common-sense of this.

            Now, could you give me examples of any scientific evidence for the existence of ‘god’? (and I mean evidence ‘for’ – not lack of evidence ‘against’).

          3. Stephen

            Design. Symbiosis. Irreducible complexity. Information in DNA. The interdependence of the laws of physics. The mathematical impossibility of abiogensis and evolution. The earth’s orbit, composition and complexity. That should be enough to satisfy anyone open-minded.

          4. Paul

            Stephen, this is the only place in this thread where you’ve presented any evidence for your own view, and I’d be delighted to review it in more detail for myself. Have you any references? Preferably on the Internet, at least to begin with, as that’s easiest. Thanks.

      2. Richard

        ‘I don’t think evolutionists ignore it at all, I’ve seen a number of explanations for the evolution of the eye.’

        What are the other hypothoses for the design of the eye you mention and which is your preference? It’s easy to throw up a number of obstacles to Darwins view on the design of the eye, without actually giving an example. However, it seems to my unscientific brain, that you are suggesting the blind lead the visually impared.

        Incidentally, it matters not whether Darwin knew of DNA, or not, when coming to his conclusions. What seems to be the case is that evolutionists simply ignore his findings.

        Also, who do you think created your incredible DNA?

    2. Rox

      Was he called Evolution Darwin (reminiscent of Endeavor Morse) ? I didn’t realise that.
      You must realise that science does not work like religion, by studying and reinterpreting what it considers to be the essentially inalterable truth of the original book. Exactly what Darwin himself wrote in those very early days for modern biology is really of no interest or importance, except in a historical way of course.

      1. Stephen

        You are, of course, joking. Because that is exactly what evolutionary biologists do.

    3. Terry Collmann

      If you look at the fossil record of the ammonites, you can trace the evolution of the ammonite eye, from its primitive origins through to the superbly adapted organ of the last of their kind. It really is a wonderful example of evolution at work. There is no reason to suppose that something similar did not happen with the soft eyes of animals, which have not (unlike the hard eyes of ammonites) been preserved in the fossil story.

      1. Stephen

        You can share some images of fossilised ammonite eyes?

    4. Paul

      This is a deceitful and utterly shameful attempt to misrepresent Darwin’s words and intention, as he went on to say “Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if, further, the eye does vary ever so slightly and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case;and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.” (On the Origin of Species: Difficulties on Theory/Organs of extreme perfection and complication).

      1. Stephen

        Lot’s of ‘ifs’ there, old thing! And from the man himself.

        (Thanks to Bob Arthur, Robin Jones, Bonzodog and Stuart who posted the same iffy Darwin quote.)

        1. Paul

          Darwin uses those ‘ifs’ to present a chain of reasoning, not to indicate uncertainty. His conclusion indicates that as far as he was concerned, all the conditions he listed were fulfilled.

          Have you any comment to make on the attempt at misrepresentation in the original post?

          1. Stephen

            What nonsense. If he had no uncertainty, he would have used the word ‘as’ not the word ‘if’ in his chain of reasoning.

            The fact is, Darwin was guessing. The ‘numerous gradations’ he wanted have not been ‘shown to exist’, the slight inherited variations have not been shown to happen and the genetic modifications have not been demonstrated.

            Since the full Darwin quote makes matters worse for the evolutionist, there was hardly a misrepresentation.

          2. Paul

            You might at least have referred the poster to http://creation.com/qa#bad_arguments, which says “Darwin’s quote about the absurdity of eye evolution from Origin of Species. Citing his statement at face value is subtly out of context. Darwin was talking about its seeming absurdity but then said that after all it was quite easy to imagine that the eye could be built step-by-step (in his opinion, with which we obviously disagree—see Darwin v The Eye and An eye for creation).”

          3. Stephen

            Thanks for that. Even they don’t give the whole Darwin quote on this linked page: http://creation.com/charles-darwin-vs-the-eye. And I think they could better express themselves as saying that ‘he contended that it was quite easy …’ and I have already shown that his three ‘ifs’ are highly contentious.

        2. Bob Arthur

          “Ifs” subsequently demonstrated conclusively. Or in other words he made a prediction based on his hypothesis; the prediction was fulfilled. And you think this hurts the theory of evolution through natural selection?

          Quite aside from how dim-witted this argument is, it can hardly be denied that Darwin’s quote was deliberately decontextualised to imply significantly more doubt than was the case. I ask again: are you comfortable that you’re adhering to Christian morals while deliberately deceiving others? As an atheist I regularly hear people tell me that there can be no morals without God, but at least I’ve been homest here.

          1. Stephen

            Er, no, they haven’t. We are still waiting for evidence of the ‘numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple’.

            As for the eye ‘varying ever so slightly and the variations be inherited’ Did he mean green eyes, blue eyes, brown eyes, eyes which suffer macular degeneration and those that don’t, or what did he mean?

            As for ‘variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life’ I’m sure it would, but it hasn’t been demonstrated to have happened.

            So once again you – and Darwin – are up a creek without a boat, let alone a paddle.

            Personally, I love big in context quotes and would have given the whole of it. But the whole quote exposes how preposterous the idea of eyes evolving is so no-one was being unfair.

          2. Paul

            See Richard Dawkins’ ‘Climbing Mount Improbable’, chapter 5, for an overview of the evidence. Obviously I can’t post the whole text here, but just of the points in there is that there are animals alive today presenting all of the required intermediate forms.

          3. Stephen

            Such as?

          4. Paul

            E.g. ‘cup’ eye: limpet; ‘pinhole’ eye: Nautilus

      2. Martin Budd

        Re Darwin’s full quote on the eye,
        Can you explain how the complex biochemical reactions in the retina evolved by a series of gradual slight variations?

        1. Paul

          I was astonished when I read this – astonished that you might hope that some random person (me) who has taken an interest in this thread and is posting to it, might answer a question that would require at the very least years of experience in researching the biochemistry of eyes even to offer an opinion.

