|email - February 2010|
Our hate mail can help you plan your response to attacks by evolutionists.
Perhaps someone has said something that caught you off-guard, and you didn’t know to respond. Later, you probably thought, “I wish I had said …”. This month’s email is typical of what evolutionists often say. If you ever criticize the theory of evolution, evolutionists will probably say this to you. So, knowing what’s coming, you can plan in advance how to answer them.
We usually don’t print the full name of the person who sends us an email to protect his or her privacy. In this case we will print the whole name because we strongly suspect the name is fictitious. If Mr. and Mrs. Splatter really did name their child, “Mind Over,” we apologize for the embarrassment. Here is what Mind wrote:
Subj: Science Against Evolution site
I highly recommend that you update your "Science Against Evolution" site. Much of the information is misleading, wrong, and/or outdated. Don't even consider asking me to do this job for you because the faults are too extensive and numerous for me to address. I strongly recommend that you learn about a subject before writing on it. It is only ethical not to repeat and further misinformation. Try taking a junior level biology or evolution class and work your way up to the higher courses. Also there are many web sites that contain current evolutionary information and where questions can be asked. Please avail yourself to these free and informative current information sites. I think that you will find that many of your questions will be answered.
Replies to this email will be deleted without being read.
His email came in red italics. Presumably he thought that remarkable font would compensate for the unremarkable content.
What makes this email typical is the claim that so many things we have written are wrong, but he can’t name a single specific fact that is in error. This is the 173rd newsletter we have published. If there really were numerous faults, he could list a few of the most glaring ones.
The truth is that he probably hasn’t read even a fraction of the articles on the site. He just assumes they are wrong because he is prejudiced. He admits to his prejudice in the last sentence. He won’t read a reply if we send it to him.
In his email, Mind says that if we would simply read even one book on evolution we would give up our foolish objections. If he was as smart as he thinks he is, he would know that we are very well informed about the theory of evolution, past and present. Using the search box on our Topics page he could easily discover that we have quoted from both of Darwin’s (outdated) books on evolution. Using that same technique he could also discover that we must have read more recent books because we have quoted recently deceased proponents of evolution (Gould, Mayr, J. M. Smith) and living evolutionary experts (Dawkins, Coyne). Every week we read the three major peer-reviewed science journals (Science, Nature, and PNAS) to keep up with the current state of evolutionary research. Every month we read pseudo-scientific magazines (National Geographic, Scientific American, Discover, and others) to see how they inaccurately report current evolutionary research. If we didn’t read them, how could we quote them?
But we don’t respond directly to those attacks because that turns the discussion away from the weaknesses of the theory of evolution and into an argument about who has read more about the theory of evolution. It would just lead to an endless, childish argument. (“I know more than you know about evolution!” “You do not!” “I do, too!” “You do not!”) Mind would rather have us waste two paragraphs defending ourselves than use those two paragraphs to attack the scientific weaknesses of evolution.
The only charge he makes that has any validity is that our newsletters are dated. Yes, every newsletter has the month and year printed on the first and last pages. Seriously, he actually claimed the newsletters are OUTdated. That’s only partially true.
The newsletters we wrote 10 years ago contain quotes from peer-reviewed scientific literature that is 10 years old. How could it be otherwise? We write newsletters that reflect the current thinking in the scientific community regarding the theory of evolution. Our file cabinet is overflowing with articles we have torn out of scientific journals and filed by subject. Many of those articles we meant to discuss, but didn’t because evolutionists had moved on to other issues before we got a chance to write about them.
Even the oldest outdated articles are still relevant. For example, in Volume 1, Issue 2 (November, 1996) we reported on meteorite ALH84001, which evolutionists claimed showed evidence that life originated on Mars and came to Earth on a meteorite. Evolutionists don’t believe that any more, but the article is still relevant because we showed how foolish it was to believe that, and it also shows how quick evolutionists are to believe foolish things. We were right, and the evolutionists were wrong. Modern evolutionists would like you to believe that only a few crackpots believed that, but our footnotes show otherwise.
It was just last June that we published “Ida, the Missing Link.” That was what evolutionists believed then. Two months later, Ida was quietly rejected. Our November and December 2009 articles on Ardi have disclosed some of the many things that evolutionists used to believe about human evolution, but don’t any more.
