Thursday, June 29, 2006

Darwinism Meets the Berenstain Bears: Evolution as a Total Worldview

Author: Nancy R. Pearcy, senior fellow of the Discovery Institute.

This article is an eloquent narrative exploring the precise and devastating effects that Darwinism has on a person's worldview. It also takes this knowledge and applies it to Western culture as a whole, traces the historical impact of the Darwinist worldview on the West, and discusses its present form.

Pearcy describes how Darwinist thought has crept into every discipline, every arena, and even every home. I found her insights both enlightening and, at times, somewhat shocking. Despite my lack of words, this is one article that should not be skipped while reading this book.

For a masterful overview of naturalism at work in our culture, read this article.

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

The Miracles of Darwinism: 1996 Interview with La Recherche

Author: Marcel-Paul Schützenberger, (late) Professor of the Faculty of Sciences, University of Paris

This article is an abridged form of an original interview from the French journal La Recherche. In this interview, Schützenberger discusses some of the problems with Darwinism especially in regard to the "functional complexity" of living things.

He makes many points about the inadequacies of Darwinism in dealing with functional complexity. The most pointed, in my opinion, is his discussion of the information problem in moving from genes to functional systems. He likens (for sake of analogy) the creation of a complex organ, like an eye, to the creation of something simple like a household appliance. In the case of the eye, only about one or two thousand genes "code" the organ into existence but this is an absurd notion. One or two thousand letters on a page could scarcely even explain to someone uninformed how to construct and operate a household appliance. There has to be some preexisting understanding of form and function to accomplish the assembly and to illuminate its purpose. If this is true for something simple, it is all the more true for something as complex as an eye. There is some inexplicable, ineliminable, intelligence and communication at work.

In a similar vein, he also accuses evolutionary biology of an overly mechanistic view of gene expression. The "one gene - one protein - one 'function'" concept is incomplete, though necessary for the Darwinian notion of a linear progression of miniscule beneficial mutations. Genes function as a group, their interactions and relationships creating a whole much greather than the sum of its parts. This coupled with the underlying mysterious "knowledge" that the genes must somehow possess to accomplish such feats of functional complexity with such little information creates seemingly insurmountable obstacles for Darwinism to overcome.

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism

Author: Phillip E. Johnson, Jefferson Peyser Emeritus Professor of Law - University of California at Berkeley

This article flows as one long chain of thought, and is thus rather difficult to summarize. Basically, Johnson thoroughly explores the dogmatic, metaphysical, naturalism that underlies Darwinism and easily illustrates its lack of empirical foundation. He essentially, and effecitvely, debunks myth after myth by showing that the basis of Darwinism lies in faith not fact.

He begins with the standard argument about what is wrong with creationism and picks it apart throughout the rest of the article. He covers a number of topics in the process including biology, paleontology, religion, and philosophy. He points out repeatedly that Darwinism is a belief system, devoid of hard facts or verifiability, dogmatically pressed upon Western culture by a small controlling minority of specialists who are better qualified as thought police rather than scientists. Darwinism is at odds with every form of teleology. It is important to understand the full implications of Darwinist propoganda; this article helps do just that.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

The Check Is in the Mail: Why Darwinism Fails to Inspire Confidence

Author: Robert C. Koons, Professor of Philosophy - UT Austin

"Darwinism owes its present dominance to the widespread misperception that it has refuted the design argument." This is both the first sentence of this article, and its overarching argument. This is one of my favorite essays in the collection.

When he mentions the design argument, he is not talking about the rather recent movement known as Intelligent Design. Rather, he is mentioning the longstanding and natural human ability to recognize intelligence and design through ordinary sense data. His sources extend well into the annals of history. In fact, he makes the compelling argument for the fact that apart from our basic and rational mental ability to recognize intelligence and design we could not even recognize each other, or ourselves, as intelligent beings.

His main point, however, is that Darwinism, as a scientific project, has yet to empirically establish itself. Koons sets forth a five-step process by which Darwinism could legitimately, and empirically, defeat the design argument. He explains that Darwinism has only achieved the second step in that process and therefore has established nothing. To be fair, the Intelligent Design project has also only achieved the second step. Mankind is simply unable, at this point, to sufficiently explain genetics to empirically legitimize either theory. In the absence of such evidence, normal and rational human intellect identifies design in nature, Darwinism needs appropriate evidence to indicate otherwise.
"We're still waiting for Darwin's Newton: for a theorist who can take Darwin's proposal and produce even one hypothesis which specifies, step by step, the genetic changes that had to take place, the embryological alterations that these changes produce, and the quantifiable selective pressures that enable each new step to reach a significant proportion of the population."
Koons has done an excellent job in this article. This is well worth the read for anyone and everyone interested in this debate.

