email - February 2015

Intentional Ignorance

Sometimes it is really hard to play dumb.

We get hate mail from Sam from time to time. We printed excerpts from some of them in June and July of 2014. Here’s what he wrote to us this month:

Still churning our lies and ignorance, i [sic] see.

Why are so many YEC [Young Earth Creationist] engineers so clueless about science?

We tried to get him to tell us what we lied about in our January issue. Here is his reply:

You are a few centuries behind in your pretend science knowledge.

I mean, how ignorant does an engineer have to be to actually claim that the changing of brackets over time is just like evolution?  Stupid.

Please compare this email to the other email in this newsletter. Mick pointed out our factual error about depth perception in parrots. We were glad to correct our error.

Sam, on the other hand, could not find anything factually wrong with our last newsletter, not even our error about depth perception. Either he was unable to understand what we wrote, or he intentionally misrepresented our position by saying we “claim that the changing of brackets over time is just like evolution.” We didn’t make that claim, as you can see for yourself by reading our last newsletter. We never compared the evolution of the mythical tree of life to the evolution of life. That claim is just as foolish as when evolutionists claim that the evolution of the automobile proves that evolution happens.

We believe that Sam is feigning ignorance on purpose because he doesn’t want to admit he could not find any factual errors in any of our newsletters. However, we must consider the possibility that he really is that ignorant. Perhaps we did not make our point as clearly and simply as people like Sam need in order for them to understand it. So, let’s try again.

Our point in comparing the mythical tree of life to the Periodic Table of the Elements is that the mythical tree of life is a reflection of opinion; but the Periodic Table is a representation of actual fact. The Periodic Table does not change because the laws of nature don’t change. The chemical properties of elements are the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. These chemical properties were discovered, and confirmed over and over, by many scientific experiments.

The mythical tree of life does evolve (if we dare use that term ) as popular opinions change because the tree of life doesn’t really exist. It isn’t rooted in an unchangeable law of nature. It is a fairy tale. It is imaginary. Every time a new fact is discovered that doesn’t fit the current evolutionary fairy tale, the fairy tale is replaced with a new one. The tree of life is a philosophical construct, not a scientific representation of facts.

As we reported last month, the Avian Phylogenetics Project uncovered some troubling (for evolutionists) facts. Their genetic discoveries were not consistent with the prevailing evolutionary theory. So, evolutionists had to change the supposed evolutionary relationships between various birds on paper. This was not scientific advancement. It was just an attempt to rationalize away troubling facts.

It was not an example of the “self-correcting nature of science.” The proper correction would have been to recognize that the theory is fundamentally wrong, and reject the theory completely. Instead, they just tried to put lipstick on a pig, and say it is a chorus girl.

Sam is the one who is clueless about science because he thinks anything a scientist says is scientific.

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