          Nevertheless, I will give it a go.

          The short answer is no, I can’t.

          The medium answer is that in my opinion, we will never know for certain, as the fossil record doesn’t preserve the molecular details of evolution.

          The long answer requires the expert I referred to above to tell you the conclusions that might be drawn from the comparative biochemistry of eyes in species alive today.

  59. Robin

    We certainly do not know how a microbe developed into a micro-biologist simply because of millions of years.
    But the question I would ask is, how did an oak tree develpoe from a carrot, seeing that every carrot seed grows into a carrot? All seeds have a genetic code to reproduce their own kind.

    1. Paul

      Oak trees and carrots developed from a common ancestor that grew in the remote past. See chapter 3 of Richard Dawkins’ recent book ‘The Magic of Reality’ for an introduction to how this happens – although that talks mainly about animals, it applies equally to plants.

      1. Stephen

        Wow. Remind us what that common ancestor was called …

        1. Paul

          I don’t know, Stephen. The oak and the carrot are both angiosperms, though, and this plant group is thought to have arisen in the Triassic period, over 200m years ago.

  60. Mark

    Can I point out just how many hours you’ve all wasted on duck tufts and such-like.

    Here’s how I see it:

    1. God made everything out of nothing.

    2. We messed everything up and continue to do so.

    3. God’s our only hope. No God and we’re all stuffed. There’s not a sniff of hope anywhere else.

    4. Jesus is who he says he is. Don’t believe me? Check for yourself and stop accepting other people’s opinions as fact just because it’s more convenient for you not to face up to the truth.

    Sorry to be blunt.

    1. Ian Collis

      Don’t be sorry to be blunt – I will be too.

      It would much easier to believe in an all-powerful being taking care of us. Nothing to worry about except worshipping it and being ‘good’.

      However, that flies in the face of all the facts. Wake up, accept things as they are and do the best you can in the time you have. By all means marvel at the beauty of life and the universe – but don’t belittle it by attributing it’s creation to a super being born out of the mythology of nomadic shepherds thousands of years ago.

      Blunt enough?

      1. Stephen

        Well, it flies in the face of the belief in abiogenesis and evolution, not of the facts (any of them, or even ‘all of them’).

        Can some of us educate ourselves in the proper use of apostrophes, please?

  61. Karen Pansler-Lam, J.D.

    The truth is ancient people believed in evolution.

    In the early Greek civilization, Thales (640? – 546 B.C.) considered all living things to have sprung from water.

    And Anaximander (611 – 547 B.C.) believed that when an originally liquid earth began drying, it produced living things, man first of all.

    So, how is the theory of evolution “progressive” and “modern” and “scientific”?

    The Americanized Encyclopaedia Britannca (1890) states: “It is clear that the doctrine of evolution is directly antagonistic to that of creation… it is an arbitrary formation of the world versus direct creative act volition by God.”

    More important …

    “As a scientific doctrine, whatever its ultimate interpretation, evolution has a bearing on our practical, i.e., moral and religious ideas. Among other results, this doctrine may be said to give new form to the determinist theory of volition, and to establish the relativity of all moral ideas as connected with particular stages of social development.” Americanized Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1890

    Excerpts from “The Gap Theory is a Lie” @ http://www.libertyadvocate.com/The%20Gap%20Theory%20is%20a%20Lie.htm

  62. Harry Barron

    Evolutionists believe that creation began with a single cell but when all the arguments are over the fact remains that the DNA required for a single cell is so complex that it has been described as a mini universe within itself.
    Which could not be created by accident not even a happy accident.
    I make no claim to know how and when creation began, but we only have to look around at the beauty of nature to realise that it had to have a creator. I prefer to put my faith in a universal spiritual intelligence than to believe in the ability of five primitive human senses to lead us to ultimate truth.

  63. Stephen

    Well done other Stephen for your regular responses to comment being made. I think however everyone is mixing the point somewhat. This debate is not over the legitmate position of evolution or creation but what is taught in schools. Science requires the scientist to have a belief of some kind about his/her work, hence the basis of a hypothysis. His/her belief should not interfere with the science carried out and should involve the scientist to create a proper experiement which allows for the hypothesis to be proven or disproven. It is this pure science which should be taught in schools. To do so the budding scientist should be taught that different positions exist and that any position is acceptable as long as the science is carried out correctly.

    Unfortunately the arguement made by Richard Dawkins is that evolution should be taught and any other position banned. This is however completely against the principals of science; to close one’s mind to an alternative position. Why is it that the belief of evolution, which is fundamentally a multi-diety belief system born from greek methology and hinduism amongst other such beliefs, is deemed acceptable to teach in science and yet any alternative position banned?

    I think that for those of any mono-theistic belief (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) that beliefs of multi-thiestic religions being taught as science is a terrible thing. Likewise they would not expect any alternative positions to their beliefs to be banned. Freedom of Religion is the basis to our country and society and this should be protected as it’s loss also is a loss of Freedom of Speech which is gained from the primary. We must protect freedoms such as these at all cost.

    I fear the scientific debate, rligious debate and other beneficial debates have stopped and the current situation is that one group having lost the arguements is now trying to get the alterative position banned in every area of life.

    You have be horrified to learn that the anti-discrimination laws including those in education actually list the belief of creation or any belief other than the one in Evolution as being excluded from protection under the discrimination laws!!!! What are we doing in this country? Do we not enjoy our religious freedom? Are we willing to allow it to be thrown away because we’re blind to the battle that is taking place?

  64. Dave Ross

    Whilst knowledge about verifiable scientific facts is always correct (e.g. the atom contains a nucleus, plus orbiting electrons, as has been proved), postulations made by most scientists (though certainly not all) that the incredible complexity of organic life and order that exists in the world somehow just happened, through chance combinations of basic elements (the origins of which science does not and cannot explain) and then mutations, remain in the realm of belief, not science. In fact, such a postulation, if taught as fact, is mere propaganda and a religion in its own right.

