email - September 2015

Willful Ignorance

Fireholder disputes our essays without reading them.

Someone who calls himself “Fireholder” started a lengthy exchange by arguing about the definition of evolution, and wound up claiming (without proof) that DNA analysis had proved evolution. This correspondence clearly shows that Fireholder believes in evolution because he refuses to even read anything that doesn’t confirm what he already believes. Here are the pertinent extracts from our correspondence.

Evolution Definition

The last paragraph of his first lengthy email simply repeats (almost verbatim) the same argument that you can read on lots of evolutionary blogs.

In short, evolution is ‘changes in existing life over time’, and not in any way a claim on the origins of the earliest life. As more scientific study, research and experimentation arises (including space exploration), evolution may include either of the origin hypotheses, or a completely different one, depending on what discoveries are made. Your website, and its claims, is a disservice to both the scientific facts and reality in support of evolution, as well as to the theistic position on the origins of life and the universe. Your website is either predicated on a false assumption borne of ignorance, or an intentional deception, but in either case is harmful to both the scientific and religious communities nonetheless via propagation of falsehoods.

Our home page makes it clear that there are many definitions of evolution, including any change over time. Many of those definitions are not controversial. That’s why our home page says,

When we talk about "evolution," we don't mean, "any kind of change." Nor do we mean minor variations that result from natural selection. We use the term "evolution" to mean, “The doctrine that unguided natural forces caused chemicals to combine in such a way that life resulted; and that all living things have descended from that common ancestral form of life.”

We aren’t ignorant of other definitions; nor are we intentionally deceiving anyone by changing the definition. We put the definition of what we are talking about right there on the home page of our website. We make it as clear as possible that when we talk about “evolution” we are talking about the doctrine about the origin and diversity of life commonly taught in public school science classes. (If this definition of evolution weren’t an accurate description of what is being taught in public schools, nobody would object to the teaching of evolution.)

We are aware that evolutionists change the definition by first stating the obvious truth that dogs and horses have “evolved” into various breeds. Then they claim that humans and apes must have evolved from a common ancestor because “evolution has been proved.” That is a logical fallacy called “ambiguity” because the term “evolution” is intentionally used ambiguously to confuse microevolution with macroevolution.

We replied to him with this single sentence:

We have dealt with your comments many times, which you would know if you had read our articles.

As expected, he could not help responding with an insult.

You have, apparently, dismissed the fact that your articles are based on misrepresentation. But hey, keep rolling in your own feces while declaring it’s gold.

DNA Proof

We tried to get a specific criticism (as opposed to general, unspecific accusations) by quoting from one of the paragraphs in his first email.

You say, “The evidence in support of evolution and common decent [sic] is staggering.” Can you be specific?

We have never gotten a good answer to this question from any evolutionist, and Fireholder was no exception. All he could say was,

Any more specific than the fact that every form of life which has been tested shares DNA in common and that species which are similar have DNA reflecting this similarity? For someone who claims to know so much about evolution that they feel confident in refuting it, don’t you think you should know these things already?

This response indicates that somebody has told him that DNA testing results are consistent with the theory of evolution, and he believes it. We sent him links to 22 of our 45 past articles in which we reported research in peer-reviewed scientific literature addressing the discrepancies between DNA analysis and conventional evolutionary wisdom. His response was,


Am I expected to trust YOU as a source of accurate or reliable information when it comes to biology? I love how you have nothing but your own words in your articles. No citations, no links to research, no peer-reviewed scientific journals.

In our essay, “Jellyfish, Kiwis, and Moa” there were a total of 11 references from three different articles published in Nature, seven citations from Science, and two from Richard Dawkin’s book, Climbing Mount Improbable. The “Foolish Falcons” essay quoted from Nature Genetics. “Puzzling Penguins” referenced articles in Science and Cell Science. One essay quoted from the University of Louisiana at Monroe and Central Washington University websites. Another quoted from the National Human Genome Research Institute. One quoted a biology lecture on a Purdue website. A 2001 book published by Oxford University Press was quoted in another. We even stooped so low as to quote from National Geographic!

If he had read the links we sent him (or any of our other essays on our website, for that matter) he would have known that nearly every article has links to research in peer-reviewed scientific literature. Often there are 10 to 20 footnotes. He could not have missed them if he had actually read our articles.

We didn’t quote ourselves as authorities. The purpose of quoting ourselves was to show that we had already reported that recognized authorities had said these things many times before.

He did not argue with any of the facts in any of our essays because he didn’t read them. Why should he? He already knows it all! He is willfully ignorant.

He clearly expects us to trust HIM as a source of accurate and reliable information when it comes to biology; but we don’t know what his qualifications are. We don’t even know his real name! He didn’t quote any published research. He just says it, and expects us to believe it.

Don’t take his word for it. Don’t take our word for it. Study for yourself and make an informed decision.

Quick links to
Science Against Evolution
Home Page
Back issues of
(our newsletter)
Web Site
of the Month
Topical Index