Arguements Against Darwinism, By Coulter

This is a brief summary of three chapters from the book Godless, by Ann Coulter. While she is a quite outspoken and at times combative figure, her book brings together a lot of information against Darwinism in one spot.

(This is a compressed summary, the textual flow represents this)

Darwinian evolution looked at as proposed currently as synthetic neo darwinism, as
random, telos-less evolution as explanation of every living thing existing in all its features.

Believers in God do not need evolution to be true or not, and many could care less, God
could do evolution or not, we should just follow honest science to learn what happened.
But Richard Dawkins - "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist"
Atheist must have evolution be true to keep their philosophy alive.

Colin Patterson, Natural History Museum in London, asked the geology staff of the field
Museum of Natural History, "name one thing, anything you know about evolution, any
one thing that you know to be true" no answer was given, a long silence.

It does not mean change over time as a definition of evolution, everyone can see that
animals change over time, by evolution it means every living thing descended from single
celled organisms by random mutation and natural selection, meaning everything that
exists is an accident.

Selective breeding is not evolution, nor are developed immunities or adaptations - these
remain within a species, not create new species. Genetic similarities do not prove
evolution, nor does the heritablity of characteristics, nor the age of the earth. One can
challenge evolution without adhering to a literal 6 day creation as mentioned in Genesis.

Three aspects of evolution to look at closer, 1) Random mutations, 2) Natural selection
weeding out less fit, 3) Creation of new species, 4) Behavior of the Darwinists.

1. Random Mutations.
A mutation gives no benefit for a higher organism. Useful small mutations must be
together with many other mutations simultaneously to create a functioning wing or turtle
shell or ear that actually gives benefit. Majority of mutation harm organisms, deform them
and kill them or make them unhealthy.

Darwinians say a mutation may give a benefit in a way we do not know that is different
than the benefit resulting. An assumption about something we do not know is not proof.
Still does not explain the huge number of mutation needed to perceive any possible
benefit. And Darwin knew nothing of DNA, nor the inside of a cell.

Darwin set up the way to disprove his theory saying, "If it could be demonstrated that any
complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous,
successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." This is an
impossible test - to demonstrate that an organ, "could not possibly form" by steps. Of
course it is "possible" no matter how improbable. Apply the same test to God, "If it could
be demonstrated that any complex organ existed that could not have been created by God,
the God theory would break down." This is a ridiculous and un-scientific test of a theories
validity, not to mention the complex organs found that are irreducibly complex, such as
bacteria motor flagellum with 30-40 protein parts, the absence of almost any one renders
the part useless. There are many others. Example given is mousetrap, if any part is missing
you do not get a trap that only catches half the mice, it is not a mousetrap at all and catches
no mice.

Molecular level biology such as the flagellum is a mathematical impossibility to evolve. In
answer to these organs, the reply is "we do not understand them yet, we will figure out
how evolution did it someday." Again, not a proof, more like a belief. Evolutionist Jerry
Coyne, Univ of Chicago claims, "we may forever be unable to envisage the first proto
pathways." So evolutions not just unproven, its maybe unprovable... The answer from an
Evolutionist is always, "it is fact and well known, we just do not understand it yet." But if
it is not understood how, and your whole theory exists to explain how, then your theory
is not fact, its not even a good theory.

The eye has been an example used against evolution for a long time, and despite 200 years
of seeking an answer, evolutionists have no answer, they say with Darwin, "maybe it began
as a small patch of light sensitive cells, slowly creating a socket and increasing focus. Apart
from being a guess (not any evidence) it leaves aside the question where did the amazing
light sensitive cells come from? A light sensitive cell needs not only the cell, but the its
ability to initiate an electric signal along a nerve to carry it to the brain, and a brain capable
of processing the signal and using the info to emit other signals too. The famous computer
models mentioned by evolutionists (such as Dawkins) showing the development of an
eye are a non existent urban myth. Its not enough to say "its possible", it is also possible
that an alien galactic ruler Xenu brought life to earth and scattered it around the planet
with explosions.

Sir Fred Hoyle mathematically ran probability for the basic enzymes of life to arise by
random, the odds are 1 to 1 followed by 40,000 zeros. He rejected Darwinism therefore
and thought up panspermia. Francis Crick, Nobel winner for DNA work, thought life
arising by Darwinism was absurd, and thought aliens had sent it from space in unmanned
craft. This is rigorous science right?

2. Survival of the Fittest, Natural Selection.
A tautology, a phrase that says the same thing twice in a circular argument, is not a logical
theory. Evolution claims "survival of the fittest" and who are the fittest? - "The ones that
survive!" Therefore survival of the fittest happens everytime, since what survives must
then be called the fittest! If something less fit survives, it must automatically become the
fittest since it survived. A tautology argument cannot be disproved because it is not
science. Fruit fly experiments to make them avoid eating poison (a trait that seems quite
fit) showed the opposite, the new "non poison eating flies" died out more than the regular
ones that ate poison and reproduced more. Thus the Scientific American magazine comes
out and says, "Cleverness May Carry Survival Costs" and then called the study a success in
proving evolution. In anyone else's mind this experiment was a failure for evolution, but
since a tautology cannot be disproved, evolutionists claim it as a win.