Monday, June 12, 2006

Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing


Whew! This book is astounding! In fact, it is so powerful a collection of articles that I think I need to review each article separately to do them all justice.

I should first say a few words though:

1.) This book is neither a Christian nor a Creationist compilation. It is primarily a book about Intelligent Design. Contrary to what the greater scientific community would have you believe, the critique of Darwinism is not dependent upon "Christian Fundamentalism" in any sense. Quite the opposite, I do not think that even one of these authors is a "Christian Fundamentalist". In fact, most of these authors seem quite unconcerned with establishing any religious notions whatsoever.

2.) This book presents an internal critique of Darwinism. Perhaps the most significant aspect of this book is that it critiques Darwinism from within. These authors seem to have no problem with the concept of evolution, what they have a problem with is methodological/metaphysical naturalism. These are scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, and the like who examine the data critically and explain their findings. Darwinists can not cry foul this time; these scholars do not submit easily to the type of character assassination of which Darwinists are so fond. In actuality, this is exactly the sort of critique that the world has been waiting to hear. The public arena is tired of the hyped "Evolution versus Religion" false dichotomy so loudly portrayed. This time we have "Science versus Darwinism" and "Evidence versus Darwinism" or even "Critical Thinking versus Darwinism" (not that Christianity doesn't represent those things, but a Darwinist would never concede such a thought).

I am so excited about this publication that I can hardly contain it. Every person involved in this debate must read this book.

Since I am not yet posting a review of the book as a whole, I will quote a pericope from Dembski's introduction that briefly explains the format, arguments, and authors:
This book divides into four parts. The first part shows why Darwinism faces a growing crisis of confidence. Robert Koons starts the ball rolling with his chapter "The Check Is in the Mail." In this chapter, Koons details how Darwinism substitutes theft for honest labor by insulating Darwinian theories from all possible criticism. Koons argues that the real motivation for Darwinism is to be found in a thoroughgoing metaphysical attack on the idea of agency, both human and divine, that has been ongoing for two hundred years. He also suggests that by undermining the idea of reasonable agency, Darwinism helped prepare the way for a variety of destructive experiments in social engineering. Next comes Phillip Johnson's well-known essay "Darwinism as Dogma," which originally appeared back in 1990 in First Things. This essay masterfully disentangles Darwinism's interweaving with materialist philosophy. And finally, there is Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger's 1996 interview with La Recherche, conducted shortly before his death, in which he recapitulates his ideas about functional complexity and the challenges this feature of biological systems poses to Darwinism. The original interview was in French and was translated into English by David Berlinski for the journal Origins & Design. It has been further edited here for style and clarity.

Part two focuses on Darwinism's cultural inroads. Nancy Pearcy starts things off with a sweeping overview. The effect of reading her essay is dizzying as she documents how Darwinism has inveigled itself into one academic discipline after another. Next comes Edward Sisson's brilliant analysis of how the professionalization of science has rendered science incapable of correcting itself in the case of Darwinism. Essentially, the critic of Darwinism faces a prisoner's dilemma in which perpetuating Darwinian falsehoods, either by actively promoting them or by silent complicity, is the best strategy for advancing one's career. J. Budziszewski's chapter on natural law is a much needed corrective to an emerging literature that seeks to combat postmodern ethical relativism with a distorted version of natural law based on Darwinism. And finally, Frank Tipler's chapter on referred journals shows how the peer-review process increasingly stifles scientific creativity and enforces orthodoxies like Darwinism. Although the chapter was specifically commissioned for this volume, Tipler's analysis has such huge public policy implications for the practice and funding of science that his chapter has now also appeared as an article on the web.

