An good example of this is criticism of the iconic Miller Urey experiments which tried to show that amino acids could form in simulated supposed early-earth conditions. I was taught at school during zoology A level (and expected to regurgitate it for the exam) that these experiments had proved that life could begin from non life, and this assertion is widely taught as fact to this day. However, it's a lie. When the experimental results are re-evaluated with an open mind, it is seen that only a few mixed laevo and dextro (therefore unusable) amino acids plus a load of poisonous goo were made despite optimised conditions, a high energy input, many attempts and various adjustments to the experiment to try to get the desired result (very questionable scientifically). The experiments say more about how life CANNOT form by accident, than how it might form, therefore it has been wrongly interpreted and should be rejected as support for evolution. The response comes, 'How dare you criticise these great scientists! They were only trying to gain understanding of the world. What have YOU contributed to our understanding of life origins?'. This, again, is bluster, beside the point and a distraction. The FACTS of the Miller Urey experiment are what count. It doesn't matter how meticulous, devoted, hard working, sincere, high minded and honourable the experimenters may have been, their results are what matter. This would still be true if a drug dealer, a paedophile or Osama Bin Laden pointed it out-it is the facts that matter. And these results point most strongly against the possibility of life arising from non life without intelligent design and engineering. If pointing this out is a sin against science, then IDC advocates are in need of forgiveness, but if the Miller Urey results don't support abiogenesis, then it's right to (a) point this out, (b) ask why the results have been deliberately misrepresented in school text books, and (c) ask why the bringer of bad news (for Darwinism) should be criticised independently of the news itself.

True scientists do not object to their results being criticised. Criticism is an essential part of the search for truth through the due process of science. If a theory has been protected from due criticism because it is favoured by an influential elite who find it supports their world view, then those who drag the suppressed facts and arguments into the light are doing science the greatest possible service. Isn't that what Galileo did? Isn't that what Darwin claimed to do?

What the IDC advocate is trying to do in this context is to open people's minds to the fact that they may have been misled by an establishment that has a view about what they SHOULD believe. Of course, if experiments had shown that a full set of left handed amino acids could readily form without design, the IDC advocate would accept this and then move on to discuss the next impossible thing required by non-intelligent origin of life theory; enzymes and ribosomes to join the amino acids together, the cell wall, DNA/RNA carrying coherent and perfectly correct information, intracellular acid/base balance, intracellular energy management, active transport systems, osmotic homeostasis, etc. But they haven't, so origin of life questions don't get any farther. Unable to answer the IDC assertion with science fact, the debater (perhaps unconsciously) uses a distraction tactic in an attempt to change the subject, make the IDC advocate uncomfortable, and throw him off his guard so that he makes a mistake. The alternative, accept the fact that (sticking to this particular very significant example) the Miller Urey results tend to falsify evolution, is unacceptable. After all, evolution must be true or else there would be God, which is unthinkable.

(*) Behe is a biochemist and author of the book 'Darwin's black box' whose study of the world evolutionary literature in 1996 found not one example of a proposed intermediate pathway whereby a biochemical process could have evolved gradually by numerous small changes (a couple of  minor speculative examples e.g. some of the enzymes in Krebs cycle might have been borrowed from amino acid enzymes (although not proven, and in any event where did they come from originally?) have since been produced in response to his challenge, but it remains essentially intact despite claims to the contrary. Evolutionists hate and despise Behe for the same reasons that Galileo's scientific contemporaries hated him-for the sin of drawing attention to facts which overturned the world view with which they were comfortable. His arguments remain intact despite high level attempots to falsify them and are amplified in his recent book 'The Edge of Evolution'.
 

