Evolutionists make religious and metaphysical claims that mandate the truth of evolution. Fundamental predictions of their theory turn out to be false. And evolutionists use fallacious reasoning to argue for their theory. These are facts.

Consider, for example, Darwin's circular reasoning in his "Compensation and Economy of Growth" section in Chapter 5 of Origins. In my previous post I explained that Darwin begged the question. Darwin argued that natural selection could bring about change which he presupposed had evolved. Here is his argument broken out into the four points Darwin made:

1. when a cirripede is parasitic within another cirripede and is thus protected, it loses more or less completely its own shell or carapace. This is the case with the male Ibla, and in a truly extraordinary manner with the Proteolepas: for the carapace in all other cirripedes consists of the three highly-important anterior segments of the head enormously developed, and furnished with great nerves and muscles; but in the parasitic and protected Proteolepas, the whole anterior part of the head is reduced to the merest rudiment attached to the bases of the prehensile antennae.

2. Now the saving of a large and complex structure, when rendered superfluous, would be a decided advantage to each successive individual of the species; for in the struggle for life to which every animal is exposed, each would have a better chance of supporting itself, by less nutriment being wasted.

3. Thus, I believe, natural selection will tend in the long run to reduce any part of the organisation, as soon as it becomes, through changed habits, superfluous, without by any means causing some other part to be largely developed in a corresponding degree.

4. And, conversely, that natural selection may perfectly well succeed in largely developing an organ without requiring as a necessary compensation the reduction of some adjoining part.

Or, simply put:

1. Many species have undergone significant loss of components.

2. Such loss can be advantageous, and so increase fitness.

3. Therefore natural selection will select such loss.

4. In the same way, natural selection develops new components. That is, natural selection can add components as well as remove components.

Notice that in Step 1, Darwin takes as his premise that the male Ibla and Proteolepas have undergone evolutionary change. That is, he assumes that they have lost their carapace. His conclusion, that natural selection brings about such change, is presupposed in his premise.

Furthermore, notice that in Step 4, Darwin equates loss of components with addition of components. But there is no basis for this assumption.

This reasoning is fallacious, and therefore not scientific (science requires logical reasoning). Yet every time evolutionists are presented with their own fallacies, they deny there is any such problem.

Are there constraints to how species can vary? A generation before Darwin the German polymath Johann Goethe and French naturalist Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire formulated their teleological law of compensation in which biological variation occurred according to functional needs. Darwin argued that while this law was perhaps did not apply to organisms in their natural environments. “With species in a state of nature,” Darwin argued that the law of compensation was true to a certain extent for domestic productions, “it can hardly be maintained that the law [of compensation] is of universal application,” even though “many good observers” believed it to be true.

Darwin then cited two particular species which he claimed supported his position. Most readers were probably impressed with the wealth of biological details that Darwin presented in his argument, but his logic was circular.

Darwin argued that the unique features of these two species show that the law of compensation does not hold in the wild because, after all, such unique features must have evolved. Darwin presupposed the truth of evolution in order to find evidence for evolution.

Let’s have a look at Darwin’s argument. Cirripedia, a class in the crustacea phylum, are sessile and highly unique barnacles upon which Darwin had completed a major systematic study. Over against Goethe and Geoffroy, Darwin argued that natural selection, rather than any internal law of biology, could bring about changes he argued were evident in two species named Ibla and Proteolepas:

If under changed conditions of life a structure, before useful, becomes less useful, its diminution will be favoured, for it will profit the individual not to have its nutriment wasted in building up a useless structure. I can thus only understand a fact with which I was much struck when examining cirripedes, and of which many analogous instances could be given: namely, that when a cirripede is parasitic within another cirripede and is thus protected, it loses more or less completely its own shell or carapace. This is the case with the male Ibla, and in a truly extraordinary manner with the Proteolepas: for the carapace in all other cirripedes consists of the three highly-important anterior segments of the head enormously developed, and furnished with great nerves and muscles; but in the parasitic and protected Proteolepas, the whole anterior part of the head is reduced to the merest rudiment attached to the bases of the prehensile antennae. Now the saving of a large and complex structure, when rendered superfluous, would be a decided advantage to each successive individual of the species; for in the struggle for life to which every animal is exposed, each would have a better chance of supporting itself, by less nutriment being wasted.

Thus, I believe, natural selection will tend in the long run to reduce any part of the organisation, as soon as it becomes, through changed habits, superfluous, without by any means causing some other part to be largely developed in a corresponding degree. And, conversely, that natural selection may perfectly well succeed in largely developing an organ without requiring as a necessary compensation the reduction of some adjoining part. [Origins, 6th Ed]

Darwin was not simply applying his theory to a set of observations. He was not illustrating how evolution might have formed these species. Rather, Darwin was building an argument for natural selection. But in constructing his argument, he presupposed that the species had evolved.

Darwin was unquestionably an expert on barnacles, and he could present a detailed example of highly-modified species that most people have never even heard of. But Darwin begs the question when he says that the unique structures of the Ibla and Proteolepas evolved and therefore natural selection can effect such changes.

A friend of mine likes to invest in stocks. He understands computer companies so he trades only those stocks. This limitation makes for a simple and straightforward investing strategy. Evolutionists also limit themselves. They investigate only those phenomena that are the result of strictly natural causes. This limitation makes for a simple and straightforward research strategy, though it does create a blind spot.

An investor who buys only computer company stocks can easily identify those companies. He can find companies that build computers, computer components, computer software, and so forth. But how can evolutionists know whether the causes of a past event are strictly natural? How can evolutionists decide which phenomena fall into their research program?

The answer is they can't. Evolutionists have no test for naturalism. They have no way of knowing whether a phenomenon is the result of strictly natural causes.

Imagine an evolutionist using natural laws and processes to describe a phenomenon that does not follow such laws and processes. By searching and searching, he may find a partial fit. So he may have some success, but there are always unexplained observables—data anomalies for which the naturalistic explanation cannot account. Naturalistic explanations will always be problematic. More data will be collected, further analysis will be done, and theories will be modified or replaced altogether. All good scientific research and—in this hypothetical example of a non natural phenomenon—wrong.

When problems are encountered there is no way to tell whether the correct naturalistic solution has simply not yet been found, or whether the phenomenon itself is non natural. Non natural phenomenon can be confused with natural ones, and science has no tools for detecting this, for there is no mechanism within science to detect non natural phenomenon.

Consider the following example. What if it were found that a code existed in all living species and that, within each organism, complicated machinery was used to read vast amounts of stored information via the code? The machinery was so complicated that it automatically (i) read the information, (ii) used the code to interpret the information, and (iii) acted on the instructions.

