Lobbing a grenade into the primate origins picture

Darwinists have been constantly asserting for 150 years that we gone come from monkeys, but even if that's true - which it isn't because there aren't any transitional fossils and nobody's ever seen a cow give birth to a cat - it begs the question "So where did monkeys come from, Dr Science?". Up until now the answer they've given has been that monkeys came from fish which decided to hop up onto the land after they somehow grew lungs without drowning, which happened somewhere at some time, we're working on that there's nothing to see here at all now, move along. I know it sounds crazy, but that's what they'd have told you, if they'd even deigned to give a mere tax-payer any answer at all instead of just evading the issue by staring at you blankly before saying something like "You really don't understand this subject at all, perhaps we should talk about some underlying concepts..." And I know this is what they do, because in my many years as a science journalist I've had to confront that sort of ideologically blinkered piffle more times than I can remember.
Well their castle is developing a severe case of cracked walls with the publishing of a New Theory on the Origin of Primates by Professor Heads at Buffalo Museum in one of their own "peer reviewed"* journals which takes issue with the existing dogma of how monkeys came to be, and exposes the prevailing materialist compfort blanket to be a heap of fail, as I believe the young people are saying nowadays:

"According to prevailing theories, primates are supposed to have originated in a geographically small area (center of origin) from where they dispersed to other regions and continents" said Heads, who also noted that widespread misrepresentation of fossil molecular clocks estimates as maximum or actual dates of origin has led to a popular theory that primates somehow crossed the globe and even rafted across oceans to reach America and Madagascar.

Excuse me while I laugh. Monkeys rafting across oceans is ridiculous, as anyone who's ever seen a monkey trying to climb into a boat will attest.

The article notes that increasing numbers of primatologists and paleontologists recognize that the fossil record cannot be used to impose strict limits on primate origins, and that some molecular clock estimates also predict divergence dates pre-dating the earliest fossils.

In other words the fossils don't tell us anything with clarity and disagree with the "molecular clock" anyway. By saying this Professor Heads is going up against some serious vested interests so expect to see some viscous attacks on his career.


* ie "ideolgically cleansed"


Find out about the ID controversy!

Bird Table Bafflegab; darwinists' latest fairy tale

The Telegraph of London tells us that the tax-funded darwin-worshipping toadycrat biologists, having nothing better to do because I guess they've cured cancer, are now telling us that it's not just random mutations that drive "evolution". No, now it's bird feeders. Seriously.

One type of warbler known as the Blackcap is increasingly wintering in England instead of the Mediterranean after being drawn here by the abundance of food in gardens, the researchers claim.
And because their migration is much shorter and their food source different, this is having a profound effect on their bodies - reducing the size of their wings and beaks.
The 'English' blackcaps have developed longer, narrower beaks better suited to the bread and nuts commonly served up on British bird tables than to the olives they would dine on in Spain.
The evolutionary change appears to have occurred over just a few decades, according to the study.
The breakaway group of birds, who still summer and breed in Germany, now account for more than 10 per cent of the whole Blackcap population.
Eventually the "innocent human activity" of feeding birds, a particularly popular British pasttime, could lead to a whole new species of bird, the scientists believe.

You couldn't make it up. Listen folks, I see lots of bird feeders here in Toronto but our birds are still birds and they're not turning into jellyfish or wolves or whatever the Darwinists pretend is happening. This doesn't pass the horse laugh of common sense but it does consume tax dollars and keep Darwinists in the public eye.


Find out about the Intelligent Design controversy!!!

COFFEE!!! Venomous dino-turkey ate my pigeon?

After telling us that many dinosaurs they told us about didn't exist after all, then telling us that sprinting crocidiles ate them, now they're spinning more stories. This dinosaur had feathers, and poison fangs!

Dinosaur with feathers and fangs prowled forests like a predatory turkey

Yes, suuure it did. This is comedy hour, right?

Analysis of the dinosaur's fang-like teeth revealed grooves that could channel poison from glands set into each side of the creature's jawbone, researchers said.

"This is an animal about the size of a turkey," said Larry Martin, curator of vertebrate palaeontology at the Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Centre at the University of Kansas. "It's a specialised predator of small dinosaurs and birds."

That Biodiversity Research Center, that's paid for by taxes, right? So you've got to make amazing claims to keep your funding coming. Obviously I'm not suggesting any wrongdoing, but a bird-eating predatory venomous turkeysaurus hardly passes the laugh test of common sense, which is the test I try to apply to all science. They go on, with more intricate details about the life of the bag of bones:

"You wouldn't have seen it coming," said co-author David Burnham. "It would have swooped down behind you from a low-hanging tree branch and attacked."

"Once the teeth were embedded in your skin the venom could seep into the wound. The prey would rapidly go into shock, but it would still be living, and it might have seen itself being slowly devoured by this raptor," Burnham added.

It's amazing how these guys with their beards and sandals and tenure, sitting in university rooms so far from the real world, can so confidently know so much about a creature which they say lived so long ago and they've only just found the bones of.