Part three examines the dynamics of converting to and deconverting from Darwinism. Often, in the writings of Darwinists (e.g., Ronald Numbers's book The Creationists), one gets the impression that the more educated people become, the more reasonable Darwinism seems. Part three shows that this is not the case. Michael Behe, raised as a Roman Catholic and trained as a biologist, accepted Darwinism as he began his scientific career. Only later, as he reflected on what he had been taught about evolution, did his doubts about Darwinism arise and finally lead to a full deconversion from Darwinism. Michael Denton, by contrast, never accepted Darwinism. Though early in his life he rejected Darwinism because of his religious faith, Denton continued to reject Darwinism even after he had shed his religious faith and learned an awful lot of biology. James Barham began as Christian fundamentalist, turned to a hardcore atheistic brand of Darwinism, and then, after thinking deeply about the nature of biological function, turned to a naturalized form of teleology at odds with both fundamentalism and Darwinism.

Finally, part four examines the nitty-gritty of why Darwinism is a failed intellectual project. After reviewing and overturning many of the key evidences used to prop Darwinism, Cornelius Hunter shows why Darwinism should properly be regarded not as a positive scientific research program but as a reactionary metaphysical program whose justification depends intrisically on naive assumptions about what God would and would not have done in designing biological systems. Next Roland Hirsch overviews many of the recent advances in molecular biology and biochemistry, showing how Darwinism has failed either to anticipate or to explain them. After that, Christopher Langan carefully examines the nature of causality and shows how Darwinism depends on a superficial analysis of causality to hide is fundamental conceptual problems. Finally, we come to the chapter that inspired this book, David Berlinski's June 1996 Commentary essay, "The Deniable Darwin." In exposing Darwinism's failure to resolve biology's information problem, this essay provoked an enormous response (over thirty published letters pro and con). In addition to the essay, this chapter includes some of the key letters by Darwinists critical of Berlinski's essay. It also includes Berlinski's replies to these critics.
Stay tuned for the first article.

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Synopses: Intelligent Design and Long War Against God

I recently got my hands on some new material:

1.) Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing - edited by William A. Dembski

2.) Darwin on Trial - Philip E. Johnson

3.) Darwin's Black Box - Michael J. Behe

Because of this, I am holding off on my official reviews of Intelligent Design and Long Wars Against God because I want to read my new books first. I will, however, provide synopses of those books for anyone interested:

Intelligent Design:
Author: William A. Dembski
Publication: InterVarsity Press 1999

This book is excellent. The main thrust of the work is to demonstrate that, mathematically, complex specified information can not occur as a result of chance or random unguided processes. He gives some generous mathematical limits as to what random chance can generate and still concludes that chance can in no way account for the complex specified information existing even in a single cell, much less an entire organism. If his equations and theories hold true, which I think is a given, he proves that evolution is quite impossible unless an intelligent force guides it. Intelligent Design does not rule out evolution as long as that evolution is guided by an intelligent designer, but the theory is also quite satisfied with the idea that God created all life purposefully and immediately. In addition, Dembski's personal views aside, Inteligent Design as a theory does not require any sort of religious aspect either. It does require intelligence and a designer, but it does not require that such a designer be the Christian God. Of course, the Christian God Jesus Christ is the perfect match for such an Intelligent Designer, namely because he designed the universe and created everything that exists!

Evolutionists like to trash the ID camp because they label it religious. It is undeniable that many of the proponents are religious (and Christians, gasp!), but the theory is not. They won't give up their straw man easily though, their entire rebuttal of ID is dependent upon character assassination and the supposed sinister Christian agenda inherent within it. Creationists have done a good job, however, of demonstrating that evolution is a worldview of its own, namely naturalism. The evolutionist camp is doing the very thing they accuse the ID camp of doing: forcing their worldview, unsupported by particular facts, on others in the name of science. Naked science is just as comfortable with the concept of design as it is with evolution and thrives on honest and constant questions and challenges. Naturalism, on the other hand, screams, shouts, and cries any time it is called into the smallest degree of scrutiny.

The Long War Against God:
Author: Dr. Henry Morris
Publication: Master Books 2000

This book is boring at times, but the content is good. Morris's premise is that evolution today is actually the result of a long standing battle of two primary worldviews: Judeo-Chrisitian Monotheism and Chain-of-Being/Evolution. He demonstrates a great deal of research into this topic and does an excellent job of demonstrating that from the beginning, these two world views have been battling one another on the world stage. He traces the religious roots of evolution back to cultures just as ancient (if not more ancient) than the Jews.

I found his conclusion well supported and reasoned. It has been a while since I've read it so I can't provide a large amount of detail on the actual content, but suffice it to say that he effectively traces evolution, as a world-view, to ancient paganism. Evolution is nothing new, it has just taken over the scientific world today and has a new makeover. This book is excellent for those who want to understand evolution/naturalism as a religious worldview.