    Certainly, gravity is a verifiable law of Nature, which has been proven to exist, over and over again, for example, every time someone falls out of bed — when they don’t ever fall upwards, but rather always downwards, because of the gravitational pull of the earth. It is the same for the very many, verifiable laws of physics.

    However, the “Theory of Evolution”, is verifiable only insofar as it has been seen to occur to a relatively minor degree, by cellular changes WITHIN species. Through evolution, types of dogs vary widely within their basic, genetic blueprint, but they are always dogs and can’t mate with cats – not just because the cats won’t let them.
    Science does not in any way, shape or form support the theory’s extrapolation into the belief system known as Macro-Evolution, which postulates that all existing life forms progressed upwards from the combination of basic elements, which themselves had, in some inexplicable way, come to form out of nothing — which is pure speculation and not in the least way scientific reasoning, since no facts are available to show this has ever occurred.

    Therefore, Macro-Evolution should most certainly not be taught as fact in schools (as is presently the case) nor indeed anywhere, for that matter — but rather as a theoretical, postulatory or faith position, which has yet to be attested by science, whilst on-going scientific research increasingly reveals, as it is indeed doing, the amazing wonder of the natural life forms that exist, on both cellular and body structural levels, which patently required an infinitely intelligent designer-cum-powerful-creator in order for their having become manifest. For example, the highly complex mechanisms which operate in every living cell are too ingenious to have merely somehow developed of their own accord. On a bodily level, there is only one word which can be used to describe what living animals, even insects, but in partivular humans, are and that is marvels! One only has to become only moderately familiar with the structure and workings of the human body to realise this. It and all animal bodies clearly had to be created as finished products, at single points in time, as all the evidence shows.

    The argument of Macro-Evolutionists that says that animal and other life forms arrived through a gradual process of beneficial mutations, progressing from early “simple” cells (though even the simplest of cells, the amoeba, is actually highly complex, with its own DNA), during billions of years, is pure fiction and a mere figment of the imagination. There is no scientific evidence to suggest that such a process has taken place or is now taking place. If it had been and it were still happening, three things would be in evidence, viz., firstly, the strata of the earth would reveal vastly more fossils of all manner of intermediate-stage life forms than of the “finished products”, which are always found, secondly, new animal types would be developing and, thirdly, the evidence would be that an ever-progressing, upward climb were taking place, the Second Law of Thermodynamics would not be seen to apply, so that the progressive trend were ever upwards, rather than downwards, the latter of which in fact being the case.

    The Christian and Biblical teaching of origins, per the Genesis account of the Bible, provides the only reasonable explanation for the origins of life, and so it is only this which schools and universities should be teaching. Other theories, such as Macro-Evolution, might be taught, but only in order to give pupils and students some understanding and appreciation of the alternative faith of others.

  65. Jenny

    I’ve been following this article and debate since a couple of my non-Christian friends posted it on Facebook. Since then, at least one of them has tried to repsond and it has been censored. I’m really disappointed that the “debate” is so skewed towards questions you feel able to respond to or statements backing up your own view. What a shame this can’t be a transparent debate as it should be.

    1. Stephen

      There has been a huge response and moderating takes time. Equally, if people are not adding anything or being insulting or abusive (as atheists tend to do) they won’t get approved.

  66. Dave Ross

    Indeed, this is so, as I, too, have experienced. I have been posting comments on an atheist / evolutionist website for some months now, with my politely expressed, carefully thought out comments often being met with responses that are insulting and abusive and which seldom, if ever, contain any attempt to counter what I have said nor which give any scientific argument with which to back their views.

    It would appear that most atheists-cum-evolutionists have closed their minds to any real thinking and have accepted verbatim and as their gospel what disingenuous, plainly dishonest or merely misled scientists have been telling them and the world in regard to origins. With such a closed mind, there seems little hope, except for a miracle.

    1. Paul

      Sorry to hear that. Give me a link and I promise I’ll respond to you politely.

  67. Greg

    “So bacteria develop resistance to drugs, and they remain bacteria.”

    You had asked “Just give us one example of an observed new trait in an animal which has been caused by ‘a random mutation’”

    Do you accept anti-biotic resistance is an example of this? Nobody that understands evolution claims that one mutation produces a new species.

    “As to the rest of your essay, it is just a list of assertions. Provide the evidence for it!”

    What I wrote are logical answers to the questions you asked. What exactly do you disagree with? You haven’t addressed a single point I made. Saying what I wrote is “just a list of assertions” while not addressing any point I made is the ultimate in hypocrisy! Claiming “God did it” is the biggest baseless assertion there is!

    1. Stephen

      Sorry, old boy, bacteria are simply designed (or to be neutral ‘have the capability’) to swop DNA and to mutate within their single cell, as Luria and Delbruck demonstrated. I cannot think of another kind of organism that does that, can you? The antibiotics may also in some cases eliminate non-resistant bacteria allowing the resistant bacteria to take over. You should know all this. Molecular geneticist Dr. Georgia Purdom writes: ‘… antibiotic resistance of bacteria is not an example of evolution in action but rather variation within a bacterial kind. It is also a testimony to the wonderful design God gave bacteria, master adapters and survivors in a sin-cursed world.’

      So how many mutations do you think you need to produce a new species? And what is the mathematical probability of just one of them happening? Now multiply that by the number of mutations needed.

      You will find that the probability of a new species arising by mutation is vanishingly small. ‘God did it’ is the only remaining logical possibility.

      You may accuse me of believing in an impossible, unprovable cause for creation, namely God. But you believe in sheer billions of impossible things. We are only talking maths, logic and plain common sense.

      1. Rox

        Whose side is God on, us or the bacteria ?