Explanations of evolution always assume a lot and are filled with words such as perhaps,
maybe, might have, possibly, could have, imagine. These words do not make a scientific
argument, "Imagine a giant raccoon might have passed gas, and perhaps the resulting
flatulence might have created a new variety of life..." The Raccoon Gas theory is "possible"
but requires one to assume so much that it is dismissed - but if one dismisses Darwinism
one immediately becomes a fundamentalist nut case who thinks the world is flat.

3. Making new species.
This last claim by Darwinism is still on the To-Do list. No evidence yet showing this has
ever happened. When Darwin came out in 1859 his biggest critics were paleontologists,
since there was no fossil record of anything Darwin claimed. Darwin dismissed them
saying it just was not found yet.

Jump to today, nothing is found yet. The fossil record if filled with a lot of fossils, many
found since Darwin, and is shows all the new species appearing out of nowhere, remaining
largely unchanged, and then suddenly disappearing. No fossils show gradual development
of one species to another. There is actually less fossil record now than in Darwin's time,
since some cases, such as the horse, have been discarded. Darwinism pushed ahead, fossil
record be damned!

There should be a near infinite variety of transitional fossils with small mutations such as a
frog's ribs becoming fused together and wide and moving outside its body to become a
turtle shell. But there are none. No fossils connecting the extinct to the existing. Rather
there was a sudden burst of all manner of animals, some slight change, then extinction.
Reptiles were quickly followed by mammals, with no record of transition. There are also
no fossils of the "un-fit" with mutations that did not benefit. If natural selection was striking
down the losers, then for each helpful mutation there should be a staggering number of
undesirable ones. But there are none. If only the helpful changes happen, and do it quickly,
then this is not random, it is deliberate, and then you get into the whole issue of
"intelligent design".

Darwinians try to say that the useless mutation simply didn't fossilize, therefore there is no
record, and stop asking so many questions! The lack of fossil record is cited saying there is
just to little data. That might explain "some" missing gaps in the record, but does not
explain no record at all. Harvard evolutionist Stephen Gould says, "the evolutionary trees
in textbooks have data only at the tips, the rest in inference...not the evidence of
fossils."

Some point to Archaeopteryx as the one transitional fossil linking reptile and bird. but is is
not actually related to the bird, and appeared and died out quickly, transitioning into
nothing. It had no predecessors that can be found, and the ones coming after that look sort
of like it are millions of years later.

The Cambrian era is the thorn in Darwinians theory. 500 millions years ago in a short
period a sudden explosion of almost all the animal phyla we have today started.
Evolutionist Dawkins says, "it is as though they were all planted there, without
evolutionary theory." Cambrian period was about 5-10 million years long, the smallest
frame of time that can be pinpointed with current paleontology. Darwinians ask us to
assume the pre-Cambrian fossils just failed to materialize since they were soft-bodied. But
pre-Cambrian Chinese fossils are discovered, fossilized just fine, and all there was were
worms and sponges, the types of things Darwinians claim do not fossilize well. 3 billions
years of nothing but worms, then suddenly all types of animals, "as if they were planted
there"says Jan Bergstrom, paleontologist examining the Pre-Cambrian fossils. Even the
eye appeared at the beginning of the Cambrian period, with no record of light sensitive
sockets before it.

Darwinism is not a theory with gaps, it is one large gap. They see that some species look
similar, such as apes and humans, so they draw a made up "tree of life" classifying the
species and call it a proof of evolution. Just because a bat wing and a human hand have
similar bone structure does not show any ancestral relation, it must be assumed. One can
only look at a lungfish and say it is a transition between regular fish and land going animals
if one previously holds Darwinian beliefs. Otherwise it is just another kind of fish (and why
did it never evolve into a land going animal anyway...?) Fossils show no parent/descendant
relations. The charts of what proceeds what are always being rearranged, each stage being
presented as fact until it is replaced.

Evolutionists make up many fancy stories. Such as a squirrel with a little bit flappier skin can
 jump farther, and is favored by natural selection, so each generation produces more
squirrels with flaps of skin flying further. Moving the skin flaps allows controlled flight and
eventually becomes flapping of wings. Finally this becomes a bat. ... OK, Except a bat has
very elongated and complicated bones to make wings, and sophisticated sonar. How did
that all come together without hurting the squirrels survival chance. Skinny long bones help
flying, but do not help a squirrel, but they would make a squirrel very ungainly and
unsteady. Lets not add in that squirrels eat nuts and bats eat bugs, and there are no fossils
of half squirrel bat-things. But for evolutionists squirrel plus bat equals a great story.
Another great story. Two blobs of cell clumps in the same puddle, one becomes a worm,
one becomes a human. Why has the worm never made any progress?