And what if, after decades of research, no naturalistic explanation could be found for how the code and machinery arose? Even in this example, scientists could not know if naturalistic explanations have been exhausted. There are many problems with naturalistic explanations for the existence of the code and associated machinery. The problem seems to defy naturalistic explanation. But there could be a plausible explanation for how the code arose which has not yet been discovered. And how could anyone prove otherwise? To prove that a plausible explanation does not exist is far more difficult than simply continuing the search for such explanations. For to prove that no explanation exists requires knowledge about all possible explanations.

And what if there were hundreds of other such problems for which naturalistic explanations offered little more than speculation and were consistently falsified?

The answer is, of course, "so what?" Evolutionists cannot consider the possibility that there is no naturalistic explanation. This is science's blind spot. If a theory of natural history has problems—and many of them have their share—the problems are always viewed as research problems and never as paradigm problems.

Evolutionists continue to search for naturalistic explanations for hard problems because they must. Like Sisyphus forever pushing the stone up the hill, they must pursue naturalistic explanations no matter how unlikely. Imagine if they did not. What if, at some point, they were to give up? If they did, then they might miss an undiscovered solution. They might have been on the cusp of a stunning new discovery. One cannot stop trying because the problem seems too difficult—this would be stopping science in its tracks.

Consider the problem of the planet Uranus. After its discovery Uranus did not seem to orbit the sun correctly. Could there be an unknown force perturbing the planet? Uranus's orbit could be explained by the presence of yet another planet. This was one idea to explain the strange orbit of Uranus, and it led to the discovery of the next planet, Neptune.

Imagine if astronomers had considered that Uranus's anomalous path was due to non naturalistic causes. Perhaps an invisible giant was blowing on the planet. Then the prediction and subsequent discovery of Neptune would not have occurred. Deciding on non naturalistic causes can be a science stopper.

How can we decide when a scientific problem is not a research problem, but a paradigm problem? Naturalism has no criteria, no set of rules by which to make such a judgment. And no one wants to turn science's attention away from the future discoveries. In fact, phenomena that are more daunting for naturalism are also more tantalizing, for their explanations will be more surprising and dramatic. Not only does science have a blind spot, not knowing if it has stumbled upon an unsolvable problem, but there is a certain allure of such problems. No one knows what will be science's next "Neptune."

This helps to explain the hesitancy of scientists to admit that non natural phenomena might exist. In science we follow Descartes' prescription and approach everything using naturalistic explanations. It also helps to explain the tolerance for improbable theories. Historical theories, no matter how erroneous they may seem, could be just a "Neptune" away from falling into place.

All of this helps to explain how such an implausible theory as evolution persists. It is underwritten not only by theological conviction that natural causes must suffice, but by a philosophy of science that cannot abide any other possibility, no matter how implausible evolution becomes.

We continue to examine the work of authors George Johnson and Jonathan Losos in their biology textbook, The Living World ((Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill, 2008). In their chapter on evolution and natural selection, these accomplished evolutionists begin by (1) misrepresenting the relationship between microevolution and macroevolution and biological variation here, (2) making a non scientific, metaphysical, truth claim that just happens to mandate the truth of evolution here, and (3) making the grossly false statement that the fossils themselves are a factual observation that macroevolution has occurred here and here.

With this as their start, Johnson and Losos next make a series of misrepresentations of the evidence. First, in an inset story on whale evolution, they show the student a highly selective graphic of the fossil sequence leading to the modern whale. In typical fashion the abundant fossil species that reveal how complicated is the evolutionary hypothesis are omitted. It is as though half a dozen fossils which unambiguously lead to the whale were discovered and nothing else.

Next the authors discuss vertebrate embryos with a graphic showing a reptile, bird and human embryo. They point out that all vertebrate embryos have pharyngeal pouches and a long bony tail. Also, the human embryos "even develops a coat of find fur!" They then inform the student that:

These relict developmental forms strongly suggest that all vertebrates share a basic set of developmental instructions.

But there are significant differences between the embryonic stages of the different vertebrates which the authors fail to mention. If similarities suggest common developmental instructions, then surely the many differences reveal developmental instructions that are not in common. And in any case, why is it that a common set of instructions, to whatever extent they do exist, are evidence for evolution? The authors reveal only selective evidence to the student and make an unjustified claim.

Johnson and Losos next make the circular argument that vertebrates have the same bones:

As vertebrates have evolved, the same bones are sometimes still there but put to different uses, their presence betraying their evolutionary past.

Here Johnson and Losos transition from presenting evidence for evolution to asserting evolution and interpreting the evidence according to the theory. Their phrase "As vertebrates have evolved," marks this unspoken move in the indoctrination. The student is no longer fed evidence for the theory, but instead the truth of the theory has become a given.

Hence the bones in different vertebrates are "the same." After all, they arose from a common ancestor. And since they are "the same," they betray "their evolutionary past." It all makes perfect sense to evolutionists.

And what about those similarities that could not have arisen from a common ancestor? Conveniently, those too are somehow evidence for evolution:

Similarly, in the lower portion of the figure, the marsupial mammals of Australia evolved in isolation from placental mammals, but similar selective pressures have generated very similar kinds of animals.

So similar structures in related vertebrates count as evidence because, after all, they arose from a common ancestor. And similar structures in distant vertebrates count as evidence because, after all, they arose independently from similar selective pressures. Got it (except that selective "pressures" don't generate anything, but don't tell the students that).

Next Johnson and Losos present those structures that have "no use at all!" Back to their whale example, they continue the theme of circular reasoning:

In living whales, which evolved from hoofed mammals, the bones of the pelvis that formerly anchored the two hind limbs are all that remain of the rear legs, unattached to any other bones and serving no apparent purpose.

That, of course, is not an empirical finding but a conclusion based on the assumption that evolution is true. In fact the whale pelvis probably helps in copulation. But so what? After all, whales "evolved from hoofed mammals."

Their next circular example is that vestigial organ, the human appendix. In the great apes it helps with digestion but "The human appendix is a vestigial version of this structure that now serves no function in digestion." So the appendix is evidence for evolution because it is vestigial, and we know it is vestigial because evolutionists say it is.

Unfortunately most students will not be aware of the indoctrination they are receiving. Not will they be aware of the substantial scientific omissions and errors that the text is riddled with. Regarding the appendix, the evolutionary expectation once again failed. As one researcher commented:

Maybe it's time to correct the textbooks. Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a 'vestigial organ.'

Indeed, many biology texts do because the science has been compromised by evolution. Religion drives science and it matters.