        1. Stephen

          Psalm 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
          2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
          3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
          4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
          5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
          6 For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

          1. Rox

            This seems to be an excellent example of using an old book to solve problems which it just was never ever designed to deal with. The essential question is, has God designed bacteria deliberately to become antibiotic- resistant and kill people ? I honestly don’t see the relevance of this psalm, you will have to explain it to us. But you can hardly say that antibiotic-resistant bacteria only kill the ungodly, can you ?

          2. Stephen

            You don’t see the evidence because you won’t.

  68. Dave Ross

    It occurs to me that we who have come to see that the Bible’s account of origins, as given principally by the Genesis account, is fact should always be mindful of some things, viz.,
    Whilst it is true that, according to Romans ch 1, “what may be known about God is plain to all men, because God has made it plain to them” (I.e. creation clearly demonstrates His existence) and men suppress the patent truth about creation, it is actually “by faith” that “we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible” (Hebrews ch 11).

    It is equally true that the atheist-cum-evolutionist’s or the genuine agnostic’s view is also a faith position although, in the case of the agnostic, they are probably more in the position of a floating voter. But it is only “by grace” that we who are Christian believers are “saved, through faith”, from our unbelief (Eph. ch 2), otherwise we would doubtless be just the same as the atheist or agnostic, as indeed many of us once were.

    It thus behoves us to be always very loving and gentle with those who haven’t yet received the grace to believe, which we have been granted, whilst never yielding any ground in our stand for the truth of the Bible, particularly what it says about Creation, the Fall and Jesus’s amazing sacrifice on the cross for us (who believe), as we warn others of the error and danger of their unbelief.

  69. Jane Glover

    Nothing wrong with the theory of evolution being taught, as long as it’s made clear that it’s a theory. Nothing wrong with creationism being taught, as long as it’s made clear that not all people believe in it. More importantly, there’s nothing wrong with teaching that it’s possible to believe in both the theory of evolution as well as creationism. Don’t see why there has to be such a fuss!

  70. Neil

    Someone way up in this discussion asks, in an attempt to discredit evolution, how ‘inanimate chemicals… organize themselves into a very complex, self replicating organism.’ That’d be viruses then. Non-living (inanimate) groups of chemicals that are highly organised self-replicators.

    And if tufted ducks demonstrate a creator, Stephen, then what about sexual reproduction itself? It exists to ensure the shuffling of genes to produce variation in offspring. Why did your creator feel the need to create the very mechanism that makes natural selection, and therefore evolution, possible? This makes no sense, if he’d no plans to develop life through evolution. Sexual reproduction has no place in your creationist scenario, so why does it exist? (And please, no nonsense about how he knew we’d enjoy it. Most living creatures reproduce sexually and ‘enjoyment’ doesn’t come into it for them).

    Of course you yourself accept evolution when you claim that everything, including ‘ugly’, harmful life-forms, was originally made perfect. So how did God’s beauties become today’s uglies (that live in children’s eyes and so)? Either they changed overnight – divinely zapped after the Fall or the Flood, perhaps – or they evolved. You repeatedly argue above that one species can’t become another, but even the creationist ‘explanation’ you advocate means they had to do exactly that – or they’d still be the creatures they were in the Garden of Eden.

    And as for evidence, which you keep demanding from those who argue for evolution here… where’s yours? Faith, as St Paul explains, is not evidence. Nor is a text of myths, which is what Genesis is, written by pre-scientific tribesmen.

    1. Stephen

      Viruses show all the signs of design.

      It can as easily be argued that sexual reproduction eliminates mutations and is a mechanism which makes evolution impossible.

      I won’t waste time on your ‘Garden of Eden’ stuff, but you show your ignorance and prejudice when referring to Moses, a highly-educated man from the Egyptian metropolis, as ‘pre-scientific tribesmen.’

    2. Paul

      Not viruses first Neil – they are parasites that make use of cellular mechanisms to reproduce. They would therefore have evolved after those cellular mechanisms; or, at best, in parallel with them.

      How can you argue that sexual reproduction eliminates mutations? On the contrary, as it is based on having two copies of each gene (one from each parent), it provides a mechanism for preserving them – the function of one copy can be altered by mutation while its original function is preserved by the other.

      Regardless of Moses’ credentials, I’ve yet to see any evidence that even suggests to me that the Biblical account of creation is anything other than one of the many creation myths.

      1. Stephen

        You need to keep an open mind, Paul! The Biblical account is consistent with what we know from science, in other words of specific (allied to the word ‘species’) kinds which can reproduce together.

        1. Paul

          I’m curious Stephen to know what definition of ‘species’ you are using – as this is quite a contentious issue in itself.

          1. Stephen

            A species is an organism which can reproduce as the Bible says ‘after its own kind’.

        2. Paul

          Also, since posting that comment I have read that sexual reproduction is essential to maintain genetic stability in higher organisms (New Scientist 2-Mar-13, article on parthenogenesis). This is clearly a very complex area.

  71. Barry

    What a design it is! It can’t be called intelligent though can it? Unless the designer is unbelievably callous and wasteful, and incompetent.

    What kind of mind creates a spider that eats its mate after copulation? That creates and then allows to go extinct 98% of the species that have ever existed? Or creates the human psycopath?

    Lisa Simpson once asked why creationism and intelligent design only came about after the theory of evolution? Because before that you were trying to tell us that it happened like it said it did in Genesis.

    Your views have nothing to do with the evidence. You can not accept evolution, just as you cannot accept inate homosexuality, because if you did the whole God idea comes crashing down. Thiesm is riddled with contradictions, thats why children usually relise pretty quickly how ludicrous it all is.

    Science and religion are incompatible. Thats why religion has always tried to hinder and retard it, and why as people become more educated religion becomes redundant. The sooner we confine it to our past the better. It must be defeated because it is the ultimate stupidity.

    1. Stephen

      Paragraphs 1&2: Sin entering after the fall is the answer.
      Paragraph 3: Creationism and Intelligent Design are Biblical concepts.
      It is actually your views that oppose the evidence. You cling to evolution because otherwise you would have to believe in a creator. The Bible and Christianity are logically coherent. Evolution is illogical and unscientific. It is perhaps not ‘education’ you need as much as wisdom, and that comes from God.