Find out: why there is a design controversy!!

Just so jellyfish

"Scientists Unravel Evolution of Highly Toxic Box Jellyfish" yells the headline as if they've actually figured how and why a floating bag of jelly in the ocean millions and millions of years ago made the huge transformation into, erm, a floating bag of jelly in the ocean now. Closer reading of the article shows they haven't even managed to do anything as impressive as that, instead trickling out a few watery just-so stories.

Their vision may have something to do with the evolution of some extremely unusual mating behaviors in box jellyfish species.

"May have something to do with" counts as science nowadays? This is comedy hour, right? The flamingo's legs may have something to do with running up giant beanstalks but I can't prove it, can I have a grant from the taxpayer for my science as well?

Breathless fawning before the race altar

There's a wave of darwinianoid articles in the press because today is the 150th anniversary of the publication of Chales Darwin's 'The Origin of Species', or to give it its little-mentioned full title: 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life' which exposes the dark racist heart throbbing within the chest of this bombshell planted under the morals of society. The vile racial agenda at the core of this most insidious of works is made clear only a handful of pages into the very first chapter as Darwin, dear saint Charles, that nice man with the kindly face and the fuzzy beard, makes clear that race lies at the core of his new ideology:

it seems to me not improbable, that if we could succeed in naturalising, or were to cultivate, during many generations, the several races, for instance, of the cabbage, in very poor soil, that they would to a large extent, or even wholly, revert to the wild aboriginal stock.

"The several races of the cabbage": has ever a more damning or ominous phrase been penned in the whole of philosophy or politics? Darwin started out as a racist with exactly this warped sort of brassica supremecist agenda and sought to apply it to every other divinely created kind he lay his eyes upon. Amid all the chatter today about his holy relics and fortunate toilet incidents don't let his followers in academia or the media pull the wool over your eyes to the true nature of Charles Darwin. The man was a racist with an unhealthy obsession about barnacles and pigeons, as well as a misogynist who wanted to breed a master race of supercabbage, a line of thought which led directly to Hitler. And he was cruel to puppies.


It's more important than ever to find out why there's really an intelligent design controversy!!!

Coffee!! Galloping crocodiles ate our dinosaurs?

Fossil finders have been digging in the Sahara and this time they turned up what they think are ancient "galloping dinosaur-eating crocodiles" from about a fajillion years ago. Here's what an artist thinks the scientists think the bones tell them what the creature would have looked like when alive:
Looks more like a dinosaur than a crocodile to me. One thing not mentioned in the article is what all this means for darwinism. If crocodiles were galloping around eating dinosaurs way back when then it doesn't look like much "evolution" has been going on since because now they just slouch about in rivers waiting for a zebra to come take a drink. If crocodiles have really been around for a kafrillion years and they've really been evolving from something which was agile and smart enough to chase down a dinousaur then they ought to be living in houses and wearing hats and composing operas by now. But they only live in houses when people keep them as pets which really isn't wise, folks, because crocodiles make lousy pets. Too often people get a crocodile when it's a sweet looking newborn and maybe the kids nag mom and dad who don't think it through and then they're astonished when it grows too big. Then when it gets too big for the house they mistreat the animal or release them into creeks which makes a stack of problems for other people. The city's Animal Control dept already have enough to do with just raccoons making trouble and a pound full of dogs without irresponsible people adding crocodiles as well.


There's a design controversy! Find out why there is!

Infants' minds made to march in line

It's happened; England's pushing in a law mandating that evolution be taught to first graders.

Primary school children in England will have to learn about evolution and British history under a shake-up of the national curriculum.

And this move has come about not so much for real scientific reasons but because of lobbying by the humanists, who are the more openly theological branch of materialist atheism.

The British Humanist Association (BHA) had led a campaign to have Darwin's theory of how life evolved through natural selection made a compulsory element of the new primary curriculum.
It organised a public letter signed by more than 500 from scientists and supporters.
Andrew Copson of the BHA said: "This is excellent news. Evolution is arguably the most important concept underlying the life sciences.

There we go with more of the "most important idea in the whole of science ever" blather. Another reason the current liberal government of England is introducing this now is that they can see themselves losing an election and are trying to buttress their fortress against an incoming conservative administration having the courage to introduce criticism of darwinism into the syllabus, predictibly peddled as a scary risk of bringing the creationist doctrines of a “Religious Right” into the classroom instead of exposing minds to the new design paradigm.

Conservative plans to grant schools freedom from central control risk bringing the creationist doctrines of a “Religious Right” into the classroom, the Government warned last night.
Ed Balls, the Education Secretary, this week introduced new rules making the study of Darwin’s theory of evolution compulsory in primary schools.

Because we can't have the poor darlings learning that Darwin was anybody other than the greatest scientist ever, and if it takes government fiat shield them from the truth to then so be it. So sad.