circular reasoning perhaps the best example of this is 'the rocks date the fossils, and the fossils date the rocks'. Other examples could be provided such as 'The possibility of special supernatural creation cannot be investigated in a science lab, therefore it's possibility cannot be considered, therefore evolution must be true even if it runs counter to scientific laws and has not been observed'. Another example of circular reasoning already mentioned is the 'peer reviewed journal' thing- "Only scientific argument that has been published in peer reviewed journals can be considered valid, arguments critical of evolution is debarred from publication, therefore there is no valid scientific argument against evolution". Creation is barred from showing up and then loses by default, just like a superior athlete who is barred from competing in the Olympics as his visa has been wrongfully confiscated by authrities who have been bribed by an opponent.

truth reversal  I'll offer an example of this from a message board debate I took part in recently. Someone made the bald assertion, as part of an anti-IDC jest, that dolphins had once been land animals and gone into the sea. I then made a post asking a number of questions about how so many parts of the dolphin's physiology (fins, dorsall nostril, echo location, etc) were perfect for its sea life and could hardly have all synchronously appeared by accident. The response came in the form of a personal insult and referral to a couple of web sites where I could have my ignorance corrected by the evidence for whale and dolphin evolution. I looked at the proferred ;'evidence', and on the first of these sites I found 2 statements of pure nonsense, asserting that dolphins 'decided' to become sea animals, and the other that their streamlined shape had appeared due to swimming. I copied and pasted these 2 pieces of nonsense into a new post and criticised both statements, pointing out that however evolution might supposedly have proceeded, it could not be a matter of an animal population 'deciding' to do something and that the idea that genetic change could occur as a result of usage was Lamarckism, which Darwinists reject. In other words, the person who had pointed this alleged evidence out to me either hadn't read it himself, or if he had, was ignorant of what evolution actually claims. HE probably needs to read some Darwin and/or Dawkins to remind himself of what he is supposed to believe.

The reply post was instructive, although not on the subject of supposed dolphin evolution. I was angrily accused of making a straw man argument, and of dishonest and ethically wrong behaviour in misrepresenting my opponent's position. In fact, far from misrepresenting his view, I had directly copied statements from the web site he had just pointed me to. So he was dishonestly accusing me of dishonesty, and accusing me of using a straw man argument by setting me up as a straw man. This is the intellectual equivalent of punching someone hard in the face and then blaming them for your hand hurting. With this level of emotional and irrational hostility so easily aroused, is it any wonder than  honest Darwin doubters keep their thoughts to themselves?

The unifying theme in all these tactics is to put the IDC person who is asking awkward questions off their guard and make them feel embarrassed and uncomfortable.

The unbiased student should by now be asking the question, what are they trying to avoid?
 

nit picking distraction This is quite common when someone makes a science point but also is incorrect in a minor detail or makes a spelling mistake, (speling miskate) something very easy to do in the hurly burly of a message board discussion. The major science point is ignored and attention is focussed on the trivial error. Actually, spelling mistakes are quite a good argument against evolution, since we make them even when we are trying hard not to and even the best spell checker isn't perfect. Isn't it marvellous that our DNA, which writes encyclopaedias of information every second, practically never makes a spelling mistake? If it did, life could not exist. It also has an associated spell check and self correcting mechanism to ensure true copying, which by the way tends to correct mutations, including any 'beneficial' ones which might occur, another 'organ which could not possibly have developed by numerous gradual changes'. Of course, nit picking, like all the other distraction and confusion creating tactics, can occur on both sides. Creationists are generally professed Christians so ought to follow the words of Jesus and behave charitably towards those who oppose us, so let's try to live up to those high standards even in the heat of debate and when people are trying to trip us up.

unfalsifiable Falsifiability is a very important concept in science (see no original research only criticism). Criticism is a word with negative associations in popular culture, but it is a good thing used properly. I want my work to be criticised fairly, if I am doing something wrong or there is an improvement I need to make, I want to know. It says in the Bible's book of proverbs that if you correct a wise man, he will thank you for it, only fools reject reproof and correction. One way of looking at the scientific process is that an idea or hypothesis is put forward, and then you try to disprove, or falsify it. To take a very simple, perhaps silly, example, I could argue that toasting pumpkin seeds prevents them germinating. This could be falsified if someone toasted a pumpkin seed and then it still germinated and grew. Lets say someone claimed to have done this, I wouldn't believe him and would ask him to repeat the experiment with witnesses. Of course he couldn't do this, since toasting a pumpkin seed really will devitalise it since the proteins cannot survive above a certain temperature. As a very simple example, this demonstrates that although the pumpkin proposition is true, it could in theory be shown false by a reasonable test which could easily be reproduced.

