Teachers are Told to Lie About Fossils

Brief Introduction

Granted a fossil can neither speak nor communicate about itself. However, individuals and teams of individuals can study a fossil and develop a hypothesis about it. Such a hypothesis can then be cross-examined by other individuals or teams of individuals for validity. The results of the cross-examination can then be presented to support, challenge, or refute the hypothesis. This is the basis of the Scientific Method.

The Core Issue

Some individuals, however, do not like for some thoughts or hypotheses to be questioned or further researched for validity. Take this tidbit for example: California's science education guidelines instructs teachers to tell dissenting students regarding Charles Darwin’s macroevolution theory,

"I understand that you may have personal reservations about accepting this scientific evidence, but it is scientific knowledge about which there is no reasonable doubt among scientists in this field, and it is my responsibility to teach it because it is part of our common intellectual heritage."

Here a teacher is instructed to inform a student that macroevolution has been proven beyond “reasonable doubt” among scientists in the study of origins. But is this true?

The Core Issue Examined and Refuted

It should be noted that the purpose of this article is not to prove or to disprove macroevolution but rather to prove that teachers lie because “reasonable doubt” does exist among scientists regarding macroevolution. And the same person who penned evolution is a significant contributor of reasonable doubt.

If it is beyond “reasonable doubt,” then why did Charles Darwin himself state in his work, The Origin of Species:

"[T]he number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

So Charles Darwin himself testifies that there is indeed “reasonable doubt” against his own theory. And what is his “reasonable doubt?” That there should be an enormous amount of fossils of intermediate variety (transitional forms) but that such fossils are completely missing.

This is sufficient to suggest that reasonable doubt does exist among scientists. However, listed below are some additional modern day scientists who have “reasonable doubts” about Charles Darwin’s theory of macroevolution.

Paleontologist Niles Eldredge stated regarding fossils:

"Either you stick to conventional theory despite the rather poor fit of the fossils, or you focus on the [data] and say that [evolution through large leaps] looks like a reasonable model of the evolutionary process—in which case you must embrace a set of rather dubious biological propositions."

Niles’ statement of a set of “dubious biological propositions” indicates “reasonable doubt.”

Stephen Meyer is a Philosophy of Science graduate from Cambridge University. He has stated,

"There's been a kind of intellectual rigidity imposed on the origins discussion," says Meyer. "It's only possible to talk about origins in a naturalistic vein, because people believe that the rules of science prohibit talking about intelligent design."

Dr. Meyer points out and shows how anything contrary to macroevolution is rigidly opposed even if such challenges of macroevolution have scientific merit. Furthermore, his statement suggests that other contrary scientific studies do indeed exist, which provides sufficient deductible indications that “reasonable doubt” does indeed exist within the scientific community regarding macroevolution.

Dr. John Sanford, a plant geneticist, in his book, “Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome,” says that macroevolution is impossible:

‘Mutations are word-processing errors in the cell’s instruction manual. Mutations systematically destroy genetic information—even as word processing errors destroy written information. While there are some rare beneficial mutations (even as there are rare beneficial misspellings), bad mutations outnumber them—perhaps by a million to one. So even allowing for beneficial mutations, the net effect of mutation is overwhelmingly deleterious. The more the mutations, the less the information. This is fundamental to the mutation process. … [Natural] Selection slows mutational degeneration, but does not even begin to actually stop it. So even with intense selection, evolution is going the wrong way—toward extinction!’

Again, this article is not arguing for or against macroevolution but rather whether or not “reasonable doubt” exists or not. His experiments and observations provide “reasonable doubt” about evolution.

Molecular biologist Dr. Ian Macreadie was Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). He has won some of his nation’s leading awards for research in his field. Here is what he says about biology and evolution:

“All you see in the lab is either gene duplication, reshuffling of existing genes, or defective genes (with a loss of information) that might help a bug to survive—e.g., by not binding to an antibiotic as effectively. But you never see any new information arising within a cell.