      1. Paul

        > Sin entering after the fall is the answer.

        Please elaborate – exactly what happened at this point?

  72. Alex Alexander

    Hello Stephen,
    Having skimmed all of the above (or below), here’s my comment on your many responses…
    Evolution is a logical, mathematical, ethical, scientific, observational nonsense which has consequences that none of its proponents would personally accept…. Slavery, anyone? Nothing wrong with slavery, if evolution is true.
    How about some racism? Or cannibalism? Or paedophilia? Or sexism? Or plain exploitation? Why not? My evolved genes made me do it…

  73. George

    If evolution was true….would there not be monkeys slowly evolving into near humans now? Wouldnt it be a continuous stream of near forming humans walking out of forests & jungles? It would seem that it happened for a short amount of time and then stopped happening. As if a short burst of evolution which then stopped…Also why do bald men in cold climates not grow hair. Evolution would suggest all living creatures would generationaly develop to suit the environment.Where I believe this is true on a certain level, I dont think we can lump humans in with animals, as we CAN have an active relationship with our Creator which IS proven, ALL around the world, EVERY DAY. Unfortunately many will not listen nor try….I STAND AT THE DOOR KNOCKING………………says Jesus!!!….who will open to wisdom

  74. Hannah

    It’s entirely possible that there have been yeast mutations, but as these are not the desirable type for the brewing process they are most probably discarded. How can you deny evolution when every year we are faced with a new strain of flu virus, or strains that become resistant to antibiotics? They have high generation turnovers, and do indeed mutate to form resistant strains. This is evolution in one of its simplest forms.
    Alternatively, check out the peppered moth, its population used to be mottled brown and white to provide camouflage on tree trunks; during the industrial revolution there was a massive amount of pollution, turning tree trunks darker in colour… so it’s just a coincidence that the moths also turned almost black? No, it is not. Individuals that happened to have slightly darker colouring were predated upon less and so were more likely to bear darker offspring, leading to darker and darker colouration being selected for. Its actually that simple. N godly interactions, just genes working randomly being selected for by the environment. I personally find this incredibly exciting and more fulfilling than some invisible man in the sky clicking his fingers and making it appear. Nature is the true thing we should worship..
    Seriously, creationists, you are so ignorant; how can you accept some areas of science when it suits you, yet reject other areas where it doesn’t? The world does not revolve around your beliefs, and thankfully a large number of the population is waking up to the reality that we are here due to billions of years of chance mutations and natural selection.

    1. Stephen

      Viruses mutate and stay as viruses. It’s bacteria that are killed by antibiotics, not viruses, by the way.
      The peppered moth remained a peppered moth. It did not evolve.
      And funnily enough, millions are now turning away from evolution, simply because it has no evidence to support it.

  75. Hannah

    And also, I’d like to add, what scientific qualifications do you have that give you the audacity to argue with such confidence against Richard Dawkins, who also associates with, and has the same qualifications as the massively respected David Attenborough, (and myself as it happens). These great men have devoted their lives to studying this subject, finding evidence, experimentation, observation, etc, whereas all your evidence is blind faith and the Bible, which let’s be honest, is rather outdated in its views. You’re living in the past guys, time to update your brains and bring them up to speed with what we now know.

    1. Stephen

      I have a degree in engineering. That’s why I look to see why and how things work. Richard Dawkins has a degree in zoology. He has no qualifications in genetics, in Information Theory, in Theology, but that does not stop him pontificating on them. David Attenborough has a degree in natural sciences. It is their semi-religious faith which drives their evolutionism, not evidence. It’s common sense and evidence which opposes evolution.
      Evolution depends on beneficial mutations arising in species to transform them into new ones. Can you name one beneficial mutation which has done that? Just one.

    2. Paul

      Dangerous ground, I think, to question whether someone can argue against Richard Dawkins and David Attenborough because of their reputations. If someone comes up with a convincing argument based on evidence, surely they are entitled to a fair hearing. We have yet to see such an argument on this blog – no evidence has been presented, and the world of common sense is flat and is the centre of the Universe – but maybe one will be forthcoming?

      I have refuted in previous posts the validity of the demand for evidence of beneficial mutations giving rise to new species.

      1. Stephen

        So if beneficial mutations did not give rise to new species, which is what all evolutionists believe, despite there being no evidence whatsoever for it, then how did new species arise in your personal evolutionary belief system?

        1. Paul

          > So if beneficial mutations did not give rise to new species

          ?? Where did you get that from?

          What my post says is that I’ve showed in previous posts that your demand for evidence of beneficial mutations giving rise to new species is invalid; in other words, that the theory of evolution stands up perfectly well without it.

          As regards beneficial mutations, they are today in a position similar to that of the mechanism for heredity that the theory of evolution needed to exist, but that was unknown when it was first published; it was established (chromosomes/ genes/ DNA) over the succeeding decades. So it is with beneficial mutations; the theory of evolution predicts that these happened, but demonstrating this is technically extremely difficult and has only become even remotely feasible in the last ten years (see my previous posts).

          > your personal evolutionary belief system

          I don’t have a personal evolutionary belief system. I believe in the value of the scientific method for establishing truth – I’ve alluded to this in previous posts.

          1. Stephen

            No, I believe in scientific method. I want to see theories backed up by repeatable evidence. You believe in ‘something’s bound to turn up’.

          2. Paul

            > No, I believe in scientific method. I want to see theories backed up by repeatable evidence.
            – How, then, can you ignore the mountains of evidence for evolution theory that I’ve summarised in previous posts?

            > You believe in ‘something’s bound to turn up’.
            – I think it’s very likely that the prediction of evolution theory that beneficial mutations occur will be borne out when it becomes technically feasible to test it.

