Defending and Commending the Faith With Dr. Joe L. Mott, inviting the atheist, agnostic and skeptic to examine for themselves

Joe Mott
  • 3.3 (7)
  • Christianity
  • Updated Biweekly

Dr. Joe Mott earned his PhD at LSU, and was a distinguished math professor at Florida State University for 38 years years, helping to write 3 math textbooks, and authoring over 30 research articles in math.

  1. 4d ago

    False Ideas About Truth - Part 18 - Additional Questions About Darwinian Evolution

    References: (1) Many people have been taught evolution as an UNQUESTIONABLE FACT while being UNAWARE of the numerous historical errors, frauds, exaggerations, and premature conclusions that have appeared in its defense. (2) Remember Science is performed by fallible people. A PREDETERMINED BIAS can influence scientific conclusions. Incorrect ideas sometimes remain in textbooks for decades. Scientific consensus does not guarantee the truth. (3) Darwin acknowledged that there were “a crowd of difficulties” with his theory and stated, “Some of them are SO SERIOUS that to this day I can HARDLY REFLECT on them without being in some degree STAGGERED; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are ONLY APPARENT, and those that ARE REAL are not, I think, FATAL to the theory.” (4) Notice one thing about Darwin’s response at the end of the above quotation: Objections to his theory are not fatal. He offers no evidence for that claim. That relegates his response to just an OPINION. Here is basic fact in my mind: Opinions DO NOT SOLVE scientific problems. (5) The consequences for man — of Darwins’ theory — were clear. Man was no longer at the center of the living world. The human was not a created Being made in the image of God. Neither was the human the product of a Divine Plan — evolution does NOT have a plan. (6) E. J. Larson, author of the 2002 book The Theory of Evolution: A History of Controversy writes on p. 58 “that Darwin did what he could to document his view that natural selection was a PLAUSIBLE MECHANISM — not necessarily the BEST mechanism, but at least a plausible one, because he needed at least SOME MECHANISM that was better than Lamarck’s theory, in order to have people buy into his theory of evolution. His mechanism was natural selection.” (7) Of course, artificial selection no more PROVES evolution than the fact that humans have built computers proves that a computer can evolve solely by natural means without intelligence. (8) Most surprisingly, Darwin RETREATED BACK to the DISCREDITED theory of evolution due to Lamarck, which postulated that biological characteristics acquired during one’s lifetime could be passed onto one’s offspring. (9) B. Houston, author of the 2012 book Natural God: Deism in the Age of Intelligent Design, wrote that for Darwin, even the term “evolve” itself evolved. In the first edition of Origin of the Species published in 1859, [Darwin] uses only forms of the word “descent” rather than “evolution.” Not until the sixth edition, published in 1872, does Darwin use the word evolution (found on p. 124 of Natural God). (10) Cambridge University professor Peter Vorzimmer wrote in an article entitled “Charles Darwin and blending inheritance” in Isis vol. 54, 1963, p. 371 that “the evolutionary writings of Charles Darwin. . . . in the latter part of his life, when CONTRASTED with the Origin of Species in 1859, indicate a considerable CHANGE in his evolutionary thought over the intervening years . . . . the overall CHANGE effected appears GREAT and the resultant view nearly ANTITHETICAL to that of the first edition of the Origin, . . . . [and] such a RADICAL CHANGE could not be looked upon merely as a MODIFICATION of an earlier view, but as an ADOPTION of a DISTINCTLY new one.” (11) In the introduction to a 1971 edition of Darwin’s book, the biologist L. Harrison Matthews observes, “The fact of evolution is the BACKBONE of biology, and biology is thus in a PECULIAR POSITION of being a science founded on an UNPROVED THEORY — is it then a SCIENCE or a FAITH? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus EXACTLY PARALLEL to belief in SPECIAL CREATION — both are CONCEPTS which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, had been able to prove.” (12) Michael Behe is the American microbiologist who introduced the concept of irreducible complexity in his book Darwin’s Black Box. He argues that some biological systems, like the eye, are IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX — that is, they consist of multiple interacting parts, ALL OF WHICH ARE NECESSARY for the system’s PRESENT FUNCTION. According to Behe, such systems could not have arisen through the GRADUAL ACCUMULATION of small, beneficial mutations envisioned by Darwinian evolution because the system would not function until ALL THE PARTS were present. For example, all parts of a mouse trap must be present for it to work as a mouse trap. If even one part is missing, it will not work. (13) I would say there is no conceivable way to account naturally for their development. Therefore, there must be an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER. This is episode 285.