Imagine if you called a car salesman, explained the type of car you wanted to buy, and he exclaimed he has exactly what you are looking for. Furthermore, the car is almost new, has only a few miles, and yet is priced at a mere ten thousand dollars! You and a friend hurry over to the car lot and with a big smile the salesman shows you a junker. You recognize the make as being at least thirty years old, and the car looks like it has at least 200,000 miles. The tires are worn bare, the body is rusted away, the seats are so worn down there are holes in the fabric, the paint is so faded that you can see bare metal in places, the rear window is smashed, the hood doesn’t close properly, and half the steering wheel is missing. “Wait, this beauty is only ten thousand dollars, and it only has a few miles …” exclaims the salesman as you and your friend walk away in disgust. "Incredible,” you complain to your friend, “that salesman misled us.”

Evolutionists say that evolution is a scientific fact. Evolutionists, who disagree on many things, come together on this basic point. There is no question, they insist, evolution is beyond any shadow of a doubt—it is a scientific fact every bit as much as gravity or the roundness of the earth is a scientific fact.

This is not a statement about evolution, it is a statement about our knowledge of evolution. And while people can disagree about the details of evolution, there is less room for disagreement when it comes to our knowledge. Particularly when it is said to be such a clear cut fact. As the leading evolutionist Ernst Mayr wrote:

It is very questionable whether the term “evolutionary theory” should be used any longer. That evolution has occurred and takes place all the time is a fact so overwhelmingly established that it has become irrational to call it a theory. [What Evolution Is, 264]

Strangely enough, nowhere in Mayr’s exhaustive volume does he prove this claim. Yes there is evidence for evolution, but there is also evidence the earth is flat. In fact there are substantial scientific problems with the theory of evolution. We can argue about its standing, but if ever there was a fact it is that evolutionists have nowhere shown why those problems don’t matter, and why evolution is such a no-brainer. This is not nit picking—from a scientific perspective evolution is nowhere near facthood.

So it is not surprising that evolutionists don’t actually deliver on their claim. And there simply is very little wiggle room. Their high claims about evolution and the comparisons with the shape of the earth and gravity (one evolutionist said it is far more certain than gravity) don’t allow for much caveat.

The evidence must be overwhelming. Certainly the explanation of the evidence and the reasoning must be well documented. There must be books and articles for all to understand this incredible finding.

But it is nowhere to be found. Evolutionists have been challenged about this strange claim ever since they began making it centuries ago. Yet they continue to insist on their problematic claim without backing it up. Such backup usually isn’t required because they typically issue their claims to non scientific audiences and students—those who are not in a position to see through the false claims.

If ever there was a false claim, this is it. The claim that evolution is a scientific fact simply is not true. Evolution itself may well be true, but we do not know it to be true with the kind of confidence and certainty evolutionists insist on. I do not know what the truth about evolution is, but I do know what our knowledge about evolution is.

When informed skeptics probe evolutionists about this false claim, it is typical for evolutionists to equivocate on evolution. They will say, for instance, that we observe viruses or bacteria adapting, so therefore evolution is a fact. But all the while, when evolutionists claim their idea is a fact, they have been referring to the origin of all the species. That is a very different claim than the mere adaptation of viruses or bacteria.

This common equivocation helps to expose the problem. If the fact of evolution was so obvious they would simply explain it (or provide the reference). Instead they equivocate.

But it doesn’t stop there. Evolutionists practice all kinds of logical excursions in their efforts to convince people of their dogma. One even more absurd tactic is to present evidence as ipso facto proof. It would be like pointing to the rising sun as proof (not evidence for) geocentrism. Here is how one textbook makes this absurd argument:

It is important not to miss the key point of the result you see illustrated in figure 17.3: evolution is an observation, not a conclusion. Because the dating of the samples is independent of what the samples are like, successive change through time is a data statement. While the statement that evolution is the result of natural selection is a theory advanced by Darwin, the statement that macroevolution has occurred is a factual observation.

In other words, the student is told that while the details of how the fossils evolved may be uncertain, the fossils themselves are a factual observation that macroevolution has occurred.

Many people do not understand the details of the scientific evidence, and how badly evolution fares. Likewise, they do not understand the extent to which evolutionists will go to cover up the science and propagate false claims. For scientists these falsehoods are obvious and disturbing, but non scientists often are unaware of how blatant is the problem.

This argument that the fossils are a factual observation of macroevolution, as exemplified by the quote above, helps to clarify the situation.

As in the case of the car salesman, there is no graceful exit. We cannot say that the car salesman made a mistake. Likewise, evolutionists are not making mistakes when they perpetrate these falsehoods.

And when you point this out to evolutionists, as I did here, they continue to defend the claim with more canards. One such canard is that the authors of the textbook are using a highly nuanced definition of macroevolution. Don’t we all understand that by “macroevolution” evolutionists such as the authors don’t actually mean evolution on a grand scale? Rather, they use the word to refer to the patterns that emerge from such evolution.

This is, of course, a distinction without a difference. It is another example of the web of falsehoods needed by evolutionists. Certainly the term macroevolution can entail the mechanisms required for and patterns that emerge from the process. But this doesn’t help matters.

The authors of the text are perfectly clear. The student is to understand that the fossil sequence is a factual observation that macroevolution has occurred, regardless of what combination of selection and other processes were involved. Here, for example, is how Mayr defines macroevolution:

Evolution above the species level; the evolution of higher taxa and the production of evolutionary novelties, such as new structures. [287]

And here is how Jerry Coyne, another leading evolutionist, defines macroevolution in his book Why Evolution is True:

“Major” evolutionary change, usually thought of as large changes in body form or the evolution of one type of plant or animal from another type. The change from our primate ancestor to modern humans, or from early reptiles to birds, would be considered macroevolution.

And here is how Mark Ridley defines macroevolution in his leading university textbook, Evolution:

Evolution on the grand scale: the term refers to events above the species level; the origin of a new higher group, such as the vertebrates, would be an example of a macroevolutionary event.

But why restrict ourselves to such luminaries as Mayr, Coyne and Ridley? Here is how the text authors themselves explain macroevolution to the student:

evolutionary change on a grand scale. Macroevolution is larger, more complex changes that result in the creation of new species and higher taxonomic groups.

A sequence of fossil species is not a factual observation that they are related via common descent. The sequence is not a factual observation of evolution on a grand scale. There is no question this is a false statement, and it is obviously false.

Biology textbook authors George Johnson and Jonathan Losos are leaders in the life sciences. They are accomplished researchers and professors from leading universities. But their writings mislead students. In their otherwise well written and highly produced textbook The Living World ((Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill, 2008), Johnson and Losos misrepresent science and make fallacious arguments when they present evolution to the student. It is yet another example of smart people spreading the usual evolutionary message.

Consider the chapter on evolution and natural selection. After misrepresenting what we know about the relationship between microevolution and macroevolution and biological variation, and making a non scientific, metaphysical, truth claim that just happens to mandate the truth of evolution, one would think it couldn’t get any worse.