  76. Barry




    Have a look at the above. Can you put all the above aside and believe in Adam and Eve instead?

    1. Stephen

      Even the scientists are falling out about who these people they found were. If humans really were around two million years ago, there would be many more of us around now then there are. But if you start 6 thousand years ago, human reproduction, even allowing for the odd natural disaster, comes up with a population not disimilar from what we see today. Evolutionists don’t like maths, but I suggest you give it a go.

      1. Paul

        > Even the scientists are falling out about who these people they found were
        – This is shameful misrepresentation of the normal process of debate in science whereby a topic is explored.

        > If humans really were around two million years ago, there would be many more of us around now then there are etc.
        – This argument is so utterly devoid of merit that it’s difficult to comment on it without seeming impolite. If the Barry who posed those excellent links is the same Barry who posted earlier in the thread, I feel sure he has come up with a robust response to it that you’ve declined to publish; I’ll confine myself to pointing out (a) the skeletons found were of extinct australopithecines, not humans, and (b) it’s not the time since humans arose that has allowed the human population to rise to its present level, but our mastery of technology – tools, farming etc. etc. Without that, the population (like that of any other animal) would be limited by food availability, weather conditions, disease and predation, and would stabilise at a much lower level.

        1. Stephen

          No, ‘Barry’ has offered nothing, polite or impolite. If it is mastery of technology rather than fecundity that explains the growth in a population, why are there so many birds about?

          1. Paul

            > If it is mastery of technology rather than fecundity that explains the growth in a population
            – It’s mastery of technology that allowed specifically the human population to grow to its present level. Other creatures’ populations are limited by food availability, weather conditions, disease and predation.

            > why are there so many birds about?
            – Please explain to me why this is relevant.

            > No, ‘Barry’ has offered nothing, polite or impolite.
            – Possibly he thought, with some justification, that you’d hoisted yourself with your own petard and so didn’t feel the need to comment.

          2. Stephen

            Please supply your evidence that the growth in human populations is nothing to do with fecundity and all to do with technology.
            Let me explain the birds point to you. There are all these birds about and they have not developed any technology.
            Or perhaps Barry is at last realising that there is no evidence for his evolutionary belief system.

          3. Paul

            > Please supply your evidence that the growth in human populations is nothing to do with fecundity and all to do with technology.
            – A Google search for “reasons for human population growth” produces a plethora of articles, including this one (the first one I opened): http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1998/7/98.07.02.x.html. The reality of life without technology was well illustrated in microcosm in Kate Humble’s recent programme on BBC2 about the Wakhi shepherds of Afghanistan (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01bdrr5): a life expectancy of 35; a most moving interview with an apparently elderly woman, of whose children 6 out of 7 died; yet clearly, the human population that their mountains and valleys can support would be much lower without the subsistence farming that they practise!

            > Let me explain the birds point to you. There are all these birds about and they have not developed any technology.
            – Ah, another argument so utterly without merit that I couldn’t understand why you posted it. Bird populations, whatever they are, are are limited by food availability, weather conditions, disease and predation; they aren’t rising exponentially like the human population is at present. For example, this article presents the fluctuations in UK bird populations since 1970: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85736/Wild_birds_statistical_release_1970-2011_UK.pdf

            > Or perhaps Barry is at last realising that there is no evidence for his evolutionary belief system.
            – Yes, it’s certainly possible, for reasons unconnected with reality, for someone to become infected with religious delusions and start ignoring all the evidence for evolution; like a reverse miracle – “I could see, now I’m blind!”

          4. Stephen

            The article does not do what you want it to, old boy. The author is talking about what she describes as a ‘population explosion’ in the last 200 years.

            This she attributes to greater infant survival rates ‘thanks to improved nutrition, sanitation, and medical care.’ You may say those are technological advances, and you might point also to the industrial revolution, but these are still modern phenomena. The industrial revolution is the only sensible piece of evidence that technology rather than fecundity increases populations, and it remains alone. Ancient people had technology. The Israelites were advanced in sanitation and nutrition, the Egyptians in construction, the Phoenicians in navigation, etc etc).

            She says: ‘It took the entire history of humankind for the population to reach 1 billion around 1810.’

            1 billion is 2 to the power of 30. If you allow the human population to double only every 200 years, which is very conservative, the first ever couple would have lived around 4,000 years ago.

            We read in Exodus that the Israelites caused the Egyptians to be concerned when they went from 70 persons to 600,000 in 400 years, doubling every 30 years or so. That may have been the result of their nutrition and sanitation, but these ancient middle-eastern people do not seem to have the problems staying alive which are claimed for European Iron-Age people.

            It is important to realise that estimates of world populations in pre-history are informed by the pre-suppositions of those doing the estimates. Even before the 1600’s we are only guessing. If you start with the assumption that humans ‘evolved’ into being 50,000 years ago, you can easily build into your population growth model assumptions about infant mortality, average life-spans, disease and so on which will result in harmony with known modern historical populations. See: http://www.prb.org/Articles/2002/HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth.aspx

          5. Paul

            > The article does not do what you want it to, old boy
            – With a seven-fold increase in population since the Industrial Revolution, it does the job for me.

            > Ancient people had technology
            – Agreed. For the avoidance of doubt, the definition of ‘technology’ that I’m using here is ‘anything that involves bending the external world to one’s own purpose’. Ancient advances that enabled populations to rise include stoneworking, metalworking, the invention of farming, domestication of various animals etc. These worked by enabling more people to live in an area than people without those technologies. Just how many Wakhi tribesmen do you think would be able to live on their valleys and mountains in Afghanistan without their wheatfields and sheep?

            > 1 billion is 2 to the power of 30. If you allow the human population to double only every 200 years, which is very conservative, the first ever couple would have lived around 4,000 years ago….It is important to realise that estimates of world populations in pre-history are informed by the pre-suppositions of those doing the estimates
            – Presumably the first statement is an illustration of the second, with which I am in complete agreement.