  2. Jul 13

    False Ideas About Truth - Part 17 - More Questions About Darwinian Evolution

    References: (1) Question 8. Does the Cambrian Explosion prove Darwin’s theory of evolution? (2) Darwin predicted that in the fossil record we would find EVIDENCE that life would begin SIMPLY and would progress into BIG DIFFERENCES. But the Cambrian Explosion refutes that prediction and thus DOES NOT SUPPORT DARWIN’s THEORY of evolution. (3) Question 9. Was there a gradual transition from an ape to human? (4) Despite the illustrations in textbooks showing a march of beings in an ascending row that displays a gradual transition from a small chimpanzee to a regular sized ape to an even larger transition figure and eventually to a human, no evidence is offered to support that illustration because it is NOT THERE. Virtually every “missing link” or “find” has turned out to be APE-LIKE and NON HUMAN, not a transition kind of an ape-man. In fact, some so-called “finds” were deliberate HOAXES. (5) Charles Darwin was worried that the fossil record did not show what his theory predicted. In the 6th edition of The Origin of Species he wrote: “Why is not EVERY GEOLOGICAL FORMATION which can be urged and EVERY STRATUM full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious OBJECTION which can be urged against the theory.” (6) This means that Darwin’s theory is REFUTED. In EVERY OTHER SCIENTIFIC DOMAIN — in mathematics, physics, chemistry, astronomy, computer science, and perhaps in geology, meteorology, oceanography, and even in philosophy — if such a counterexample is displayed against their theory, then the theory would be abandoned. But not so in Darwinian theory. THAT is NOT SCIENCE; that’s burying your head in the sand and keeping your mind closed. The mind is like a parachute; it only works when it is open. (7) However, if different kinds had been created SEPARATELY, the fossil record should show creatures appearing ABRUPTLY AND FULLY FORMED. That is what the Cambridge Explosion shows. Shouldn’t the general public and the scientific community be open to the possibility of creation? (8) Richard Leakey, in his time the world’s foremost paleoanthropologist, said, “If pressed about man’s ANCESTRY, I would have to UNEQUIVOCALLY SAY that all we have is a HUGE QUESTION MARK. . . . If, further pressed, I would have to state that there is MORE EVIDENCE to suggest an ABRUPT ARRIVAL of man rather than a GRADUAL PROCESS of evolving.” (9) The renowned Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote in the book Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin edited by John Maynard Smith, p. 140: “The ABSENCE of fossil evidence for INTERMEDIATE STAGES between major transitions in organic design, indeed in our INABILITY, even in our IMAGINATION, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a PERSISTENT AND NAGGING PROBLEM for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” (10) You might recall that Gould is the one who said, “Evolution is a fact, fact, fact.” It seems to me that he should have considered the fossil record before making that comment. If he had, then he should have said, “ Evolution is dubious, dubious, dubious.” This is episode 284.

  3. Jul 6

    False Ideas About Truth - Part 16 - Questions and Answers About Darwinian Evolution