Is evolution falsifiable? believers say yes, critics say no. Who can decide between them? It's not as simple as the pumpkin proposition, but how difficult is it? When does the absence of evidence become evidence of absence?

The coelacanth was thought to be extinct because nobody had ever seen one, only fossils, but then they turned up alive in the depths of the Indian ocean. The supposed extinction of the coelacanth was falsifiable by finding live specimens, and it was falsified. But what of the overall concept of evolution? When the absence of living or fossil intermediate forms (beyond a tiny handful or disputed examples) is mentioned, the reply comes 'the animals must have existed, because evolution is true, but just weren't fossilized, or the fossils haven't yet been found.' Note-the finding of the requisite millions of intermediate forms predicted by Darwin's 'gradual changes over millions of years, scenario would (as Darwin hoped) falsify the belief in special creation but the acknowledged FAILURE to find them does not, it seems, falsify evolution. When it became clear during the 20th century that despite massive global efforts, the intermediate fossils predicted by Darwinism could not be found, Stephen Jay Gould the American evolutionist put forward the idea of 'punctuated equilibrium' in which it was suggested that species stood still for millennia, then rapidly evolved into other forms so quickly that no fossil evidence was left of the intermediate kinds. The only reason for putting this idea forward was the failure of the thousands of actively seeking geologists world wide to come up with the transitional fossils Darwinism needed. Paradigm busted? Gould adjusted! There is of course no evidence to support punctuated equilibrium, it is an example of confabulation.

Again, what of the biochemical evidence against molecules to man by millions of random DNA events? The components of a cell, including its many interlocking and interdependent biochemical processes, all have to be present and fully functional for the cell to exist at all. In Darwin's day almost nothing was known about the cell, today we realise it is fantastically complicated. The concept of irreducible complexity has been put forward by Michael Behe to argue that since all of the parts have to be present at once for a biological system to function, they could not have gradually come together, as, for example, carbohydrate metabolism cannot function without protein enzymes, protein based enzymes can't exist without DNA, DNA can't work without a pH balanced intracellular environment, a pH balanced intracellular environment can't exist without a cell wall, a cell wall can't exist without phospholipid synthesis....de hip bone's connected to de thigh bone...de thigh bone's connected to de shin bone...de shin bone's connected to de ankle bone....you get the picture. Behe found no example in the world evolutionary literature of a sequence whereby a single biochemical process (such as carbohydrate metabolism, protein synthesis, photosynthesis, osteogenesis etc. etc.) had been set out in model form. The importance of Behe's work is that while it is possible to use artist's impressions and cartoon morphing to purportedly show how for example a mouse gradually turned into a bat over millions of years, you can't fake the biochemistry in this way. We know what the chemicals are, so if there was a way that haemoglobin or chlorophyll or any one of the other indispensable and irreducibly complex biological chemical had arisen gradually through millions of changes, each one a little better than the last, it should be possible for a research biochemist to write down a theoretical sequence. Nobody has. As Behe states, 'the biochemical theory of evolution has not published, so it should perish'. Surely this falsifies evolution? Not a bit of it. They just won't have it. Behe's arguments have been criticised but not answered. He has to defend himself against attacks, which he is well able to do, on the Internet since he is denied access to per review journals, then criticised since he is not in peer reviewed journals!