One would be wrong.

Regarding a fossil sequence of hoofed mammals, Johnson and Losos write:

It is important not to miss the key point of the result you see illustrated in figure 17.3: evolution is an observation, not a conclusion. Because the dating of the samples is independent of what the samples are like, successive change through time is a data statement. While the statement that evolution is the result of natural selection is a theory advanced by Darwin, the statement that macroevolution has occurred is a factual observation.

A sequence of fossils is an observation of macroevolution? It would be difficult to imagine a more misleading statement than this. And it is not as though this was an unintended mistake that just happened to elude the 100+ reviewers. Johnson and Losos went out of their way to make and elaborate this message, and the army of evolutionist reviewers all nodded their heads.

Johnson and Losos are not some computer hackers throwing mud around an Internet chat room. They are full professors at top schools (Washington University and Harvard University). McGraw Hill is not a second rate publisher and The Living World is not hastily prepared volume. These are the best authors, working with a top publisher, under the review of hundreds of evolutionists, to create a beautiful textbook used ats campuses across the country.

And so there is no excuse for misinformation in the guise of science.

Another school year is set to begin at high schools and colleges where the next round of biology students will be filled with evolutionary misinformation. At the center of this propaganda campaign are the many biology textbooks used to indoctrinate young minds with old dogma. These textbooks contain the latest evolutionary newspeak, but the underlying message is no different.

In their text The Living World (Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill, 2008) evolutionists George Johnson and Jonathan Losos rehearse the usual teachings. Students are told that “Microevolution Leads to Macroevolution” with the giraffe’s neck serving as the example of how small change is supposed to accumulate to the large-scale change evolution needs.

Of course this is a long-standing, well-known problem for evolution. Mechanisms for large-scale change are speculative for it does not appear merely to be the result of repeated rounds of microevolution. Johnson and Losos, of course, inform the student of none of this.

The giraffe example is also useful in explaining evolution’s concept of biological variation. The text explains that according to evolution variation arises independent of need or experience via mechanisms such as random mutation.

Contrary to such evolutionary dogma, it has been known for decades that variation is sensitive to experience and need. Evolutionists have resisted this and the text again leaves the student ignorant of the science.

Such misrepresentations of science, as damaging as they are, pale in comparison to Johnson’s and Losos’ next move. The apologists make a failed attempt to enlist the fossil record as powerful evidence for evolution, and end up with only the usual metaphysics. They write:

If the theory of evolution is not correct, on the other hand, then such orderly change is not expected.

Very interesting. And how do evolutionists know so much? From where did Johnson and Losos learn such ultimate truths? If evolution is not correct then such orderly change is not expected? Tell us more.

What are all the possibilities aside from evolution and why do none of them predict “such orderly change”? Why is it that evolution, and only evolution, predicts such an outcome? This is truly fascinating. If and only if evolution is true would we see such orderly change. Johnson and Losos are real geniuses—they have knowledge of all possible causes.

You cannot make this stuff up. In two and half pages the text's chapter on evolution has gone from misleading to absurd. What will come next?

But this is nothing new in evolutionary circles. Only evolutionists teach such a biased version of science.

In my previous post I gave a typical example of evolutionary thinking and asked readers to identify the usual metaphysics that is interwoven. Here is the example:

Do I need to recount for you the instances of observed evolution, past and present? You already have rejected short-term examples of the phenomenon, but when the exact same pseudogene for Vitamin C is broken in the exact same place in humans and chimpanzees, indicating we inherited it from a common ancestor, what else do you say it is other than a fact that we evolved from that common ancestor? If you have read the authors you claim to have, how many more examples of evolution in action do you want? You say that it's "immediately obvious from the evolution genre...that while evolutionists consistently make this claim, it is nowhere demonstrated." It baffles me how you can make that statement. How gilded do you insist the lily be?

There is something fascinating about powerful lies that animate proponents into self-righteous indignation, and befuddle opponents. Proponents of evolution are absolutely sure they are right, that evolution is squarely scientific, and that skepticism must be the result of religious motives. The certainty of evolution is matched only by its hypocrisy.

Like a virus the lie makes its way into one's thinking and then hijacks the thinking process for reproduction and further dissemination. Today's evolutionists not only have the lie firmly embedded in their thinking, they constantly communicate the lie with tremendous assurance and authority.

But unlike most lies, this one deals with a downright bizarre notion. Evolution convinces us of the absurd, making it a great lie. I may convince you I am a straight A student though I actually have a few B grades. That would be a small, unimpressive lie. But what if I actually have received no grades at all? What if I have never attended a single class, turned in any homework, or taken any tests? Then my lie would be much more significant. And imagine that I have so convinced you that you vociferously attack any and all who would doubt my perfections? Then my lie is yielding its fruit--it is truly powerful.

Evolutionists insist that all of biology just happened to arise by itself. Indeed, they insist this is an obvious, undeniable fact that is beyond any shadow of a doubt. In fact, say evolutionists, this is so obvious that those who will not go along must be marginalized and attacked.

This lie gives assurance and self-righteousness. And so evolutionists blackball opponents and bar skepticism from important venues while planting their lies into public policy, the media, the law, the education system, and who knows where else. In the past century this meme has gone viral and now dominates global thinking. Hans Christian Andersen could not have dreamed of anything more.

Pseudogenes and metaphysics

In the above example, the crucial metaphysics is woven in here:

but when the exact same pseudogene for Vitamin C is broken in the exact same place in humans and chimpanzees, indicating we inherited it from a common ancestor, what else do you say it is other than a fact that we evolved from that common ancestor?

This shared-error argument is a good example of how the evolution lie depends on subtle misrepresentations of the science and unspoken metaphysical claims. Any scientific analysis of the evidence would come up empty handed. Pseudogenes reveal various patterns, some which can be employed to argue for common descent, others which violate common descent (they could be explained, for instance, by common mechanism). Furthermore pseudogenes reveal evidence of mutational hotspots.

But such quandaries are left unmentioned. Evolutionists selectively present the evidence to make evolution appear to be well supported. The evolution lie corrupts scientific knowledge.

Such scientific problems are inconsequential for evolution though, because evolution has metaphysical certainty. In this case, the claim is that shared errors are powerful and compelling proofs of evolution. The subtlety here is not in the evidence itself but in how it is transformed from a successful prediction to a proof text.

This claim, that such shared errors indicate, or demonstrate, or reveal common ancestry, is the result of an implicit truth claim which does not, and cannot, come from science. It is the claim that evolution and only evolution can explain such evidences. It is the equivalent of what is known as an IF-AND-ONLY-IF claim.