The common theme in all these articles is that what we said is still true, and what evolutionists said has now been rejected by evolutionists.
Evolutionists tend to justify their constantly changing positions by arguing that science is self-correcting. They say the fact that they have rejected so many of their previous beliefs is evidence that they are right now. That’s nonsense.
A factory repair manual for an 8-track tape player isn’t as relevant as the repair manual for an iPod (which, if it exists, probably just says, “Throw it away and buy a new one!” ), but the information in the 8-track repair manual is still true. It is still useful if you have a broken 8-track player that you want to repair. The manual isn’t very useful any more simply because few people still use 8-track tape players.
Truth is progressive in the sense that new information tells us more than we knew before, or is more applicable to our current situation; but truth isn’t progressive in the sense that facts that were true in the past are no longer true.
The things Darwin said about diet, exercise, and climate causing physical changes that are inherited aren’t just no longer relevant—they aren’t true. More to the point, they never were true. The meteorite didn’t show evidence of life on Mars. Ida wasn’t a missing link. Things that evolutionists have said in the past about human ancestry aren’t true today, and they weren’t true in the past when they believed them.
We got a similar, long, angry email from Santino. In it he made statements based on his assumptions about my religion, my lack of intelligence, the books I haven’t read, and the illegitimacy of my birth. Normally we ignore emails like these, but since he wrote such a long letter, we hoped we might be able to get him to write a real defense of the theory of evolution. Our one-sentence reply to his email was,
If you can write a coherent defense of the theory of evolution, we would be glad to print it.
The printable portion of his reply was,
I don't have to write a coherent defense of evolution because it has already been done. Hundreds of times.
That’s basically the same thing Mind said. He doesn’t have a defense, so he just claims it is beneath him to explain it to idiots like us.
We tried again to get him to defend evolution by provoking him this way:
I am not trying to convince you of my position. I am simply trying to understand yours.
I have been asking evolutionists for 15 years for an explanation of why they believe in evolution. The only two explanations I ever get are
A) I'm afraid of God, so I have to deny creation to have inner peace.
B) The consensus is that evolution is true, and I'm too stupid to think for myself.
I really want an evolutionist to give me some rational reason for believing in evolution. Answers A and B above don't qualify.
Can you explain to me why you believe in evolution?
This drew a really, really long response. It began by (nearly) addressing the issue.
Alright. I will answer your question even though you did not answer mine. Are you sitting down? This may take a while. To me evolution makes sense. I look around and I can observe it happening. There is adaptation all around us. Some species take many years to evolve, as you know, but there are organisms that can do it in far less time. It is these organisms that can be studied. It is these organisms, that support Darwin's theory.
But then he launched into a very long attack on religion. Here are some of the more important passages.
I was born into a Catholic family, went to church for most of my life. I began to doubt. I tried to be born again. I gave myself to Christ, but there was always something wrong. I felt nothing. … I lost my faith, but I am glad I did. I have become a stronger, healthier person because of it. I have become a smarter, more educated person because of it. … I am not going to assume that I know anything about you, but I will assume that you believe in some form of diety [sic]. This gives you a feeling of importance, safety and belonging. A feeling like you matter in the grand scheme of things. You don't. … So go on believing what makes you feel good, but before I sign off I will give you some hard facts.
A) I am not afraid of god. It doesn't exist. If you think evolution has questionable evidence????? [That’s exactly what he wrote.]
B) I don't care about consensus. 80% of the entire world believe in a god. So what!
c) 99.98% of the scientific community accepts evolution. Why? Because they all get the same results when they do the experiments. Scientists will make predictions based on their test results and calculations. When those predictions turn out to be correct, then they can say, with some certainty, that they are on the right track. (logical, is it not?).
Also, I don't ever remember any inquisition, war or witch hunt in the name of science. Do you?
Nice chatting with you. Enjoy your life. It is the only one you're gonna get.
We don’t know how Santino knows that 99.98% of the scientific community believes in evolution. We've never been able to find any such survey. We've written to Pew Research, Gallup and the American Broadcasting Company (immediately after one of their broadcasts made the claim that all scientists believe in evolution), but have never received an answer from any of them. If anyone has ever seen such a survey, please send us the reference. We doubt that such a survey exists. We suspect that Santino simply pulled the number out of the terminus of his large intestines.