For me, these examples underline the fact that evolution is 'unfalsifiable'. Whatever objection is made is side stepped and we are just told 'evolution is cleverer than you' 'evolution is true, as the sky is blue', 'evolution did it, dimbo' or some  other such retort.

confabulation This term is used to describe what an alcoholic (or dope smoker) does when he is trying to explain where he was last weekend. He can't remember as he was stoned out of his mind for 72 hours, but won't admit it. He makes up a suitable story, when it is challenged, adds a bit more, when contradicted changes his story to accommodate the latest piece of information, making it all up as he goes along. Depending on how much of his intellect and dignity he has left, and how much alcohol or cannabis is still in his brain, at some stage he may stop and admit he doesn't know, but in extreme cases can go on for hours, contradicting himself, denying the contradiction, shamelessly changing the story, etc. I've seen people do this, stoned, drunk or just plain lying. Whatever happens, he just will not admit he was wrong. His story is, to his own mind, unfalsifiable.

Not only substance abusers behave like this. Either side in the Darwin/IDC debate is capable of it. It is much better when faced with a question one cannot answer satisfactorily, to say so. Some research can always be done, which could even lead the sincere seeker for truth to change their mind based on facts. A fool will lightly skip from one piece of nonsense to another, staying put in their comfort zone and never allowing themselves to imagine that their world view might be mistaken. But where alternative world views are in plain, irreconcilable opposition, surely someone must be mistaken? Better to go with the facts and admit you are wrong and make changes if this is the case than skip from fabrication to fabrication.

distraction in a sense, most of the above strategies are about distraction. If the matter in hand can be settled by pure reason and facts, there is no need for distraction. A very typical distraction tactic used by evolutionists is to change the subject from science to religion. If I ask a question or make a point about the Cambrian explosion (sudden appearance of all kinds of creatures fully formed without ancestors in the deepest fossil bearing rocks), my opponent may wish to talk instead about the fact that innocent children suffer as AIDS orphans, and what is God doing about that? The presence of suffering in the world is an issue which has occupied theologians and philosophers forever, and AIDS is a major global issue. As a concerned Christian I am willing to discuss both issues-but in this context the Darwin defender is raising them to distract us from talking about the issue I raised-one which raises major problems for the Darwin synthesis. Examples could be multiplied, just follow any on line message board discussion on the subject and watch for distraction tactics.

'hands off our children!'  Evolutionists love to get 'righteously' angry, sometimes almost hysterical, about the idea that IDC advocates want to 'indoctrinate' their children. Does it ever occur to them that we might be unhappy about THEM indoctrinating OUR children? This is an emotive and misleading use of language. IDC advocates do not say that children should be 'taught creationism', but object to the teaching of evolution as unquestionable fact, with concerns and questions suppressed. Militant secularists paint a caricatured picture of what is actually happening in the few schools and colleges where both sides of the argument are taught. Creationists are happy to see students of all ages being taught true biology (protein synthesis, Krebs cycle, anatomy, physiology, photosynthesis etc), the CLAIMS and BELIEFS of evolution, the ACTUAL evidence, and the questions, problems and counterclaims. This is a good opportunity to introduce them to the concept of differences of opinion over evidence and teach them critical thinking. The real problem here is that when people hear about the frauds (almost unbelievably, the faked Haeckel embryo drawings are STILL finding their way into new textbooks to support the discredited recapitulation theory) the denied counter arguments, the false interpretation of data (as in the Miller Urey experiments) and the complexity of the cell as an example of irreducible complexity, some at least of the more critical ones will see that the theory of evolution is not supported by good evidence and will abandon it. So you can see why the passionately convinced atheist whose world view depends on evolution does not want young people to hear about the very real problems with his beliefs, just as the Roman Catholic power in the time of the Reformation did not want people to be able to read the Bible for themselves in case they came to inconvenient conclusions and challenged The Authority.

