Where’s the Conspiracy?
When you call your book The Evolution Conspiracy, one question naturally arises. Where’s the conspiracy?
Before I wrote the book I sat down and considered what I wanted to do with it. Humor is an important element in all of my writing, as is questioning mainstream dogma. In my novel The Hunt for Bigfoot I explored the problems with the accepted story of human origins within the framework of an adventure story, while in my nonfiction book Backyard Bigfoot I dove a little deeper into the topic. Those books whetted my appetite. I wanted to write a book about the problems with evolutionary theories, but only if I could find a different approach.
When I browsed bookstores, online and off, for books critiquing evolution I found two types—books promoting creationism, and books promoting intelligent design. I saw that I could make a contribution to the topic by focusing on the flaws in the evidence without relying on personal beliefs. The Evolution Conspiracy differs from other books in the way I mix secular criticism, hard science, and humor to forge a message of empowerment, that anyone can understand evolution and anyone can spot its flaws. Readers have brains, which means they can think for themselves. They don’t need me, or anyone else, telling them what to believe.
Herein lies the conspiracy. An awful lot of evolutionists prefer to decree rather than discuss. They say evolution is a fact, as incontrovertible as the existence of gravity. No doubt can exist, and scientists all agree, therefore anyone who doubts evolution’s reality is an idiot. Everyone must believe.
Conspiracies need not involve a cabal of individuals who meet in secret, exchanging coded greetings. The conspiracy among evolutionists is diffuse and widespread. Despite lacking the cohesion of a secret society, individual evolutionists (particularly the atheist variety) all work toward the same goal—silencing dissent. They use ridicule, personal attacks, and pomposity to stamp out the fires of dissent. Trouble is, for every fire they quash a dozen more ignite. A Gallup poll conducted in honor of Charles Darwin’s birthday in February of this year found that just 39% of respondents believed in evolution while 25% didn’t believe. Psychologist Tania Lombrozo discovered research shows most people who doubt evolution understand the concepts perfectly well. Ignorance is not to blame.
Yet the conspiracy continues. Browse pro-evolution websites and you will find countless complaints about the “anti-evolution movement” coupled with insults lobbed at anyone who disagrees with evolutionary theories. What can you do to fight the conspiracy? Arm yourself with facts. In The Evolution Conspiracy I expose the bare evidence for you in just 156 pages loaded with illustrations, a complete list of references, a glossary, and a thorough index. To top it off the foreword by Dr. Tyler Kokjohn, a microbiologist, offers a scientist’s insight into the realities of evolutionary theories. You get everything you need to make up your own mind. So go ahead—read, think, and decide for yourself!
Birds Are Dinosaurs…Or Are They?
Chickens evolved from T. rex, right? We’ve all heard the bird-from-dinosaur theory pronounced as fact. If you accept evolution then the bird-from-dinosaur theory makes a certain amount of sense. Unfortunately a mounting pile of data refutes the popular and attractive explanation for bird origins.
First we heard that Archaeopteryx may not have been the first bird after all. Then we have the fact that birds appear in the fossil record before the proliferation of dinosaurs. Now this month we see the release of the latest study to call into question the favored theory about birds. John Ruben, a zoologist from Oregon State University, suggested in the Proceedings of the National Academy Of Sciences that birds may not have descended from dinosaurs and that, in fact, some dinosaurs may have descended from birds. Ruben bases this suggestion on the results of a study exploring the flight capabilities of a fossil known as a microraptor.
A quote from Ruben sums up the situation: “Given the vagaries of the fossil record, current notions of near resolution of many of the most basic questions about long-extinct forms should probably be regarded with caution.” That’s putting it mildly.
Reference
“Bird-from-Dinosaur Theory of Evolution Challenged: Was It the Other Way around?” Science Daily, 10 February 2010. <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209183335.htm>
The Altar of Natural Selection
In a review of the new book What Darwin Got Wrong by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli Palmarini, The Guardian’s Mary Midgley discusses the dogma of Darwinism. Why has Darwin’s theory of natural selection become the predominant theory of evolution despite significant evidence that natural selection cannot be the sole force of biological change? Even Darwin himself realized natural selection could serve as but one of many forces acting on living things. Darwin probably rolls over in his grave at the idea that his theory has become both synonymous with his name and with evolution itself, nevertheless Darwinism remains dogmatically entrenched in the biological sciences.
So if not natural selection, then what? According to Midgley the authors of What Darwin Got Wrong suggest something that will surely rouse the ire of diehard Darwinists and non-Darwinists alike—nothing, or at least no overarching theory of evolution. Instead many mechanisms, including the laws of physics, interact to affect organisms.
Anyone who questions evolution will inevitably hear the same old question: What’s your alternative theory? The question assumes that we must have an alternative before we can dismantle the prevailing theory, no matter how flawed and inaccurate the prevailing idea may be. It’s a ridiculous assumption. If we could only dump bad theories when better ones came along science would be cluttered with erroneous junk masquerading as scientific theories.
Evolution: Fighting the Wrong Battle
The debate over evolution is often portrayed as the battle between science and religion, or faith vs. reason. This clever ploy paints evolutionists as warriors for logic and sanity whose sole opponent is blind belief in a higher power. No one could doubt evolution for any other reason, evolutionists insinuate or flat-out proclaim. But the real battle for evolution, the one its proponents studiously avoid, is the evidence itself. Anytime someone points out a flaw in the evidence for evolution, diehard evolutionists respond with a non-answer—usually an angry personal attack on the person pointing out the flaw. This is an evasion tactic, and one evolutionists have practiced for quite some time. To take the heat off the evidence, and the need to defend evolutionary theories, evolutionists simply avoid the discussion altogether.
They are fighting the wrong battle—on purpose.