    References: (1) An important topic in any discussion of Darwinian evolution is the major problem of blunders, frauds, and forgeries made by evolutionists. How can anyone consider Darwinian evolution to be TRUE if it is characterized by frauds? Would you purchase an insurance policy if the company has a record of frauds? No, but many people accept Darwinian evolution despite its connection with frauds and forgeries. (2) Question 4: Does the Miller-Urey experiment prove that LIFE can be built by natural process? (3) No, the conclusions drawn from the Miller-Urey experiment are no longer considered RELEVANT by the scientific community. In fact, the experiment has been CRITICIZED FOR UNREALISTIC ASSUMPTIONS about early earth atmospherical conditions, methodological FLAWS, and LIMITED APPLICABILITY to the actual origin of life. When it comes to the Miller-Urey experiment things continue to go WRONG and its significance for the origin-of-life question is now perceived as an INVALID EXPERIMENT and IRRELEVANT in terms of justifying the origin of life. The scientific CONSENSUS VIEW of early earth’s atmospheric constituents has CHANGED since the 1950s. (4) Question 5: Do all scientists accept Darwin’s theory of evolution at the cellular level? (5) At present, the scientific mainstream accepts evolutionary mechanisms as the BEST-SUPPORTED EXPLANATION for the diversity and complexity of life, while recognizing that IMPORTANT QUESTIONS — especially concerning the origin of life and the detailed evolutionary history of some molecular systems — REMAIN ACTIVE AREAS of investigation. The disagreement is therefore not over whether cells are extraordinarily complex (they are), but over whether known evolutionary mechanisms are SUFFICIENT TO EXPLAIN how that complexity arose. (6) Question 6. Do the changes in finch beaks, or the changes due to selective breeding, prove Darwin’s theory of evolution? (7) Finch beaks changing is only microevolution which all agree is true. Selective breeding is not “environmental natural factors” as required by Darwin’s theory. Darwin’s theory includes macroevolution where species lead to new species. This has never been observed. (8) Question 7. Does the fossil record support Darwin’s theory of evolution? (9) No, Darwin predicted that IF his theory were correct, there should be evidence that simple life forms gradually developed into more and more complex organisms. Paleontologists generally state that the fossil record does NOT SUPPORT Darwin’s theory in 2 major ways: (a) Animal types tend to appear SUDDENLY (as in the Cambrian Explosion) not gradually, as Darwin predicted. Therefore, each animal type is missing its link to its former ancestor. (b) Animals tend to remain UNCHANGED throughout their time on earth (NOT SLOWLY DEVELOPING into new forms as Darwin predicted). This is episode 283.

  4. Jun 29

    False Ideas About Truth - Part 15 - Problems for Darwinian Theory

    References: (1) The first 5 tenets appeared in Darwin’s magnum opus “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection” in 1859. The subtitle of which is the “Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.” (2) One of the biggest weaknesses in Darwin’s original theory was that he lacked a correct mechanism for heredity. He did not know about genes or DNA. (3) Darwin’s father, considering the 16-year-old a wastrel interested only in game shooting, sent him to study medicine at Edinburgh University in 1825. Later in life, Darwin gave the impression that he had LEARNED LITTLE during his two years at Edinburgh. In fact, it was a FORMATIVE EXPERIENCE. There was no better science education in a British university. He was taught to understand the chemistry of cooling of rocks on the primitive earth and how to classify plants by the modern “natural system.” (4) The young Darwin LEARNED MUCH in Edinburgh’s rich intellectual environment but not MEDICINE: he loathed anatomy and (pre-chloroform) surgery sickened him. The university’s radical students exposed the teenager to the latest Continental sciences. But his father, realizing that the CHURCH was a better calling for an aimless naturalist, switched him to Christ’s College, Cambridge, in 1828. (5) Sometime later Darwin jumped at the suggestion of a voyage to Tierra del Fuego, at the southern tip of South America aboard the HMS Beagle. On December 27, 1831, Charles Darwin left Devonport, England, aboard Her Majesty’s Ship Beagle. As Darwin set sail, he says he was a Bible-believing creationist. In his words recorded in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, vol. 1. p. 45, he said, “I did not then in the least DOUBT the strict and literal TRUTH OF EVERY WORD in the Bible. . . .” (6) On the last leg of the voyage Darwin finished his 770-page diary, wrapped up 1,750 pages of notes, drew up 12 catalogs of his 5,436 skins, bones, and carcasses — and yet he still was interested in scientific questions. He wondered, for example: Was each Galapagos mockingbird a naturally produced variety? Why did ground sloths become extinct? He sailed home with PROBLEMS ENOUGH TO LAST HIM A LIFETIME. When he landed in October 1836, his interest in being a vicar had faded, the gun had given way to the notebook, and the supreme theorizer — who would always move from small causes to big outcomes — had the courage to LOOK BEYOND the conventions of his own Victorian culture for NEW ANSWERS. (7) With his voyage over and with a 400 pounds annual allowance from his father, Darwin now settled down among the urban gentry as a geologist. He was making adult decisions about his life and was looking beyond the present to his lifetime work. (8) With a 1,000 pound Treasury grant, obtained through the Cambridge (https://www.britannica.com/place/Cambridge-England) network, he employed the best experts and published their descriptions of his specimens in his Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle (1838–43). Darwin’s star had risen, and he was now lionized in London. (9) Darwin formulated his bold theory of evolution in private in 1837–39, after returning from the voyage around the world. But it was not until two decades later that he finally gave it full public expression in the 1859 book “On the Origin of Species,” a book that has deeply influenced modern Western society and thought. (10) Michael Ruse also said that evolution is a RELIGION and that Richard Dawkins  and his New Atheists friends’ “treatment of the religious viewpoint is PATHETIC to the point of non-being. Richard Dawkins in “The God Delusion” would FAIL any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing.” [I think Dawkins may have failed any introductory logic course as well.] (11) Allow me to answer questions commonly posed concerning evolution. Question 1: Is Darwin’s theory of evolution a fact? No, I think not. It has not been PROVEN and cannot be REPLICATED in a laboratory and some claims would have happened millions of years ago. It has gone through many changes over the years since 1859 to conform to the evidence, and many scientific issues still remain. (12) Question 2: Is there any PROOF that evolution happened? That depends on what you mean by “evolution.” If you mean evolution is “change over time,” then you see it all the time. People are born, grow, age, and die. (13) There are 4 common ways evolution is used: microevolution, macroevolution, Universal Common Descent, and Natural selection (or survival of the fittest.) (14) I am unashamedly critiquing evolution and pointing out some of its flaws. The STRANGLEHOLD of evolution’s  capture of public thought is PROFOUND, and is a BARRIER to the Gospel for millions of people. Once people understand the SCIENTIFIC WEAKNESSES of evolution and how it UNDERMINES the Gospel, it need not be as big a JUGGERNAUT it MASQUERADES as. (15) Question 3: Is the Big Bang good news or bad news for Darwin’s theory of evolution? In my opinion, it’s BAD NEWS. Why? Darwin’s theory requires extremely long periods of time to produce the necessary changes in living forms. However, the Big Bang theory says there was a beginning of the universe now reckoned to be about 13.7 billion years ago. That does not provide enough time to support Darwin’s theory of evolution. According to most calculations, a universe of 100 billion years is NOT OLD ENOUGH for the development of a single cell. The Big Bang theory is consistent with the biblical account of Genesis which affirms that God created the world ex nihilo, out of nothing. Some thinkers dislike the Big Bang theory because it appears to be like biblical creation. This is episode 282.