Science makes IF-THEN statements (if evolution is true, then species with recent common ancestors should have similarities between them). IF-AND-ONLY-IF statements (if and only if evolution is true, then species with recent common ancestors should have similarities between them) cannot be known from science.

Such statements are truth claims that are at the foundation of evolutionary thought. The evolutionist chastises skeptics for somehow attacking science, while at the same time making metaphysical pronouncements in the name of science. The evolutionist should look in a mirror.

Evolutionists have little doubt about their idea. Indeed they consistently claim it to be an undeniable scientific fact. As one textbook explained, “The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves … it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.” I was trying to explain this fact when I discovered I couldn’t. Quite the opposite, there are substantial scientific problems with evolution. My proposition to evolutionists is that I will help their cause if they will help me understand. I will be an evolutionist if they can explain why it is a scientific fact.

Many evolutionists have responded to my proposition, but their comments make me wonder. One criticized me for not offering an alternative while others blamed me for bias in my beliefs. Another said my purpose is to drive creation/ID and another said I am a Biblical fundamentalist. Yet another said that my basic complaint is that science refuses to work on the assumption that maybe things were magicked into existence. Aside from being false, the main problem with such comments is they leave me no closer to the fact of evolution.

Another evolutionist explained the intellectual necessity of Darwin’s idea:

Science stops when we use the “God made the mosquito” assumption. There’s nothing to be done and nothing more to learn about our universe or ourselves: save listening to the people who believe they have cornered the truth. This critique of evolution is not an effort to further understanding, but to halt it.

This is certainly a popular mandate for evolution, but it hardly makes it a scientific fact. Another argued for why evolution is better than creation or design:

The argument is that evolution—common descent with gradual, opportunistic modification—would produce such effects, and we have no good reason to suppose that a Designer of life—supernatural or otherwise—would choose to do so.

It is another popular argument but, again, it does little to explain why evolution is a scientific fact. Another evolutionist argued that virtually everyone educated accepted descent with modification within a decade or two of the Origin. But given Darwin’s reasoning and the limited state of nineteenth century biology, this point raises more questions than answers about the claim that evolution is a scientific fact.

He further criticized me for ignoring the overwhelming statistical confirmations of common ancestry:

The odds of e.g. morphological and molecular phylogenies agreeing as much as they do (there are sometimes disagreements, but they are statistically minor, at least if you are open-minded enough to actually learn about the relevant statistics, and not just quote mine from people who don’t) are miniscule. The fossil record shows similar statistical agreement. Etc.

But if the disagreements are not statistically significant, they certainly are biologically significant. Massive similarities and differences show up where they shouldn’t be. Perhaps evolution somehow constructed such contradictions, but from a scientific perspective they are not merely statistically insignificant. Aside from speculation, we have no good explanation for the many significant disagreements we find. The argument that they are statistically insignificant and can safely be ignored while maintaining that evolution is a fact ignores the science.

Furthermore, the idea that the aligning of various traits, of various species, makes evolution a fact is a fallacy. A repeated pattern of similarities proves, well, a repeated pattern of similarities. To conclude that evolution or common descent is a scientific fact would we not also need powerful evidence that such disparate populations could somehow follow an evolutionary path, one into the other? But this is a major problem in evolutionary theory.

Another evolutionist compared evolution to heliocentrism, and evolution denial to holocaust denial:

Surely it is in theory possible to explain the evidence in another way, with miracles that alter the relative position of earth and sun in a manner that misleadingly resembles the earth following a gravitational orbit around the sun.

Likewise, it will always be theoretically possible to deny evolution, provided one is willing to posit a misleading miracle where observable natural phenomena and forces would be perfectly adequate to account for what we see.

In the case of evolution, we had pretty reliable evidence even when we simply had the succession of fossils, the evidence of related morphology, and other such data. Now that we have DNA evidence, and can determine relatedness between all living things using genetics, the situation is summed up nicely by Francisco Ayala: "there are no more gaps."

Of course, it will always be possible to deny scientific facts, just as it is possible to deny historical facts. And so the question is whether one wants to follow the most straightforward reading of the evidence, or whether one prefers to engage in something that is to science what holocaust denial is to history.

But the evolutionary explanations are not perfectly adequate to account for what we see, that’s the point. The positing of miracles is irrelevant. Genetics, for instance, reveals substantial problems for evolution. We know there is a genetic resistance to change and we would have to believe that evolution somehow serendipitously created the very mechanisms crucial for evolution itself.

Another evolutionist argued that mutations, recombination and selection create novel traits and speciation, as has been observed in the lab and in nature. But this doesn’t make all of evolution a fact. Even evolutionists agree that the large scale changes required by the theory are not well explained by known mechanisms. And in any case we would have to believe that evolution somehow created recombination itself, so that such evolution could occur. Perhaps so, but such a story is hardly a fact.

Novel traits have been observed to emerge rapidly and via complex mechanisms that respond to the environmental need. Yes, adaptation is observed, but it makes little sense under evolution. How did evolution create adaptation mechanisms that respond to environmental challenges with rapid design changes? The explanation that “such mechanisms increase fitness, so it is no surprise they evolved” is more dogma than science.

I would gladly accept and promote evolution, but it has substantial scientific problems papered over with strident claims of being a fact. Is there evidence for evolution? Certainly. But in each case there are profound subtleties and problems. Whether or not evolution, in one form or another, actually occurred is difficult to say. But what is clear is the state of the evidence. Evolutionists dogmatically claim the idea is a scientific fact, but they don’t show why.

A child once informed his friends his toy bulldozer could dig all the way through the Earth. But wasn’t the Earth too big? No, look at the Grand Canyon—it is proof of what such small shovels can do. Such childish logic, amazingly, shows up repeatedly in evolutionary “theory.” It is a treasure trove of bizarre and silly claims and justifications which rises to the surface, as with the child’s reasoning, when the evolutionist is questioned about his convictions. Consider, for example, the oft heard evolutionary mechanism of random mutation followed by natural selection which, like the toy bulldozer, apparently can do just about anything. When queried about this most amazing idea, the underlying evolutionary logic is revealed.

One response evolutionists give when confronted with their own extraordinary claims about random mutation and natural selection is to complain that mutations aren’t really random, and any such notion is clearly erroneous. They don’t just happen willy-nilly but in fact reveal non random patterns both across the genome and across time.

But this is an equivocation on the word “random,” which is used with reference to something. When evolutionists speak of random mutations, they mean that the mutations are random with respect to the need of the organism. There is no plan or intelligence behind mutations—evolution has no final causes.

When questioned about their bizarre claim that the entire field of biology is a consequence of such Lucretian bloopers, their rebuttal that mutations actually aren’t random after all reveals how shallow is their thinking.

