Dear Creationist,
We who follow conventional science appreciate your zeal and commitment in desiring to show us the errors of evolution. However, it has been our experience that the vast majority of challengers such as yourself are woefully unequipped for this endeavor. So in order to save us all some time and grief, and to keep you from making an utter fool of yourself, we have prepared this text to help you out.
Step 1: Do you know anything at all about evolution? (you'd be surprised how many creationists don't) Please answer the following yes or no questions:
1. Does evolution rely entirely on randomness?
2. Does evolution violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
3. Does evolution say anything about the origin of life?
4. Does evolution say anything about the origin of the universe?
5. Does evolution deny the existence of God?
6. Does evolution proceed from simplicity to complexity?
7. Does evolution proceed from lower to higher lifeforms?
8. Does evolution incorporate the notion of progress?
9. Does evolution have any moral consequences?
10. Does evolution stipulate any political attitudes?
11. Is evolution incompatible with any major religion?
12. Is it true that their are no transitional forms?
Step 2: Scoring. Count up the number of times you answered "yes". If this number is zero, proceed to step 3. Otherwise slam your head against the wall as many times as you answered "yes" and go back to step 1.
Step 3: Materials. Do you have any materials authored by members of the ICR? If so throw them away. Use them here and you will be held responsible for the blatant lies and stupidity in them.
Step 4: Conventional Science Quotes. Are you planning to present quotes from conventional scientists that seem to express disagreement with evolution? If so, make sure that you have them from the original sources and that they are quoted in full and in context. If you have misquotes and typical creationist butcher jobs, you will be destroyed without mercy.
Step 5: Creationist Quotes. If you have quotes from creationists, they'd better be supported. And if the creationists claim educational or scientific backgrounds, degrees, titles, and such, you'd better check them and make sure they are accurate. If we catch you quoting liars, we will treat you as a liar yourself.
Step 6: Anecdotes. If you have stories of things that you think bolster your case, be prepared to cite verifiable specifics. Be assured that you will be checked up on.
Step 7: Faqs. There are some wonderful faq files available. Read them. Carefully. All the way through.
Step 8: Congratulations, you are ready to argue against evolution. Please state your first objection.
Here's an opportunity to see how good you are at refuting evolution scientifically. That means using science, not faith. If you have faith that evolution is false, that's great for you but has nothing to do with science.
HOW TO PLAY
Just write a series of statements showing either inadequacy in the basic tenets of evolution, or contradictory evidence.
It is not necessary to absolutely disprove evolution, just give us something to rock conventional science.
Your statements will be evaluated and assigned points. 10 points wins.
PROCEDURE
1. To enter the game, leave a post declaring your intention to play. You may start making statements in that post if you like.
2. You will then have 60 days to make as many posts as you like with statements for the game. If you do not make 10 points in those 60 days you will have to start over.
3. All posts in the game should have ANTI-EVOLUTION GAME as the subject line and contain only statements relevant to the game. Anything else will not be counted.
WINNING
SCORING
TYPE OF STATEMENT, AND POINTS EARNED FOR IT:
Observation of spontaneous generation of a modern lifeform either from nothing or from nonliving elements: 5 points
Explanation of how totally independent dating methods agree so well if the dates they show are wrong: 5 points
Evidence showing that all remains of Earth are younger than 1 million years: 3 points
Example of total genetic discontinuity (polymerase chain reaction) between two species considered closely related by conventional science: 2 points
Example of two species considered separated by over 100 million years of time by conventional science found to be contemporaneous: 2 points
Example of a fossil considered over 2 million years old by conventional science showing the exact same genetic makeup as a modern member of the same species: 1 point
Correct statement of the theory of evolution: 1 point
Any other single statement showing you understand evolution: 1 point
Any quote from secondary sources: -1 point
Any statement mischaracterizing evolution: -1 point
Misunderstanding of the difference between theory and fact: -2 points
Misunderstanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: -2 points
Misunderstanding of entropy, order, randomness or complexity: -2 points
Misunderstanding of the use of C-14 dating: -2 points
Misunderstanding of isochron dating: -2 points
Misunderstanding of nuclear decay: -2 points
Misunderstanding of the speed of light: -2 points
Appeal to supernatural entities. Such is outside the framework of science: -2 points
Misquoting or distorting someone's statement: -3 points
Mischaracterizing a disagreement on the hows of evolution as doubt of the fact of evolution: -4 points
Appeal to your own ignorance "I don't see how else..." is a description of your personal inadequacy, not that of conventional science: -4 points
Outright lie. It doesn't matter if you didn't know it was a lie: -5 points
Use of argument already thoroughly refuted. You are responsible for looking these things up: -5 points
Appeal to moral consequences. That has no bearing on truth value: -5 points
But an influential relative got him a position as unpaid "naturalist" on a ship planning to sail around the world, the Beagle. The voyage lasted from December 1831 to October 1836.
… During horseback travels into the interior, he took part in their ceremonies and, as a result, something happened to him. Upon his return to England, although his health was strangely weakened, he spent the rest of his life working on theories… {to explain life without need of a creator}.