Learn why there's an intelligent design controversy.

Darwinism rebutted in letters pages

A couple of letters pages entries which stand out recently. Darwinists will often insist that their pet ideology is "established fact" or "important to medicine". Not according to William E Smiddy MD writing in the medical journal Archives of Opthalmology:

However, lost in the platitudes is the fact that evolution is still but a theory, not an experimentally verifiable fact. There is no more than B:III evidence for the theory of evolution (ie, there have been no clinical trials, randomized or not, confirming the theory; rather, respected authorities have concluded its parts and, at best, there are case-control series that have been extrapolated to its conclusion) despite pervasive, frequent, and dogmatic proclamations to the contrary.

That evolution has not been subjected to randomized clinical trials is an inescapable fact and one which is not mentioned often enough. Thankyou for reminding us of this, Dr Smiddy.

In the Daily American, the key planks of the darwinist argument are neatly taken apart by Wendell McLaughlin:

Evolution not fact but theory. In fact there is more science that supports intelligent design. This is why evolutionists fight so hard to keep it from being taught in our schools.
Evolutionists say that evolution is based on science and intelligent design is based on faith, but both require faith in something. Neither can positively prove the beginning of everything from nothing.
Darwins theory of evolution requires working backward and sometimes ignoring facts that do not support their theory and requires millions of years opposed to the Bibles thousands.
Carbon Dating measures the amount of carbon monoxide in material. Many things can vary these results; if buried or not and in what or exposed to air or sun and for how long, etc. Also you can set the scale from 0 to millions or thousands.
The rotation speed of the earth is slowing, if reversed the centrifugal force would overcome gravity and fling us from the earth well before the time required for evolution. ...
The fossil record does not show any mutation between one animal and another. Evolution science is based on a false premise and therefore bad science, and mathematically impossible. In fact there are many scientists, teachers, and experts in every field that support intelligent design, and not evolution, search - intelligent design.

For all my years of science writing I don't think I could have put it better myself.


Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy!

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Coffee!! Darwin resurrects birds

From the you-couldn't-make-it-up department, the holy saint Charles Of Darwin is being credited with saving from extinction a species of mockingbird which went extinct 100 years ago.

But within 50 years of the great naturalist's voyage on HMS Beagle, the tame little birds had been wiped out on their native island because of the dogs and rats introduced by Darwin himself.
However specimens remained at the Natural History Museum in London and with the California Academy of Sciences. Now thanks to DNA samples taken from the stuffed birds naturalists have been able to find mockingbirds with a similar genetic make up to return to Floreana island for the first time in 120 years.

Notice it was Darwin himself who wiped the birds out in the first place. Hardly the behaviour of any "great naturalist", but don't let that get in the way of the hero worship.

It's the first time this science journalist has seen Darwin credited with bringing something back from the dead. What's next - walking on water?

David Berlinksi's clarity of insight

The usual crowd of darwinists often fall back to throwing a few standard claims at the burgeoning Intelligent Design movement, such as "ID is not properly defined" or "ID lacks rigour". Such attacks have always lacked merit but are now more ineffectual than ever. So noted philosopher of science David Berlinski's bestselling new book The Devil's Delusion comes along at a good time. David Berlinski is possibly one of the most perceptive minds in this field and the book is a joy to read and is quite the tour de force as we say here in Canada. It also stimulates the reader's own thoughts. As a textbook reviewer I've reviewed many textbooks and am happy to see that the Devils' Delusion comes with a downloadable discussion guide which makes it ideal for use in school settings where it is bound to spice up an otherwise dull philosophy or science classes. Berlinski has always strived lion-like to convey important matters to the wider public. Regal is another fine word. He dares to ask whether a designer whose nature we cannot fathom, using principles we cannot specify, constructed a system we cannot characterize, and lays bare the intellectual dishonesty of dismissing this essential question as "lacking rigour" or being a "science stopper".

Put in simple logical terms where the Darwinists go wrong is when they collectively root their pseudointellectual foundations in a profound overconfidence and misunderstaning of what they claim is the "scientific method" and even before they begin reject a priori a huge swathe of Human experience. This arises of course as an inevitable consequence of their syllogism mired in a miasma that was imposed initially by the enforcement of this so-called "methodogical naturalism". Thus they will adopt a fundamentally theological stance while claiming to reject any theological prerequisites to their postulates ipso facto. Blinkered to the inherent circularity of his reasoning the darwinist builds an ever more teetering tower of inferences and rhetoric on the weak sandy foundation of his mental alluvial mudflats. Recently this house of cards has begun to be shown for the shaky ivory tower construct it always was and is being increasingly rejected by a public demanding change. Wearing pink tasseled slippers and conical hats covered in polka dots the Darwinists descend, honking sadly, into the tar pits. Among the whole Darwinian Guild there is not a single first rate intelligence in the bunch.

But these aren't arguments you'll ever hear a darwinist give an answer to.

Find out why there's an intelligent design controversy...