Evolutionists are the ones who claimed mutations are random (with respect to the need) and the fact that mutations are not random over space and time does not change that Epicurean claim. (By the way, this is yet another evolutionary expectation that turned out to be false. That became clear when the empirical evidence caught up with evolutionary speculation.)

Another response evolutionists give when questioned about their startling ideas of the power of random mutation and natural selection is to focus on the latter. Mutations may be random but evolution certainly is not, for selection pressure brings out the winners.

Of course this is false. Selection “pressure” is another evolutionary euphemism. The only thing Darwin’s natural selection can do is kill off the faulty or inferior designs—it does not induce helpful mutations to magically arise. All evolutionary creations must arise from those random mutations.

Yet another revealing response evolutionists give when queried about their heroic claims of random mutation and natural selection is to complain that such a query is nothing more than a strawman rendition of evolution.

Random mutations, after all, are only one of a great many evolutionary mechanisms. One professor has listed almost fifty different so-called “engines of variation” that work together to build biology’s wonders. How silly to think random mutation was the sole artist in Darwin’s montage.

For example, biological variation can arise from changes in the expression levels of genes, which in turn can arise from changes to sequences that control such expression levels, or changes to the protein machines that bind to those sequences. And there are far more involved examples, such as the various forms of symbiotic mechanisms. The professor concludes:

So, next time you hear or read a creationist or IDer cite "RM & NS" as the sole explanation for evolutionary change, point out to them and everyone else that there are at least 47 different sources of variation

But does this really rescue random mutation from its overachiever status? No. Once again the evolutionary logic has bubbled up to the surface for all to see. The most obvious problem here is simply that biology’s various engines of variation are, according to evolutionary mandate, ultimately the product of, yes, random mutation.

Of course RM/NS is the ultimate explanation for evolutionary change. The fact that biology reveals incredibly complex adaptive and physiological changes does not give evolutionists license to invoke them as evolutionary starting points, without reference to their own origin.

Indeed, with evolution what we must believe is that its blind mutations just happened to create phenomenal mechanisms which, themselves, not only are astonishingly complex but become crucial agents of evolutionary change. The heroics continue to mount at an astronomical pace as evolution, we must believe, creates evolution. If a toy bulldozer can dig through the Earth, then why not?

The Understanding Evolution for Teachers website makes the usual claim that evolution is a fact, but because that is undefendable it is first careful to redefine evolution.

Evolutionists face a dilemma. They cannot forfeit their dogma that evolution is a fact, but when confronted with even a Biology 101 student's questions the claim quickly is shown to be false. Of that there is absolutely no question.

Readers may wonder how I can know it is false. Is this not yet more dogma? The evolutionist spouts his dogma, and the skeptic retorts with his counter dogma. Isn't this the same old he said she said of the origins debate?

No, we need to be careful. I am not saying evolution is absolutely false, I am saying the claim it is a fact is absolutely false. Whether or not evolution (and in what flavor) occurred is a question of distant history. Whether or not evolution is a fact is a question of our current level of knowledge.

I try not to be dogmatic about ancient history, especially when dealing with underdetermined questions. But it is not dogmatic to point out that evolution is not a fact. In fact, it would be dishonest to say otherwise.

The consensus, indeed overwhelming, position within evolutionary thought is that evolution is a fact, or beyond a shadow of a doubt, or highly compelling, or ... well, pick your favorite superlative, it probably has been used by evolutionists.

But evolution is not a fact, and that is a fact, no question about it. Evolutionists attempts to support their claim are, frankly, downright silly. Evolution may be true, but it is not true that we know it is true--far from it.

And so increasingly evolutionists are resorting to whitewashing their claim. They cannot admit it is not a fact, so they quietly switch shells. Suddenly evolution is not the idea that the species have evolved one from another. It is no longer mutations and other happenstance mechanisms creating incredibly complex designs.

Instead, evolution is now merely change over time. Over eons of time life has changed, that's it, that's evolution these days. As the Understanding Evolution for Teachers website put it:

At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.

Overwhelming evidence supports this fact. Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago.

Of course once the new convert is won, then the definition quickly reverts to what we all know evolution really to mean. Call it an equivocation, an obfuscation, or whatever, this is simply a dishonest whitewash. It is a debating trick that evolutionists are increasingly using to avoid their own absurdity.

The website is ostensibly a pedagogical tool, but in fact it is a lie.

Evolution’s corruption of science continues to reach new heights. Consider a recent paper written by an evolutionist in a leading journal about, of all things, our criminal justice system. That’s right, evolutionists now want to recast sentencing procedures according to their beliefs about origins. It’s another should-we-laugh-or-cry story as the underlying reasoning is so banal while the recommendations are so scary. I doubt even George Orwell could have envisioned this.

According to evolutionist Andrew Cashmore, we have no free will and therefore individuals should not be held responsible for their actions. What we do is simply a consequence of our genes (the key to our hardware design according to evolutionists), our environment, and the underlying random motion that has been held to be important ever since Lucretius.

And since we have no choice about all three of these factors, we therefore have no responsibility for our actions. You thought you chose to read this article, but that was just an illusion.

And how is Cashmore so sure we have no free will in spite of the steady stream of apparently free decisions we all continually make? I certainly thought I was choosing between chocolate or vanilla. So why is free will so obvious to people, if it is non existent? Because, of course, the illusion evolved via selection. As the peer reviewed paper reports, it is all an evolutionary illusion:

In discussing free will, Susan Blackmore has noted that “many scientists believe that the real causal factors are all those interacting neurons that do many things including creating a sense of self, and a sense of free will—both of which are illusions.” She goes on to say, “I think nature has played this enormous joke on us.” In addressing the same issue, Rita Carter has asked, “If free will is an illusion and each of our actions is determined by unconscious cognitive processes in response to external stimuli, why should our brains delude us into thinking otherwise?” A variation on this question is: what is the evolutionary selective advantage of consciousness? One answer to this question is that consciousness provides us with an apparent sense of responsibility: “Along with the illusion of control, our sense of agency brings the burdens of individual responsibility. Though this may sometimes weigh heavily on us personally, for society as a whole it is hugely beneficial. Our entire morality and judicial system is dependent on everyone accepting that they are agents of their own misdeeds, and those who don’t acknowledge this are—by legal definition—insane. We may not consciously control our own actions, but the cognitive mechanisms that create the illusion that we do keep society functioning.” A similar argument has been made by Wegner: “The ability to know what one will do … would seem to be an important human asset … This preview function could be fundamentally important for the facilitation of social interaction.” I find that the above are attractive explanations for the existence (the selective advantage) of consciousness. […]

In summary, then, I believe that free will is clearly an illusion. However, this is not to say that consciousness does not have a function. I believe it does, and from this I assume that it must give rise to an evolutionary selective advantage. Consciousness confers the illusion of responsibility. No wonder the belief in free will is so prevalent in society—the very survival of those “selfish free-will genes” is predicated on their capacity to con one into believing in free will!