  5. Jun 22

    False Ideas About Truth - Part 14 - Natural Selection

    References: (1) Random mutations do not occur very OFTEN, and most mutations are DAMAGING to an organism. Yet POSITIVE mutations are NECESSARY to give rise to a surviving new creature. 99% of mutations are DELETERIOUS and 1% have no effect at all. No useful mutation has ever BEEN OBSERVED. (2) I think Darwin may have believed that natural selection effectively had a MIND OF ITS OWN and would ARBITRARILY SELECT which individuals thrive. But natural selection is an UNGUIDED PROCESS. Therefore it is not a CONSCIOUS MECHANISM. It has no consciousness with which to select the best from the mutations that arise. Even IF the most useful structure is selected by natural selection, this state of affairs will still bestow NO NEW STRUCTURE. Fast running antelopes survive while the slower are hunted down by prey. But this process will NEVER TURN antelopes into leopards. (3) It is impossible for natural selection to act according to a PREDESIGNED PLAN. That would be to claim that natural selection is conscious. It’s a GRAVE ERROR to maintain that RANDOM, UNGUIDED EVENTS are actually conscious. But in order to escape the embarrassing effect of their claims of CHANCE, Darwinists try to give the impression and deceive people into thinking that natural selection is CONSCIOUS. (4) Darwinian evolutionists claim that natural selection must plan an organ such as the eye before any such thing exists, know all the properties it must have BEFOREHAND and bring all the requisite stages according to a plan, while NEVER MAKNG AN ERROR. It must do all this until an eye emerges. It must produce a succession of perfect structures, create a BRAIN that sees the image and a consciousness to INTERPRET what it sees. (5) Darwin himself said in chapter VI of On the Origin of Species, “Is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by the modification of some other animal with widely different habits and structure? Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, an organ of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, an organ so wonderful as the eye?” (6) The evidence from BIOCHEMISTRY regarding Michael Behe’s IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY of the cell gives Darwinism ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS. Behe gives a mouse trap as an example. If any of the parts of the mouse trap are missing it is NONFUNCTIONAL. (7) The human eye is irreducibly complex and cannot have been evolved. The eye cannot gradually accumulate all the specific parts between each attainment because at each developing stage the eye will not give human sight. The eye has to be constructed in one GIGANTIC CONSTRUCTION. This suggests it had to have been designed. Who or what designed it? (8) The 5th tenet of Darwinian evolution is Time. Thus, the process needs time and LOTS and LOTS of it! Since the earth is NOT ETERNAL, and its AGE is approximately 13.7 billion years old, it seems UNLIKELY that there is ENOUGH TIME to account for all the creatures to occur from random mutations. I have not at this time given an argument for what I just claimed, but I am willing to if you think you need it. (9) The 6th tenet of Darwinian evolution is Genetics/heredity. Genetics — the study of heredity — is MARRIED to Darwinism to come up with NEO-DARWINIAN evolution, the sum of all biological processes by which characteristics are transmitted from parents to their offspring. To this list of 6 tenets of Darwin’s theory we possibly could add: variation, adaptation, gradualism, and the “tree of life.” (10) Ernst Mayr, the renowned German-American biologist mentioned previously and author of many books and articles including the book Toward a New Philosophy of Biology, says the CENTRAL CORE of evolution is generally defined as CHANGES IN TRAIT OR GENE FREQUENCY in a population of organisms from one generation to the next. This has been dubbed the STANDARD GENETIC DEFINITION of evolution. (11) In an article under the label of Copilot Search on the internet says that natural selection is involved in producing LIFE. It is the PROCESS THAT DRIVES EVOLUTION, leading to the adaption of species to their environments. So that means, without Copilot Research realizing it, that microevolution PRODUCES LIFE. That is WRONG, DEAD WRONG, LUDICROUSLY WRONG. That claim completely OVERLOOKS the fact that the FINE-TUNING of the fundamental physical constants of the universe were set at the very beginning of the Big Bang. This means that the so-called specific INITIAL CONDITIONS were already in play pointing to the possibility for life to transpire. So life can’t be ATTRIBUTED to natural selection because fine-tuning EXISTS PRIOR TO THE TIME when natural selection came on the scene. This is episode 281.

