English Professor Completely Destroys Three Evolution Professors

And That Was Before He Saw Their Arguments

Because the only thing worse than having all your points refuted, is having all your points refuted before you even make them. In this telling exchange English professor Terry Scambray first shows Chemistry professor George Kauffman the door (“It’s disappointing to read George Kauffman assert … that everyone should accept Darwin’s “creation” story because a … congressman had a House Resolution passed saying that we should! Professor Kauffman … must know that House Resolutions are decorative statements, done to enhance politicians’ résumés. I hope that we could all agree that if members of Congress had to pay the cost to produce such trivia, none would exist.”) and then proceeds to anticipate and demolish the sophomoric, non scientific rebuttals that would come from Biology professors Paul Crosbie and Fred Schreiber. Scambray has just shown us that behind all the sound and fury of evolutionary bravado is nothing more than the same old themes. And so, without further ado, presenting, the man whom evolutionists should never debate.

Scambray first ensures that everyone understands the basics. And the basics are that the evidence does not support evolutionary theory very well. In fact there are major problems. Evolutionary theory certainly does not explain the data very well. But no sooner can Scambray warn that “No knowledgeable individual denies this” then the evolutionists, well, deny it:

TS: Animals and plants appear in the fossil record fully formed and remain unchanged through millions of years. No knowledgeable individual denies this.

PC/FS: Natural selection remains the mechanism that best explains the data we gather

Next Scambray forestalls the usual equivocation on evolution. The English professor is careful to ensure we understand what is meant by the word so we are not fooled when the inevitable equivocation was to come, and come it did, Scambray’s warnings notwithstanding:

TS: Such changes as occurred with these finches are sometimes referred to as "evolution in action." But these infinitesimal changes are not "evolution" in the way that Darwin meant the word. For he meant to explain how nature by itself could make something new, how one animal or plant over long periods of time could transform itself into something quite different, like a trout changing into a tiger, or a bacterium into a whale.

PC/FS: there unfortunately remain widespread misconceptions regarding not only whether evolution occurs, but about the meaning of the word theory. … Evolution is the change of organisms over time, observed most fundamentally in alterations of genes. This is a fact, directly observed in any organism that is investigated, and supported by thousands of research studies.

Scambray also explained that DNA similarities are not the profound confirmation that evolutionists claim they are, but of course the evolutionists could not resist, fulfilling yet again Scambray’s prophecy. Amazing, humans share more genetic similarities with dogs than with yeast. Will evolutionists ever learn?

TS: DNA studies have confirmed the traditional relationships and "genetic distances" between different plants and animals which have always existed as observed by humans over thousands of years.

PC/FS: Most recently, molecular biologists have found that DNA contains a record of the changes in organisms as they evolved. For example, closely related species such as humans, dogs and other mammals share about 90% of the same genes, whereas more distantly related organisms, such as the yeast cell, share about 50% of their genes with humans.

And of course there are the finches, flies, insects and bacteria that are supposed to prove evolution. Scambray wisely explains the problems and the fallacies and, yes, the evolutionists rush in.

TS: Over millions of generations of laboratory testing, fruit flies, as one example, when subjected to genetic changes have not changed into anything but mutated, crippled fruit flies. So also much the same thing happened with the famous "Galapagos finches" whose average beak size became bigger when the conditions there made it harder to find food due to bad weather. Then when food became more plentiful, the beak size of those finches that survived returned to normal. Thus the finches changed a little, adapted, while remaining fundamentally unchanged. In this way, nature moves back and forth, in cycles, rather than in a permanent upward climb or downward slide. … Resistance to pesticides and antibiotics does not mean that the insects and bacteria who survive these threats have "evolved." Quite the contrary. Those organisms "resist" the antibiotic or pesticide poisoning merely because of some feature of their cellular structure that does not bind with the poison.

PC/FS: Natural selection makes sense of much of modern medicine. Just as we explain the origin of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, we can explain why antiviral drugs work over the short term but become ineffective over the long term. Our knowledge of how viruses evolve is the basis for great concern about the H5N1 strain of the influenza virus that shifts from pigs to birds to humans.

Finally there is, of course, the underlying motivation for evolution, that creation must be false. And as usual Scambray does the explaining and the evolutionists do the shtick.

TS: Subsequently the tactic was to attack individuals who doubted Darwin by calling them "creationists" -- meaning "crackpots." As one historian writes, the Darwinists' attacks "have been in almost direct proportion to the shortcomings of the theory." Does this explain why congressional resolutions need to be relied on now to prop up Darwin?

PC/FS: Alternative ideas have been tested over the past two centuries, including special creation and versions of "intelligent design." Biologists rejected these alternatives decades ago. They have no explanatory power, no credible evidence, and have long been regarded as non-science, as they invoke supernatural causation, which is not considered by scientists.

No explanatory power, no credible evidence, and aren’t science anyway? I guess that covers it. He’s not my dog, he didn’t bite you, and besides you hit the dog first anyway. Evolutionary thought is so trite and so predictable that Scambray not only destroyed the evolutionist’s pablum, he did so before they even regurgitated it.

And in case there was any doubt about the standing of evolutionary thought, the evolutionists finish with their favorite motto, the non scientific, metaphysical claim from Theodosius Dobzhansky that “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.”

Religion drives science and it matters.