“Evolution would argue for things improving, whereas I see everything falling to pieces. Genes being corrupted, mutations [mistakes as DNA is copied each generation] causing an increasing community burden of inherited diseases. All things were well designed initially.”

Here we see another scientist with concerns of genetic mutations in relation to macroevolution; thus, indicating more than one scientist is concerned with how mutations relate to evolution. This provides “reasonable doubt” regarding macroevolution.

Dr. John Baumgardner, a Geophysicist and continental drift expert, worked for the renowned Los Alamos National Laboratories in New Mexico. His modeling has shown fascinating indications that the present arrangement of continents was mainly caused by rapid breakup of a single land mass rather than by slow continental drift as promoted by evolution. He is yet another scientist that provides adequate “reasonable doubt” amongst those in the field.

Zoologist Dr. Walter Veith once held the Chair of Zoology at the University of the Western Cape (Republic of South Africa) stated concerning mutations,

“In my own field, I realized that natural selection (a fact, incidentally) does not increase the number of variants, it decreases them. I ask, ‘How can a mechanism that makes less and less end up making more and more?’ To believe in chance mutations as the source of the new information required for evolution requires a lot of faith. It’s certainly not something I see in my work as a zoologist.”

“Requires a lot of faith” suggests that no adequate, solid, scientific evidence from mutations exists to support macroevolution. This is “reasonable doubt” based on observational science.

Now, moving back to the fossil aspect of macroevolution, consider what the famous Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould has admittedly written,

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”

Here it can be seen clearly that “reasonable doubt” does exist against Darwin’s macroevolution theory. Darwin said that the lack of an abundance of transitional fossils “is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” Gould clearly states that such an enormous lack of transitional fossils still exist over 100 years after the theory was written.

Stephen Gould also said,

"The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless; 2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.

“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record.”

Agreeing with Gould about the lack of fossil transitions, Steven M. Stanley, formerly of Johns Hopkins University, has concurred:

The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid. "

Additionally, Dr. Colin Patterson, previously the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, in a response to critic Luther Sunderland regarding Patterson’s book, “Evolution,” stated:

“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?”

Here Dr. Patterson provides sufficient “reasonable doubt” that the transitional fossils, which Darwin said were the foundation to his theory of macroevolution, are missing—even over a hundred years later with every evolutionary-minded scientist diligently searching for them.

As mentioned previously, Darwin stated that there should be “an enormous amount” of transitional fossils, yet not even one has been found. Even if one fossil was found, it still would not support Darwin’s theory because Darwin stated that there should be an “enormous” amount indicating many, many, many fossils—not just one or two. This too provides “reasonable doubt” regarding macroevolution.

Richard Dawkins, agreeing with Dr. Patterson and the others regarding fossils, stated in reference to the fossils found during the Cambrian Explosion,

"It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

It should be noted that this article is not claiming that Richard’s statement disproves macroevolution. Rather this quote shows that “reasonable doubt” does exist regarding macroevolution because no evolutionary history is observed in fossils before the Cambrian Explosion. Here we see Richard’s observations go along with those of other scientists quoted in this article that there seems to be “reasonable doubt” regarding macroevolution that is contrary to what teachers are telling students.

Conclusion

Again, this article is not meant to prove or disprove macroevolution, but rather to prove that there are qualified scientists who have “reasonable doubts” regarding macroevolution. And because scientists do have “reasonable doubt” about macroevolution, then indeed “reasonable doubt” does exist among scientists in the field.

Several other additional quotes could be added; however, this provides sufficient evidence that “reasonable doubt” does indeed exist regarding macroevolution. And this is contrary to what teachers are telling students.

It also shows that students are not being taught macroevolution as science but as an indoctrination philosophy. What the teachers are telling the students, therefore, is a lie. If teachers tell lies about this, then what other lies are they instructed to tell the students?

So here we see that teachers are told to lie in spite of the fact that "reasonable doubt" regarding macroevolution certainly exists within the scientific establishment.

No comments yet.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working