If one did take a survey to find out what percentage of scientists believe in evolution, the result would no doubt depend upon how one defines “scientist.” If the term “scientist” is limited to biology and paleontology professors employed by universities receiving substantial grants to study and teach evolution, then we expect the number of professors who claim to believe in evolution would be nearly 100%. But if the term “scientist” includes scientists and engineers employed in private industry who use thermodynamics, systems analysis, probability, communication theory, and information theory in their daily work, then the percentage would probably be lower. If the term “scientist” includes medical researchers, physicians, and veterinarians, who depend upon their knowledge of biology to do their jobs, we expect the percentage would be close to zero. So, the survey would be most valuable if the results were broken down by categories of scientists.
Suppose someone took a survey of Christian ministers to determine what percentage of them believe in God. Don’t you expect the number would be very close to 100%? Ministers are theological experts whose lives are devoted to studying and teaching about God. If 100% of ministers believe in God, then God must unquestionably exist!
We hope you see the foolishness of that argument. If so, we hope you will also realize that if 100% of professors whose lives are devoted to studying and teaching evolution believe in evolution, their credentials as experts in evolution don’t prove that evolution is true any more than the universal belief of ministers proves that God exists. The consensus of people who have an ax to grind is not proof of anything.
Santino doesn’t seem to be too consistent when it comes to the validity of consensus. On the one hand, he claimed that “80% of the world believe in a god,” but rejected that as being a valid reason for believing in a god of some sort. On the other hand, he thought that 99.98% consensus is a valid reason to believe that evolution is true. So, 80% isn't good enough, but 99.98% is. We asked him if a Gallup Poll shows that 79% of all scientists believe in evolution, would he reject evolution then? His answer was,
Your argument about consensus is retarded.
The only part of his response that came close to addressing evolution was,
I look around and I can observe it happening. There is adaptation all around us. Some species take many years to evolve, as you know, but there are organisms that can do it in far less time. It is these organisms that can be studied. It is these organisms, that support Darwin's theory. [We don’t know why he put a comma after “organisms.”]
We can, and do, observe microevolution all around us. Adaptation is a real phenomenon. Variations in species do occur. Natural selection does affect demographics. There is no controversy about that. The argument is whether or not microevolution can lead to macroevolution. Study after study has failed to show that it can. No experiment with bacteria, fruit flies, horses, dogs, pigeons, corn, or roses, has ever produced a new kind of living thing. Breeding experiments simply produce new variations of the same thing.
We have only shown you portions of his third email because it was so long. When we printed it, it was 50 lines long. Three of those lines had to do with microevolution. Four lines had to do with consensus. Twenty-six lines dealt with religion. The other 17 lines were personal attacks or irrelevant or incoherent thoughts. This is significant because we specifically told him we wanted an explanation for why he believed in evolution, and told him we don’t think two arguments are valid. Specifically, we reject the arguments that evolution is true because religion is false and evolution is true because scientists say it is true. But 52% of his response was that evolution is true because religion is false, and 8% of his response was that evolution is true because scientists say it is true. Only 6% of his email had anything even remotely connected to evolution, and that 6% just had to do with microevolution, about which there is no controversy.
It is significant that more than half of his third email was all about religion. His religious experience has nothing to do with evolution; but it has everything to do with his irrational acceptance of evolution. For him, it isn’t really about science—it’s about religion. He has no scientific reason to believe in evolution, but he believes it because of a bad religious experience in his past.
We should not be too hard on Santino, though. When Coyne and Dawkins wrote books defending evolution, they didn’t do any better. Their books are just attacks on religion.
The whole evolution/creation controversy could be settled if evolutionists could just present a solid, scientific explanation. They can’t, so they just claim it has already been done, hundreds of times.
If they could, they would present sound rebuttals to the articles we have written. Since they can’t, they just say that there are too many errors in our newsletters to list. If that were true, they could at least give us a short list of the biggest errors.
There are too many errors in the theory of evolution to list at one time. That’s why we just talk about a few every month.
These two emails contain the typical arguments of many evolutionists. If you ask them why they believe in evolution, they can’t tell you. If you keep asking them, they become frustrated and get angry at you. They can’t tell you why they believe in evolution. They are just afraid not to believe it.
|Quick links to|
|Science Against Evolution
|Back issues of
of the Month