Just in time to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the publication of his book.
Isn’t that odd?
A dead lemur is exciting. But only if you’re into that kinda thing.
Well, they have got to do something to revive their fortunes! First the Evos are forced to cut down Darwin’s “tree of life”, then their Evo-prediction of the genome being comprised mostly of “junk” DNA went down the tubes, and let’s not forget about how all their phylogenetic trees are failing to predict known “evolutionary” histories...not to mention the fact that there situation only continues to get worse with respect to the fossil record, cosmology, etc, etc. Indeed, I can’t think of a worse time to be a crew member on the HMS Beagle. Man the life boats!
Strangely enough, virtually all of the best and most distinguished researchers in the life and biological sciences in the world find a Darwinian evolutionary view the most satisfactory explanation of human origins. By “best” and “most distinguished” I mean those hold faculty positions at the top-tier Universities and that engage in well funded and productive research and supervise doctoral training programs. To the degree that scientists of comparable quality in other fields express a public opinion, near similar unanimity may be observed. The “best” of the “best” come from this population and are those that, for example, are elected to the National Academy of Sciences in the US or the Royal Society in England and win the Nobel Prizes awarded for research accomplishment. I make the latter distinction because Al Gore was given a Peace Prize, confirming that politics can and does single out fools.
The ranks of “Creation Science”, (at best an oxymoron) are populated by an odd lot of otherwise nice people that are in strong majority not sufficiently qualified (and consequently do not) to hold similar positions. Very few “creation scientists” hold even tenure track positions in third tier teaching colleges. The primary distinction of many is that they publish illogical and pseudo-scientific “Cretin Science” pieces in places like AIG which are then linked as if they constitute something other than pseudo-scientific buffoonery. Creation Science is not science and is proof positive of weak faith. It is proof positive of the dictim that "it is often better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt."
If God is on the side of the Creation Science crowd, why couldn't he find a higher caliber of advocate? And once again, if a “great flood” covered all of the earth, where did the water go after wards? If creation science relies on the great flood to account for the fossil record, it needs a plausible answer to this question.