The beauty of evolutionary theory is its tremendous elasticity in data interpretation. Evidence that can be interpreted as supporting evolution is viewed as legitimate whereas contradictory evidence is anomalous or even, as in this case, illusory. This most striking of evidences is, with a wave of the hand, dismissed as illusory—a evolutionary trick. Perhaps evolution also planted all those fossils and deviously constructed those adaptation mechanisms.

But dispensing with evidence is by no means Cashmore’s only proof. Amazingly, he weaves an even more banal argument into the narrative. Free will, according to Cashmore, is obviously a stretch for the simple reason that it could not be created by natural laws. Conjectures about free will lack “any hint of molecular details concerning mechanisms” and “Neither religious beliefs, nor a belief in free will, comply with the laws of the physical world.” Similarly, the evolutionist explains:

relatively few biologists seriously question the concept of free will. This holds in spite of the fact that we live in an era when few biologists would question the idea that biological systems are totally based on the laws of physics and chemistry.

So let’s see, biological systems are totally based on the laws of physics and chemistry, so therefore there is no free will. Got it.

As the fallacies mount up it is not surprising that Cashmore gives experimental evidence an evolutionary spin. He finds it significant, for example, that measured brain activity precedes conscious awareness of a decision.

By the time he finishes Cashmore is utterly convinced:

A belief in free will is akin to religious beliefs […]

The reality is, not only do we have no more free will than a fly or a bacterium, in actuality we have no more free will than a bowl of sugar. The laws of nature are uniform throughout, and these laws do not accommodate the concept of free will. […]

as living systems we are nothing more than a bag of chemicals.

With this conclusive dismissal of free will, the evolutionist moves on to critique our criminal justice system. Does he suggest all go free? After all, no one is to blame for his actions, so how can we justify incarceration? Unfortunately Cashmore suggests nothing so pleasant. Would that evolutionary thinking was so benign. No, the evolutionist suggests something far more scary:

The proposal is a pragmatic one, based on the belief that the welfare of society at large is more important than the welfare of the individual offender.

if a defendant were found guilty, then a court-appointed panel of experts would play a role in advising on matters of punishment and treatment.

But in the evolutionist’s two-dimensional world, what is an expert, and how would the court ever know it? After all, any such “expert” is merely acting according to those uncontrollable mechanical factors, as is the judge who anoints them.

I can see it now. The “offender” is brought into a chamber where he is examined by the panel. The group might consist of some social workers, administrators, one or two clerics, perhaps a philosopher, and so forth. These court-appointed “experts,” who of course are evolutionists, would have an air of all-knowing, thinly veiled condescension. They would pose questions creating various Catch-22’s, having little to do with the case.

“Did you ever cheat in school?” An affirmative indicates a hooligan while a negative indicates a pathological liar. After brow-beaten into submission the offender is escorted away while the experts decide on his punishment and treatment. Annual reviews evaluate the convicts “progress,” determine how much longer to extend the sentence and the appropriate punishments and treatments for the coming year.

Should we laugh or should we cry. The evolutionist believes evolution created the illusion of free will and in him the ability to see through the illusion. He now, as a consequence of his genes, environment, and those Lucretian swerves, argues against free will. He is right and those who don’t agree are wrong (even though we’re all just a bag of chemicals). And consequently we should now trade our criminal justice system for an evolutionary kangaroo court. It is, at once, both idiotic and disturbing. Religion drives science and it matters.

In 1951 the leading evolutionist George G. Simpson stated that there really is no point nowadays in continuing to collect and to study fossils simply to determine whether or not evolution is a fact. The question, concluded Simpson, has been decisively answered in the affirmative. Simpson was by no means the first to make this high claim—even stronger statements were made in the nineteenth and even eighteenth centuries—but in the twentieth century this sentiment came to dominate the life sciences. It became more than merely broadly accepted, it became mandatory. This set up evolutionary theory as what Thomas Kuhn would call “normal science.” Evolution became the standard, the dominant paradigm, within which the life sciences operated. From high school biology exams to university tenure and funding applications, all must work under the umbrella of evolution. New research is not merely described in terms of evolution, the very data are interpreted according to evolution from the first measurement. If a new fossil form is discovered, it is described as a result of gradualism if it is similar to known forms. On the other hand, it is described as a result of punctuated equilibrium if it is unique. One way or another, evolution is the narrative. And while it may be that, in practice, science needs to work in this way, this overwhelming dominance means that, ironically, evolutionary studies often fail to provide evidence for evolution. This is because evolution is assumed in the very interpretation of the data. This logical technicality, however, often does not stop evolutionists from making high claims about the evidence.

The assumption that evolution is true is baked into evolutionary studies. The results are not theory-neutral, and it would be circular to use the results as evidence for evolution. Nonetheless, evolutionists often cite the conclusions of such studies as powerful and compelling evidence for evolution. There is an incestuous relationship between the research work and the apologetics ministries, and it needs to be expunged. The practice of evolutionists explaining to us that the evidence leaves no other choice is reminiscent of the government that investigates it own misdeeds or the corporation that appoints its own auditor. What is needed is an independent audit.

Consider, for example, the problem of how the eye evolved. It might seem, Darwin agreed, “absurd in the highest possible degree.” But with evolution taken as a fact, whether or not vision systems evolved is no longer in question—they did. The only question is how they have evolved. As evolutionists explain in one paper, although Darwin “anticipated that the eye would become a favorite target for criticism,” the problem “has now almost become a historical curiosity” and “the question is now one of process rate rather than one of principle.” They estimate this rate using the usual heroic assumptions of evolutionary thought. They write:

The evolution of complex structures, however, involves modifications of a large number of separate quantitative characters, and in addition there may be discrete innovations and an unknown number of hidden but necessary phenotypic changes. These complications seem effectively to prevent evolution rate estimates for entire organs and other complex structures. An eye is unique in this respect because the structures necessary for image formation, although there may be several, are all typically quantitative in their nature, and can be treated as local modifications of pre-existing tissues. Taking a patch of pigmented light-sensitive epithelium as the starting point, we avoid the more inaccessible problem of photoreceptor cell evolution. Thus, if the objective is limited to finding the number of generations required for the evolution of an eye’s optical geometry, then the problem becomes solvable.

This paper and its results do not serve as evidence for evolution; rather, they serve as evidence for the rate of the evolution of an eye’s optical geometry, given that evolution occurred. Yet evolutionists cite this paper, and others like it, as powerful evidence that eye evolution is straightforward.