After leaving South America, Darwin was on the Galapagos Islands for a few days. While there, he saw some Finches, Darwin's finches which had blown in from South America and adapted to their environment, producing several sub-species. He was certain that this showed cross-species evolution (change into new species). But they were still finches. This theory about the finches was the primary evidence of evolution he brought back with him to England.
Darwin, never a scientist and knowing nothing about the practicalities of genetics, then married his first cousin, which resulted in all seven of his children having physical or mental disorders. (One girl died after birth, another at 10. His oldest daughter had a prolonged breakdown at 15. Three of his six sons became semi-invalids, and his last son was born mentally retarded and died 19 months after birth.)
His book, Origin of the Species, was first published in November 1859. The full title, On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, reveals… {‘his’ underlying concepts}
Side note:
Karl Marx (1818-1883) is closely linked with Darwinism. That which *Darwin did to biology, Marx with the help of others did to society. All the worst political philosophies of the 20th century emerged from the dark cave of Darwinism. Marx was thrilled when he read Origin of the Species and he immediately wrote Darwin and asked to dedicate his own major work, Das KapitalDas Kapital, to him. Darwin, in his reply, thanked him but said it would be best not to do so.
In 1866, Marx wrote to Frederick Engels, that Origin of the Species contained the basis in natural history for their political and economic system for an atheist world. Engels, the co-founder of world communism with Marx and *Lenin, wrote to Karl Marx in 1859: "Darwin, whom I am just now reading, is splendid" (C. Zirkle, Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene, 1959, p. 85). In 1861, Marx wrote to Engels: "Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural selection for the class struggle in history" (*op. cit., p. 86). At Marx’s funeral, Engles said that, as Darwin had discovered the law of organic evolution in natural history, so Marx had discovered the law of evolution in human history (*Otto Ruhle, Karl Marx, 1948, p. 366).
Note: The above was to show why many associate Darwin with Marx. In Darwin’s defense, I do not believe he intended to establish communism with his theory.
Back to his book:
In his book, Darwin reasoned from theory to facts, and provided little evidence for what he had to say. Modern evolutionists are ashamed of the book, with its ridiculous arguments.
Darwin’s book had what some men wanted: a clear out-in-the-open, current statement in favor of species change. So, in spite of its laughable imperfections, they capitalized on it. Here is what you will find in his book:
Darwin would cite authorities that he did not mention. He repeatedly said it was "only an abstract," and "a fuller edition" would come out later. But, although he wrote other books, try as he may he never could find the proof for his theories. No one since has found it either.
When he did name an authority, it was just an opinion from a letter. Phrases indicating the hypothetical nature of his ideas were frequent: "It might have been," "Maybe," "probably," "it is conceivable that." A favorite of his was: "Let us take an imaginary example."
Darwin would suggest a possibility, and later refer back to it as a fact: "As we have already demonstrated previously." Elsewhere he would suggest a possible series of events and then conclude by assuming that proved the point.
He relied heavily on stories instead of facts. Confusing examples would be given. He would use specious and devious arguments, and spent much time suggesting possible explanations why the facts he needed were not available.
Here is an example of his reasoning: To explain the fossil trans-species gaps, Darwin suggested that species must have been changing quickly in other parts of the world where men had not yet examined the strata. Later these changed species traveled over to the Western World, to be found in strata there as new species. So species were changing on the other side of the world, and that was why species in the process of change were not found on our side! To explain the fossil trans-species gaps, Darwin suggested that species must have been changing quickly in other parts of the world where men had not yet examined the strata. Later these changed species traveled over to the Western World, to be found in strata there as new species. So species were changing on the other side of the world, and that was why species in the process of change were not found on our side!
With thinking like this, who needs science? But remember that Charles Darwin never had a day of schooling in the sciences.
Here is Darwin’s explanation of how one species changes into another:
It is a variation of Lamarck’s theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics (*Nicholas Hutton III, Evidence of Evolution, 1962, p. 138). Calling it pangenesis, Darwin said that an organ affected by the environment would respond by giving off particles that he called gemmules. These particles supposedly helped determine hereditary characteristics. The environment would affect an organ; gemmules would drop out of the organ; and the gemmules would travel to the reproductive organs, where they would affect the cells (W. Stansfield, Science of Evolution, 1977, p. 38). As mentioned earlier, scientists today are ashamed of Darwin’s ideas.
In his book, Darwin taught that man came from an ape, and that the stronger races would, within a century or two, destroy the weaker ones. (Modern evolutionists claim that man and ape descended from a common ancestor.)
Note: This is what was attractive to Marx and Hitler… Once again, in Darwin’s defense, I do not believe this to be his intent.
He developed a chronic and incapacitating illness, and went to his death under a depression he could not shake (Random House Encyclopedia, 1977, p. 768).
Great, Scientific American has met the first criteria, and those citing the article that has the lie are therefore "liars" by your estimation.