            > Even before the 1600′s we are only guessing. If you start with the assumption that humans ‘evolved’ into being 50,000 years ago, you can easily build into your population growth model assumptions about infant mortality, average life-spans, disease and so on which will result in harmony with known modern historical populations.
            – Yes, yes, yes! You eloquently undermine what you said on 3 June – “But if you start 6 thousand years ago, human reproduction, even allowing for the odd natural disaster, comes up with a population not disimilar from what we see today” – and I couldn’t agree more:.

          6. Stephen

            1 The article is solely concerned with modern trends.
            2 Ancient peoples had agriculture.
            3 Mine was not an estimate of population.
            4 Then start 6 million years ago, not 75,000.

          7. Paul

            > The article is solely concerned with modern trends.
            – Nevertheless, it proves my point that it’s not the time since humans arose that has allowed the human population to rise to its present level, but our mastery of technology.

            > Ancient peoples had agriculture.
            – Agreed. But if you go back far enough, you’ll arrive at a time when they didn’t (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_agriculture). It seems clear to me that moving from a hunter-gatherer society to an agricultural society enables more people to live on the same area of land and so the population would rise to whatever was the carrying capacity of that land under the new regime.

            > Mine was not an estimate of population.
            – True, but it was a calculation based on arbitrary assumptions and so is open to the same criticism.

            > Then start 6 million years ago, not 75,000.
            – I don’t understand what you’re getting at with this. Surely you have yourself demonstrated (and I agree) that “Even before the 1600′s we are only guessing. If you start with the assumption that humans ‘evolved’ into being 50,000 years ago, you can easily build into your population growth model assumptions about infant mortality, average life-spans, disease and so on which will result in harmony with known modern historical populations”. Therefore, any such model is essentially arbitrary and so proves nothing.

          8. Stephen

            This is getting boring.
            I don’t know why I put six million instead of six thousand, which is what I meant. The constant drip of BBC propaganda must be getting to me.

  77. Ken Penberrthy


    This is a very very brief summary of the reasons I believe the Darwin theory of evolution is wrong on these six basic principals. There are many other reasons why evolution should not be taught as science or truth as it goes against reason and experience.

    The theory is not A) Logical
    B) scientific
    C) historical
    D) moral
    E) Biblical
    F) Business practice

    NOT LOGICAL because the survival of the fittest would lead to only a few well adapted species dominating the world. What we see is the most aggressive species ( honey badger) ,the fastest (cheetah), most venomous ( black mamber),nearest to human genes(chimps),strongest (elephant,lion etc) all near extinction or are in need of human protection .

    NOT SCIENTIFIC because everything tends to degenerate to chaos (entropy) but evolution is the theory of simple over time becoming very complex.

    NOT HISTORICAL because the fossil evidence shows that ancient animals and insects were larger and often more complex than the creatures living today.

    NOT MORAL because the strongest and fittest humans should not dominate or eliminate the weakest or those of a different colour. (as darker skins would be regarded as lower down the evolutionary scale)

    NOT BIBLICAL because the bible teaches that every fully developed creature was created by God ,not a one simple cell developing over time into all other life on earth.

    NOT GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICE because all business and other organisations need a intelligent regulator (i.e. the monopoly commission ),otherwise the large business ( ie Tesco ) would dominate and destroy the smaller businesses by aggressive competition (“survival of the fittest”). Sports without a referee left to the survival of the fittest would lead to total chaos. We therefore need a God to maintain the balance of nature, it would not happen if there was no intelligent control.
    Hitler perused the evolution principal to eliminate the weak and disabled (eugenics) the survival of the fittest . If we teach our children the unproven theory we will raise a generation that does not care for the old and vulnerable.

    Ken Penberthy
    [email protected]

    1. Paul


      None of your reasons stands up even to a cursory examination. Here’s why (taking each one in turn):

      a) In fact, there is virtually an infinity of available ecological niches that drive the arising of different species that can take advantage of them. Diversity and the arising of diversity is what we would expect from the theory of evolution, and that is what has happened. But if environmental stressors arise too quickly for a species to adapt, it will become extinct – that is what is threatening the species you list. The stressor, of course, is humanity.

      b) This old chestnut arises from a misunderstanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Everything tends to degenerate to chaos IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. The Earth, of course, is not a closed system – it receives abundant, continuous energy from the Sun, and that is what drives the processes of life and (over time) evolution.

      c) Another misunderstanding here, this time of the nature of evolution. There is no ‘onward and upward’ drive in evolution – it simply favours those organisms that reproduce successfully. So, there were times when large organisms were more successful than they are now; conditions turned against them and they became extinct. The same applies to complexity, although I don’t think your assertion is true in this case – I’d be interested to see your reference.

      d) Another old chestnut. There is no reason whatsoever why humanity should use the way in which life has developed to determine how it organises itself socially and politically. Also, I’m almost lost for words at your statement that “darker skins would be regarded as lower down the evolutionary scale”. Regarded as such by racists, perhaps.

      e) The nub of the problem is perhaps here. The fact is that the Bible is a collection of stories written by people who weren’t informed by modern scientific knowledge. Their creation myth, like all the other creation myths, is simply irrelevant nonsense, with zero explanatory value.

      f) This is simply a red herring. Without regulation, you simply get a different business environment – one that isn’t regulated. Whether this is optimal or fair is something that we as people can decide. There is no regulation of the “balance of nature”, which is a man-made concept anyway; equilibria (of sorts) may or may not arise naturally, and if peturbations arise for some reason, the equilibria (if any) will shift.

      See (d) in respect of your last comment; also, this is a good example of Godwin’s Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law).

      Sending this also to the email address that you helpfully posted, in case Stephen doesn’t publish it.

      1. Stephen

        (a) Maybe there are a lot (not virtually an infinity) of ecological niches. But diversity and interdependence cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. Evolution cannot explain symbiosis, for example, except by jumping through hoops. Humanity is not the only ‘stressor’. Raptors are putting great stress on songbirds. Badgers (a protected species in the UK, for some reason) are putting intolerable stress on hedgehogs, for example.