The similar DNA among animals is often brought up. A human is 98.7% identical
genetically with a chimp. So Darwinians like Roger Fouts of Central Washington University
concludes humans are just odd looking apes. Except to use DNA as proof proves too much.
Humans  are also 35% genetically identical to a daffodil. Do I look 35% daffodil? Which parts of me?

Darwin's Galapagos finches are cited for their adapting beaks. But the beaks just change
shape depending on the climate and go back again when the climate changes, nothing ever
actually evolves. 170 years after Darwin saw them, they are the same.

Under laboratory condition no evolution has ever been able to be produced. Fruit fly
forced evolution never did anything but stay a fruit fly. The "evidence" that has been
found has turned out to be frauds. The manlike ape was found in 1912, everyone rejoiced
at the missing link now proved. For 50 years Piltdown man was fact in textbooks. The
traits of Piltdown man matched exactly what scientists were looking for in a transitional
man-ape. Articles about it were "peer reviewed", the scientists were awarded. Then in
1953 it was shown to be a complete fake. The ape jaw was artificially stained, the teeth
filed down, the scull was human - all a fraud.

Then the peppered moth came along that was pale but since soot turned its trees black in
England, it was now turning black too. E.B.Ford from Oxford "discovered" it had evolved
to match its environment! It was hailed as the "prize horse" proof of Darwinism. Tests
were done taking the city moths to the country and country moths to the city to see if they
change color, and indeed moths survived differently when they did not match
surroundings. Birds could see them at eat them easier. After decades of articles and
textbooks including this "proof" of evolution, someone who actually knows (Ted Seargent
- lepidopterist, not magazine editors and textbook writers) finally piped up and pointed
out that peppered moths do not live on tree trucks, they live on underside of branches,
and they sleep at day and only fly at night. Turns out Ford had rigged the whole scheme,
gluing moths to tree trunks for photos. New York Times calls the "famous example now
infamous".

Obviously evolutionists who claim to be interested only in evidence and facts reacted
correctly right? No, Seargent who exposed the fraud was demonized and his career
ruined, and the photos remain in some textbooks today, and the New Scientist cites the
moth study in an article in 2005. Darwinians then have the guts to say their opponents are
anti-science.

Then there were the drawings of embryos from different species that all look about the
same at the early stage, made by Haeckel. This does not prove anything accept embryos look
similar at early stages. Darwin loved Haeckel's drawings and hailed them the "strongest class
of facts" But then in 1990's embryologist Michael Richardson used microscopes to look at
actual embryos and found they look nothing like Haeckel's drawings. He published it all in
1997. The scientific community showed their commitment to truth by ignoring his expose
and claiming the drawings were not needed anyway. Then why were they hailed in all the
textbooks?

Then the Miller-Urey experiment in 1953 duplicated what they thought was the early
earths atmosphere, zapped it with electricity, and then found amino acids in the soup.
These acids are not life but are blocks used by life to build. However no one has ever
duplicated it, and now geochemists do not think their "soup" is anything like the early
earth's. There remains no plausible account of how life came to be.

4) Behavior of the holders of Random Darwinism.

All these are not gaps in an otherwise sound theory, these gaps are the theory, there is no
plausible theory, it is a collection of "what if" stories. Evolutionists call anyone who
disagrees a fundamentalist or flat-earth backward God nut, but they create fanciful stories
that they cling to with a religious zeal equal to any other. Critics are responded to with,
"you are just saying that because you believe in God" which is not an answer to an
argument. If you cheat me out of money when giving me change at the checkout line and
I call you on it, you cannot just say, "Hey you are just saying that because you believe in
God." No, the issue needs to be addressed.

The only evolutionist who ever bothered to answer critics and respond was Steven Gould,
and he ended up conceding so much that he was called, "the Gorbachev of Darwinism".
Textbooks are not allowed to mention that Darwinism is doubted by some. If a school says
something like it, they are taken to court (Dover PA). Those scientific editors that allow
an article critical of evolution slip by are ruined, such as PhD's Richard Sternberg writer, and
Stephen Meyer publisher. Sternberg was discredited and banished from the Smithsonian. A
lawsuit revealed he had been called a Creationist, a priestly seminarian, of faking his
degrees, etc, none of which was true, all of which was made up to get him fired. The
lawsuit vindicated him but the damage was done. Anyone else want to publish an article
critical of Darwinism...? Any skeptics ready to be destroyed? No? Good, evolution is
proved again!

Even the whole Scopes trial was fabricated by the Town Council to get recognition for their
town. The trial and arrest were set up for publicity. Yet the movie Inherit the Wind about
the poor evolutionist teaching in high school being arrested for it is a great hit and is
shown in schools all the time. The city even had the Scopes Trail entertainment
Committee to coordinate events around the trial.

This is not science at its best, this is not even science...