Could anything be more obvious than that evolution has to be constantly indoctrinated into children from the youngest age since it rests on weak evidence, goes against scientific laws and cannot be observed, and that the proponents of evolution require the evidence against it to be suppressed? Richard Dawkins said in an emotional voice on the Radio 4 Today programme in this context that 'teaching creationism' to children (by which he meant teaching evolution AND the evidence against it) was 'tantamount to child abuse'. He didn't on that occasion say 'child sex abuse' but having studied his skilled oratory tactics I suspect would have been happy for listeners to make that association, if he didn't intend it, which he probably did. So the teacher who says to a child 'Of course, the peppered moths are still peppered moths so no evolution has taken place' is morally equivalent to the stepfather who says 'We are going to the shed to play a special game that's a secret from mummy, if you don't tell I'll buy you a new playstation.' He should be shunned by honest scientists, even those who share his evolutionary and atheistic beliefs, for using such tactics.

Interestingly, schools such as the Vardy foundation school in Gateshead where children are allowed to hear arguments from both sides as opposed to pure didactic evolutionary teaching get good inspection results and are very popular with parents. Mr Vardy explicitly denied that he was a creationist on radio 4 when accused of being one when interviewed by 'Jim' Nauchtie, having denied it previously but still being accused of this heinous crime, so the outrage is somewhat feigned. Nauchtie had either forgotten or was being deliberately biased, either way he should have apologised for a glaring factual error. It goes without saying that he did not, he continues to use his priveliged position to attack Darwin dissent (Which he and the BBC always call 'creationism') on BBC radio's flagship news and current affairs programme, in hostile debates on creationism which NEVER include a creationist.

appeal to exalted personality Of course science, unlike art or sport, is not about the individual but the facts and arguments. As T H Huxley 'Darwin's bulldog' said 'science is about slaying a beautiful story with an ugly fact', in other words, if you don't like it, tough but fact are facts whether you like it or not and regardless of who brings them. Evolution is seen by many as a beautiful system of understanding the natural world and IDC arguments against it are seen as ugly, even disrespectful. If you go into the Natural History Museum in London (and you certainly should) you will see large marble statues of Darwin and Huxley, seated on throne-like chairs. Darwin particularly is held in very high esteem by many, his head is on the British £10 note and he was very nearly voted the man of the millennium in a recent BBC TV poll. He is described as a liberator of men's' minds and a great hero of science. Criticising Darwinism is seen by some as offensive, almost blasphemous, because it tarnishes the precious name of this exalted man. 'How dare you speak out against such a Great Scientist?'. The answer is of course, because regardless of how sincere, inspired, brilliant or hard working he was, he made speculations which were not supported by evidence even at the time and which in the light of new evidence are completely unsustainable.

Of course, both sides in any debate cite books, authorities, and arguments made by others. This is acceptable, it would be ridiculous to say that nobody could comment on a subject unless they had a higher degree or had done original work in it, or comment on geology unless they had personally dug up and classified hundreds of fossils, so of course we all quote books and authorities. But it is the arguments and facts that matters, not the status or personality of the group or individual who put them forward. Holding exalted personalities and their views in respectful awe may be justifiable, but should never hold back enquiry that might overthrow their views. Similarly, it does not matter a jot in this context who I am.

The facts and arguments matter.

blind with science Evolutionists often say in response to an argument about, say the impossibility of protein synthesis in a supposed 'pre-biotic soup', forgery and misrepresentation of fossils, the deleterious nature of phenotypic mutations, dishonesty of presenting peppered moths as an example of evolution when they clearly aren't, irreducible complexity etc., 'Ah yes, but if you understood XYZ you would know that this isn't a problem.' Asked to elaborate on this point, they will say 'go away and do an advanced degree in biology, or study the specimens in the university of Nebraska, then you will understand. Until then, don't bother me with your ignorance.' This of course is our old friend the distraction/evasion tactic, delivered with a generous twist of disdainful elitism. The point is, not that real science must always be easy, it isn't, but if they can prove evolution by the esoteric XYZ argument (which happens to be too clever for a thicko like you to understand) then why can't they prove it with the well known examples which are in all the books, were rammed down your throat at school, you have studied, understood and now in your adulthood disagree with, and want to talk about? After all, these were the examples which allegedly converted the world to Darwinism long before XYZ did his fabulous research which is so clever only biology pHDs can understand, or even have access to it?