  6. Jun 15

    False Ideas About Truth - Part 13 - Six Factors Regarding Darwinism Continued

    References: (1) “On the Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin. (2) The scientists  Fransesco Redi, John Needham, and Louis Pasteur DISPROVED spontaneous generation. (3) Cliff Knecktle says: atheists believe in 6 miracles: (a) Life comes from non-life. (b) Existence comes from non-existence (from the Big Bang). (c) Order comes from chaos. (d) Personal comes from non-personal. (e) Reason comes from non-reason. (f) Morality comefrom matter. In terms of the 6th miracle, do atheists really believe that a stone  can give the 10 Commandments? (4) Despite their obvious differences, creationists and evolutionists do AGREE on several things. For example, they both agree that (a) the universe and life came into existence in the past; (b) these origins were one-time EVENTS, not repeatable by humans, nor were they OBSERVED by any human witness; (c) we do not have and probably never will obtain DIRECT KNOWLEDGE of how these origins occurred, regardless of how many ways we demonstrate that they could have occurred; and (d) individual variation and MICRO-evolution have occurred. (5) But the agreement DISAPPEARS when we bring up the subject of MACRO-evolution. Perhaps it’s advantageous to recall the definitions of these 2 terms. Microevolution refers to SMALL-SCALE evolutionary changes, typically within a SINGLE POPULATION, that occur within a population or species over a relatively short period of time.  In CONTRAST, macroevolution refers to SIGNIFICANT evolutionary changes that occur over LONG PERIODS, often resulting in the emergence of NEW SPECIES. Microevolutionary changes are often DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE and can be EXPERIMENTALLY TESTED, such as coloration of a population. Macroevolutionary changes are typically INFERRED from the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and molecular data, making them LESS directly observable. (6) Darwin ASSUMED the basis of life — the cell — was UNCOMPLICATED, maintaining the cell was essentially a BLOB of material enclosed by a membrane, called PROTOPLASM. But Darwin did not know all the FUNCTIONS of the cell. Neither did he know about DNA. (7) One of the most important causes of the creation/evolution CONTROVERSY is the MISUNDERSTANDING OF WORDS. The word EVOLUTION causes much confusion because of its several meanings, implications, and misuses. When someone asks, “Do you believe in evolution?” Are they asking about the scientifically DEMONSTRABLE changes WITHIN a species (called MICRO-evolution) or of the UNDEMONSTRATED theory of evolution where NEW SPECIES develop over millions of years (MACRO-evolution), or are they asking for both? (8) There is NO CONFLICT between creationists and evolutionists with regard to the 2 lower levels of evolution (that is, individual VARIATION and MICRO-evolution). There is, however, a DEFINITE CONFLICT with regard to MACRO-evolution. (9) I believe it was Stephen Jay Gould, the Harvard paleontologist, who said “Evolution is FACT,FACT, FACT. But if no supporting evidence to substantiate that claim, then it is merely OPINION, OPINION, OPINION. (10) The 3rd tenet of Darwinian evolution is Random mutation. (11) But here is the TRUTH: most mutations are HARMFUL to a creature. So a LARGE NUMBER of mutations would be necessary in order to increase the CHANCES that the mutation would be BENEFICIAL. This increase will give more mutations, but I suspect that the increased number of mutations will actually make it LESS PROBABLE that mutations would be beneficial. (12) The fourth point of the 6 factors is Natural selection.  Darwin observed a STRUGGLE for survival in which the stronger creatures SURVIVED and the weaker ones DIED OFF. This is what he called NATURAL SELECTION. My question is: How do we know the survivors were stronger? With all this RANDOMNESS going on, could it not be that the survivors were just RANDOMLY SELECTED for survival? Could it not be that what looks like STRENGTH actually covers a WEAKNESS? (13) In the 4th chapter of the book “The God Delusion” Richard Dawkins says that natural selection is the ONLY KNOWN SOLUTION to the unanswerable RIDDLE of where the information [of the origin of life, etc.] COMES FROM. Dawkins  also said, “Natural selection not only EXPLAINS the WHOLE of life; it