Another example of evolutionary heroics is the evolution of the cell’s intricate metabolic pathways which are constantly performing a wide variety of chemical gymnastics. For example, the Krebs cycle is a complicated and apparently optimal metabolic pathway that has been a problem for evolutionists to explain. One evolutionary study claimed to demonstrate the “opportunistic evolution of the Krebs cycle,” but what passed for a demonstration was really a series of speculations about what might have happened, with no actual details of the particulars. And again, the evolution of the pathway, one way or another, was assumed. The question was not if the pathway evolved, but rather how it evolved:

We have analyzed the Krebs cycle as a problem of chemical design to oxidize acetate yielding reduction equivalents to the respiratory chain to make ATP. Our analysis demonstrates that although there are several different chemical solutions to this problem, the design of this metabolic pathway as it occurs in living cells is the best chemical solution: It has the least possible number of steps and it also has the greatest ATP yielding. Study of the evolutionary possibilities of each one—taking the available material to build new pathways—demonstrates that the emergence of the Krebs cycle has been a typical case of opportunism in molecular evolution. Our analysis proves, therefore, that the role of opportunism in evolution has converted a problem of several possible chemical solutions into a single-solution problem, with the actual Krebs cycle demonstrated to be the best possible chemical design. Our results also allow us to derive the rules under which metabolic pathways emerged during the origin of life.

It is, in fact, typical for life science research to cast results in terms of evolution. And if the results don’t fit evolutionary theory very well, then they are described as informative. After all, we are learning more about how evolution really works. Here’s a representative example. Transcription factors are proteins that bind to DNA and influence which genes are used to synthesize new proteins. Counter to evolutionary expectations, where exactly along the DNA these transcription factors bind is not well conserved across different species. But a paper discussing such findings claims that it “reveals the evolutionary dynamics of transcription factor binding” and provides “insight into regulatory evolution.” This would be like seeing a ship disappear over the horizon and claiming to be learning more about how and why the earth is flat. Nonetheless, it is papers such as these to which evolutionists refer when they claim there is overwhelming research proving evolution. From the claims of the paper it certainly seems as though they are substantiating evolution. Religion drives science, and it matters.

A Jerry Coyne apologist responded to my pointing out that Coyne misrepresents embryonic development, as evolutionists often do. In his discussion of vertebrate development, Coyne claims that "All vertebrates begin development looking like embryonic fish because we all descended from a fishlike ancestor with a fishlike embryo. We see strange contortions and disappearances of organs, blood vessels, and gill slits because descendants still carry the genes and developmental programs of ancestors." [79]

But humans—and most other vertebrates for that matter—do not "begin development looking like embryonic fish" and second humans do not have gill slits at any embryonic stage.

The Coyne apologist objected because Coyne is well aware that those "gill slits" are not literally slits. Rather, they are grooves between the branchial arches which Coyne simply refers to as gill slits. The apologist writes:

He [Coyne] introduces branchial arches starting on p. 78: "Perhaps the most striking fish-like feature is a series of five to seven pouches, seperated by grooves, that lie on each side of the embryo near its future head. These pouches are called branchial arches, but we'll call them "arches" for short. [...] As fish and shark embryos develop, the first arch becomes a jaw and the rest become gill structures: the clefts between the pouches open up to become the gill slits, [...]. But in other vertebrates that don't have gills as adults, these arches turn into very different structures - structures that make up the head." And there's a figure with a shark and a human embryo, with an arrow pointing at the pouches of both embryos labelled "branchial arches".

In other words, Coyne is not so uninformed as to think that this stage of human development sports actual slits. Of course, but that was not my point. I have no doubt Coyne is a smart person and knows his biology. The problem is he is an evolutionist and as a consequence he makes a mockery of science. The problem, in this case, is not so much with his use of the word "slit" but with his use of the word "gill." More on this below, but first, the apologist concludes:

In my opinion, if you actually read the book instead of looking for a quote that can be misrepresented, than there's no way in which you can claim that Coyne actually means that human embryos have gill slits like those in adult fish. Even embryonic fish do not have open gill slits like an adult fish.

If evolutionists are searching for misrepresentations they should look closer to home. As usual, evolution is guilty of what it accuses others of doing. Coyne and evolutionists misrepresent science when they contort the embryonic evidence in an attempt to find support for their absurd ideas. And yes, I did read Coyne's book. It is the apologist who apparently has not read it since he quotes from the Google books version. Here is what I wrote in an earlier blog:

Some books are difficult to read because they are not well written while others are difficult to read because the ideas don't make sense. There is turgid prose and then there is turgid logic. I have finally finished Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True which, if Coyne was not a leading evolutionist of international repute, I would have dismissed after the first chapter. Coyne is an excellent writer but Why Evolution is True is a laborious read because it doesn't make much sense. Thumbing through my copy, I see page after page with margin notes indicating various fallacies and inconsistencies. More later on this, but for now here are some aggregate statistics.

By my count Coyne affirms the consequent 21 times throughout Why Evolution is True. He begs the question 33 times and makes 35 theological claims. Coyne fails to mention important scientific problems that bear on his points 31 times.

I finally tired of counting but the volume is a veritable treasure trove of evolutionary thought. There are the usual just-so stories, unfalsifiable claims, presumptuous statements, ad hominem criticisms and so forth. In the evolution genre you can hope for quality writing but it seems there is no escaping problems with the content of that writing.

Yes, I read the book.

Now what's wrong with Coyne's description of vertebrate development? First, vertebrates simply do not begin development looking like embryonic fish. This is what evolutionary theory predicts, and what evolutionists want to see. Yes there are similarities, but this is yet another case of theory-driven, rather than data-driven, thinking.

Also, Coyne describes development as the usual just-add-water process so typical in evolutionary thought. Life just happened to arise, so evolutionists view it as simple. Coyne writes:

In fish and sharks, then, the development of gills from the embryonic arches is more or less direct: these embryonic features simply enlarge without much change to form the adult breathing apparatus. [75]

Sure, just add a few nerves, blood vessels, bone and cartilage and poof, there you have gills.

Next, Coyne begins immediately to refer to the grooves between the branchial arches, in human embryos, as gill slits. But humans don't have gills as adults. Humans never have gills at any stage. So there is no basis for referring to the grooves as "gill slits" aside from the silly evolutionary mandate that the branchial arches are an evolutionary leftover that today just happen to form structures such as the middle ear, larynx, Eustachian tube, and arteries and nerves.

So Coyne interprets the evidence according to the theory he thinks is true, and then presents the ludicrous interpretation as powerful evidence for the theory. I would have been astonished if I hadn't seen such circular reasoning so many times before in the evolution genre. There are other problems with this section, which I describe here. Once again evolution makes a mockery of science.