Another example is the bold assertion that '97% (or whatever they say) of our DNA is the same as a chimpanzee'. This is likely to be very impressive to someone who doesn't know a lot of science and intimidate them into shutting up or even agreeing. Of course if they had time to stop and look things up, they would realise that we also share a large percentage of our DNA with mice, (and indeed rice) and that they are only measuring the DNA that codes for proteins, not the rest, the so-called 'junk DNA' which may be more important than is thought, perhaps as an operating system which rather than merely coding for the proteins tells them where to go and what to do. As many of our basic structures (bone, blood, skin, liver, neurones etc.) are the same, you would expect substantial DNA overlap under any system of origins. How many ways are there to make a red blood cell, or bone? This sort of 'factoid' is neither here nor there. It is blinding with science to throw this stuff at people.

Examples could be multiplied of people referring to an allegedly problem solving piece of evidence which is in a museum or university library somewhere it can't be examined. This is a difficult strategy to counter other than by asking for further explanation or time to look it up. This 'blind with science' approach  commonly used to intimidate into silence rather than educate. As a doctor who spends a lot of his time trying to simplify and explain things to my patients most of whom know far less science than me but who are not too stupid to learn when someone takes time to explain, I find it a condescending and insulting approach which speaks badly of those who use it.

Evolutionists are very happy to simplify, indeed oversimplify, science when they are indoctrinating trusting young children. Why can't they simplify it when they are answering the questions of sceptical adults? The more they use demeaning, insulting and evasive tactics, the more they reinforce the sceptic's belief that they CANNOT explain to why they are wrong to doubt Darwin, because their objections are well founded.

'there is no debate'  Another triumphalist lie. What evolutionists mean by this is that they like to believe that their side won hands down a long time ago and there is to be no rematch allowed, so critics and dissenters should just shut up. As readers may have noticed, some of us reject this arrogant, unscientific attitude. Regardless of whether or not prominent Darwinists refuse invitations to public debates with creationists (which as a rule, they do), the arguments have not gone away. The fossils Darwin believed would prove evolution have not been found, every new discovery about the cell shows it is even more complicated than we thought (therefore harder to suppose as arising by accident), the gradual stepwise incremental approach which Darwin proposed has been exposed by Behe and others as being incompatible with what we know about biochemistry, and the materialist secular humanism which is so largely founded on Darwin's world view may have freed people up to follow their sexual desires without restraint and give up Christianity, but has not  made them happier. A new generation of scientifically literate people, mostly but not all Christians, are looking at the Darwinist synthesis and the science facts, rubbing their eyes and asking themselves how such stuff and nonsense came to be the basis of our world view. They are not prepared to be told by a mutually appointed 'scientific' priesthood that we must accept as fact the philosophical speculations of Darwinism, based on the lies, evasions, half-truths, misrepresentations and bullying documented in this site and the linked sites.

So there is a debate., deny it or engage with it.
 
 
 

The above is not a complete list of the rhetorical and other devices and tactics used to respond to criticism of Darwin's theory. Some counter arguments are so convoluted as to defy description and new tactics are coming into play all the time. The old ones are still the best ones- the big lie, the speculation presented as fact, bullying, bluster, mockery, censorship, personal abuse and changing the subject. Sometimes half a dozen different strategies can occur in a couple of sentences, leaving the embattled dissenter so many tangled strands to unpick that he forgets the original question.

These strategies would be unnecessary if Darwin's theory were as well founded as we are told it is. It is not.

It is true that the greatest fool can ask a question that the wisest man cannot answer, but it is also true that a wise man may ask a fool, or another wise man, a question which he could answer but does not want to, and therefore he changes the subject or uses some other diversionary tactic. The honest enquirer can take note of the arguments they hear and read and hopefully make up their own mind based on reason and logic rather than who shouts the loudest or uses the cleverest tricks. Or go back to sleep if you'd prefer.
 
 

 return to menu