        (b) This is a new one. Now it isn’t beneficial mutations which drive evolution but energy. Would that life were that simple!

        (c) I suggest you go back and take another look at the evolutionary ‘tree of life’ with simple organisms at the bottom and increasing complexity as you go upwards.

        (d) Only if humanity realises it is responsible to a higher power will the principles which we take for granted but which actually come from the teachings of Christ about caring for the poor be put into practice. Survival of the fittest means a ‘me first’ mentality. Racism owes everything to evolution. Have you never heard Africans scorned as those who have ‘just swung down from the trees’ or seen bananas thrown at black football players?

        (e) Cultural snobbery. Funny how species reproduce according to their kind, exactly as stated in the Bible, isn’t it? Evolution is a creation myth. The Bible describes reality. Get over it.

        (f) ‘Godwin’s law’, which states that the Nazis will eventually come up in a discussion forum, is inescapable when evolution comes under the spotlight. Society has to be ordered according to some moral principle or another. Secularism has to answer the question, ‘If a majority in a society decide the Jews can be exterminated, why is that not the right thing to do?’

        1. Paul

          > But diversity and interdependence cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. Evolution cannot explain symbiosis, for example
          – This is the ‘irreducible complexity’ argument, every example of which has been refuted.

          > Humanity is not the only ‘stressor’
          – Of course not, but it’s the main stressor for the animals that Ken listed (except for the honey badger, which isn’t threatened as he claims).

          > This is a new one. Now it isn’t beneficial mutations which drive evolution but energy
          – I ask you to consider the possibility that there might be more than one factor involved in a complex process. It’s like driving a car; petrol provides the energy, but there must also be filling stations, oil refineries, oil wells, car manufacturers, roads etc, etc, and finally a driver to make it go to a particular destination. Lots of factors, see? So, in evolution we have energy input from the Sun, organisms with reproductive processes, storage of genetic information in DNA, not-quite-precise replication of that information during reproduction giving rise to variation, and natural selection determining which of those variations survives.

          > I suggest you go back and take another look at the evolutionary ‘tree of life’ with simple organisms at the bottom and increasing complexity as you go upwards.
          – Yes, more complex organisms have arisen over time, and disappeared too. The point I was making is that there is no inherent, quasi-mystical ‘onwards and upwards’ driver in evolution theory, as Ken’s argument implied.

          > Only if humanity realises it is responsible to a higher power will the principles which we take for granted but which actually come from the teachings of Christ about caring for the poor be put into practice
          – In fact, the principles to which you refer are universal ethical principles that arise from our common humanity and not from belief in any deity or the teachings of any particular religion.

          > Survival of the fittest means a ‘me first’ mentality
          – Or, in the case of our species, a ‘let’s co-operate and help each other (as long as you’re in my group)’ mentality. As individuals get more and more civilised, ‘my group’ for each individual includes more and more people; I hope that one day, most people will see all of humanity as ‘my group’. Discarding religious beliefs would be a giant step towards that ideal.

          > Racism owes everything to evolution
          – What nonsense. Racism existed long before evolution theory was conceived. It’s the negative side of group mentality (see above).

          > Cultural snobbery…Evolution is a creation myth. The Bible describes reality. Get over it.
          – Well, there we have it – dogmatic assertions made in defiance of all the evidence amassed in a multitude of fields over the last few centuries.

          > ‘Godwin’s law’, which states that the Nazis will eventually come up in a discussion forum, is inescapable when evolution comes under the spotlight
          – Not because it’s in any way relevant, but because supporters of creationism bring it up in a fraudulent attempt to smear evolution theory.

          > Society has to be ordered according to some moral principle or another
          – Which we don’t need guidance from religion to choose.

          > Secularism has to answer the question, ‘If a majority in a society decide the Jews can be exterminated, why is that not the right thing to do?’
          – That’s a very simple question to answer: “They are conscious beings just like me, they experience happiness and suffering as I do; therefore they have as much right to live as me”.

  78. Bill

    I just came across this site and read the comments with interest. I left convinced that the drift towards secularism is not just a good thing but absolutely essential to counter the dangerous nonsense spouted by blinkered creationists who want “create” a new dark age of ignorance. I feel inspired to join the National Secularist Society and may well do so.

  79. Charles T Lawson

    So what the scientist are telling us that the sciences of yesterday are correct in there findings ?.

    Can the scientist of today please explain to me WHY,
    Isnt it strange that they will only correct what they do not want you to know.
    It even said in genesis that the world was round and they did not beleive that ,and now they DO, so who was correct ,

    God the Father Almighty.


  80. John Dawkins

    Can the evolutionists explain to me how the Archer fish evolved? It feeds on insects by rising to the surface and ‘shooting down’ ; insects which are clinging to overhanging foliage by emiting a jet of water at the selected prey. These scientists tell us that not everything evolved at once. So did the Archer fish spend a few million years ‘practising’ before the insects or the plants came into being?

  81. Def Peck

    Amazing. I knew there were some very ignorant people within the Christian community, but this website takes the biscuit.

    1. Stephen

      OK, if you are so wise, tell us how the first life arose from non-life. Tell us whether the cell wall came before the cell contents or vice versa, and tell us where the DNA and all its information came from. And since, no doubt, you want to be scientific, tell us where this process has been observed in a laboratory.

  82. DarwinismWrong

    Sorry guys but darwin’s evolution theory does not work.

    Its impossible to slowly evolve new organs without them being useless and eliminated by natural selection.

    Also all the fossiles of all the different millions of evolution stages between species have yet to be found.

    1. Stephen

      They have ‘yet to be found’ because they do not exist.

  1. Teach children creation, says report - Christian Voice UK

    […] See Darwin Day sees evolution in Primary Schools […]

Leave a Reply