also raises our CONSCIOUSNESS to the power of SCIENCE to explain how organized complexity can EMERGE from simple beginnings without any deliberate GUIDANCE.” Dawkins continues, “But Darwinian evolution, specifically natural selection, …. SHATTERS the ILLUSION OF DESIGN within the domain of biology, and teaches us to be SUSPICIOUS of any kind of DESIGN HYPOTHESIS in physics and cosmology as well.” (14) So Dawkins claims that natural selection is the explanation for the existence of life! That is a STRANGE CLAIM — natural selection only operates after living organisms have produced offsprings. (15) I asked Britannica.com the question: Can natural selection explain the origin of life. Here is their answer: “Natural selection cannot explain the origin of life. The theory of natural selection is a process that explains how SPECIES EVOLVE over time through the ADAPTATION of organisms to their environments.” This is episode 280.

  7. Jun 8

    False Ideas About Truth - Part 12 - Six Factors Regarding Darwinism

    References: (1) During the 1800s some people believed bats navigated at night by touch, the moon was populated by furry, winged humans, decaying meat spontaneously turned into maggots, grain changed into rodents, and mud became frogs. (2) Scientists Fransesco Redi, John Needham, and Louis Pasteur PROVED that LIFE does not come from NON-LIVING SUBSTANCES, i. e, they proved that spontaneous generation is FALSE. Rather life is a result of the reproduction of PRE-EXISTING life-forms, which can come only through various means like seeds, eggs, or other forms of reproduction. That proof marked a SIGNIFICANT TURNING POINT in scientific understanding, reshaping fundamental biological principles. (3) Allow me to give an almost verbatim essay from gotquestions.org called “Flaws in Evolution.” (4) Gradualism seems to be CONTRADICTED by the FOSSIL RECORD. Organisms appear suddenly and demonstrate little change over long periods. The fossil record has been greatly expanded over the last century, and the more fossils that are found, the more gradualism seems to be DISPROVED. It was this overt REFUTATION of gradualism in the fossil record that prompted the theory of punctuated equilibrium. (5) The fossil record might seem to support punctuated equilibrium but again, there are MAJOR PROBLEMS [with punctuated equilibrium]. (6) While the improbable nature of punctuated equilibrium speaks for itself, scientific studies have also CAST DOUBT on the benefits it would confer. Separating a few members from a larger population results in INBREEDING. This results in DECREASED REPRODUCTIVE ABILITY, harmful genetic ABNORMALITIES, and so forth. In essence, the events that should be prompting “survival of the fittest” CRIPPLE the organisms INSTEAD. (7) Laboratory studies have shown that organisms are capable of ADAPTATION. That is, living things have an ability to shift their biology to better fit their ENVIRONMENT [like the color of peppered moths or the beaks of finches]. However, those same studies have demonstrated that such changes can ONLY GO SO FAR, and those organisms have not fundamentally changed. (8) Long-term evolution, though, requires “macroevolution,” which refers to those LARGE-SCALE CHANGES. Microevolution could turn a wolf into a Chihuahua or a Great Dane. Macroevolution would turn a fish into a cow or a duck. There is a MASSIVE DIFFERENCE in scale and effect between microevolution and macroevolution. This flaw in the theory of evolution is that experimentation DOES NOT SUPPORT the ability of small changes to transform ONE SPECIES INTO ANOTHER. (9) There are those who try to transform the theory from a BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATION into a METAPHYSICAL one. Every time a person claims that the theory of evolution disproves religion, spirituality, or God, they are taking the theory OUTSIDE its own limits. Fairly or not, the theory of evolution has been HIJACKED as an anti-religious MASCOT by those that have an AXE to grind against God. (10) Overall, there are many solidly scientific reasons to QUESTION the theory of evolution. These flaws may be resolved by science, or they may eventually kill the theory altogether. We don’t know which one will happen, but we do know this: the theory of evolution is FAR FROM SETTLED, and rational people can question it scientifically. This is episode 279.

  8. Jun 1

    False Ideas About Truth - Part 11 - Comments About Evolution

    References: (1) Nancy Pearcey, a fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and author of several books including “Total Truth,” “Finding Truth,” and “The Toxic War on Masculinity.” (2) Bassett Maguire, a biology professor at the University of Texas, “admits that the (peppered) moths were STAGED, and the embryos were EXAGGERATED. Maguire told a reporter: “But the examples DON’T REALLY MATTER SO MUCH as the CONCEPTS THEY TEACH! The icons represent FLAWED but nevertheless HISTORIC MOMENTS in science,” he said, “and the concepts they ILLUSTRATE REMAIN VALID.” (3) I do not understand what Professor Maquire meant by what fraudulent concepts teach. If they are fraudulent then they are FALSE, and it is best that you ELIMINATE THESE TOXIC THOUGHTS from your mind because it can lead you down the wrong path. (4) Dr. Caroline Leaf in her book “Who Switched Off My Brain?” said, “Remember, our BEHAVIOR follows our THOUGHTS, not the other way around. Analyzing and addressing our thoughts are KEY COMPONENTS of conquering the habits and behaviors that seem to hold us HOSTAGE. (5) Aldous Huxley (1894-1963) was an English writer and philosopher and author of “Brave New World.” (6) Thomas Henry Huxley (1825–1895), was an English biologist and anthropologist renowned for his work in comparative anatomy and his relentless and public defense of Darwin’s theory of evolution. (7) Aldous Huxley (1894–1963) was the grandson of Thomas Henry Huxley and the son of Leonard Huxley and Julia Arnold, with siblings and descendants who also achieved prominence in science and literature. (8) Thomas Henry Huxley’s MOST FAMOUS MOMENT came during the 1860 Oxford debate with the Christian Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, the son of William Wilberforce, the man who ALMOST SINGLE-HANDEDLY got Great Britain to dismantle chattel slavery in Great Britain’s empire. (9) Even if you lose a debate to someone who defends a FALSE SYSTEM, that doesn’t make the false system TRUE. (10) Few statements about MODERN UNBELIEF are as REVEALING as what philosopher Thomas Nagel’s famous confession about God in his book “The Last Word: “I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.” (11) But despite of his atheism, Nagle writes in his powerful book “Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception Of Nature Is Almost Certainly False” saying that the modern MATERIALISTIC APPROACH to LIFE has conspicuously FAILED TO EXPLAIN such central mind-related features of our world as CONSCIOUSNESS, INTENTIONALITY, MEANING, and VALUE. (12) Since we are discussing Darwinian evolution, we need to get an idea what Darwin thought about evolution. There are at least 6 factors that show how the process of Darwinian evolutionary system works. a. Common descent with modifications. b. Spontaneous generation. This is episode 278.

See All (284)

Ratings & Reviews

3.3
out of 5
7 Ratings

About

Dr. Joe Mott earned his PhD at LSU, and was a distinguished math professor at Florida State University for 38 years years, helping to write 3 math textbooks, and authoring over 30 research articles in math.

Information