Sunday, June 04, 2006

Analysis: Dmanisi Skulls vs. Lubenow

Upon the publication of the second edition of Bones of Contention, Talk Origins waxed arrogant against Lubenow's supposed denial of the Dmanisi skull data. In fact, on their page discussing Dmanisi hominid D2700 in particular they include another jab at Lubenow toward the bottom.

So why does Dmanisi matter? Evolutionists claim that it bridges the gap between the small brained Australopithecus/Homo habilis and the larger brained Homo fossils like H. erectus and higher. Lubenow does state in both editions of his book that Human cranial capacity, including H. erectus, can extend from 700cc to upwards of 2200cc (although he does state that normal Humans don't go below 775cc). The three Dmanisi skulls, which evolutionists label as H. erectus and claim that they are all morphologically similar enough to be declared members of one population, have cranial capacities of 600cc, 650cc, and 780cc (by Talk Origins estimates). It seems like the evolutionists have a point. If Lubenow claims that the gap between man and ape is a clear one (in terms of cranial capacity), then these skulls (if all the same species) blur that line.

Before I go on, I will let Lubenow speak for himself:
"There can be problems in interpreting whether or not a fossil is human based on brain size. My own rule is that, normally, no human fossil brain should be smaller than the smallest normal brain today (about 775 cc for fossil adults), but it could be larger than human brains today. Undisputed evidences of culture, such as in burials, can help discriminate between humans and nonhumans. There is a condition in the fossil record known as gigantism. A giant ape could have a brain size approaching the smaller human brain sizes. In this case, items that could help in discriminating between human and ape are the presence or lack of culture, the proportion of face size to brain size, extreme prognathism, a large sagittal crest, and other items common in ape morphology."
Lubenow surely anticipated their argument, and he does indicate that it is possible that an ape could approach the low range of human cranial capacity. Therefore, Lubenow's statement could allow for the Dmanisi hominids to be apes, one of them with an abnormally large cranial capacity. Lubenow does not directly claim this, however; in his charts he labels the smaller skulls as H. habilis and the larger skull as H. erectus. Realistically neither he nor the evolutionist can prove his point conclusively; the skulls could represent a homogeneous or heterogeneous group. I do admit, however, that the evolutionist has good evidence for his side since the skulls are from the same site and same supposed age and thus could reasonably be considered one population.

It should be noted that Lubenow does not consider the species distinctions of hominid fossils to be valid. He considers all Homo, except for habilis to be Human. His fossil charts use evolutionist dates and evolutionist taxonomy, except in a few documented disagreements, so his charts showing that the skulls fall into different taxa do not necessarily indicate that he places them in such categories. I can't speak for him authoritatively, though, and in the absence of contrary information we should assume he places them in separate taxa intentionally.

It is also important to note that the Dmanisi skulls, dated at around 1.9 m.y.a., are too late for the supposed transition in cranial capacity. From the East Rudolf (Turkana) area there are already fossils, also dated around 1.9 m.y.a, that fall within a much larger size range (such as KNM ER 1470, 1472, 1481, and 1590). In other words, if the Dmanisi skulls are supposed to exhibit a transition from a smaller to larger brain/body, why do populations exist at exactly the same time that have already well surpassed this supposed transitional point? The fossil record does not support such a transition.

An even more intriguing solution to this problem comes from a different source entirely; a source too recent to appear in Lubenow's 2004 work, so I'm not sure what he would say about it. I can, however, make a few guesses.

H. floresiensis: The greatest defense against evolution is surely the fossil record itself. H. floresiensis is the name that evolutionists have given some surprising fossils from the Indonesian island of Flores. These fossil hominids have an extremely small cranial capacity. The most complete skull, LB1, is only 380cc. This sounds like an australopithecine so far, but they have dated these fossils at only 18,000 y.a.! There is clearly a problem here.

Since evolutionists are particularly fond of assigning fossils to categories based on their age (even if the morphology does not fit), they claim that this is a late surviving member of H. erectus. As for the skull size, (WAY out of H. erectus range), they call H. floresiensis a "dwarf human". Additional evidence includes the association of tools, fire, and hunted game with these fossils. There is also possible evidence of sea travel, deduced from their seclusion on an island.

So let's analyze this. Evolutionists claim that fossils around 1.9 m.y.a. demonstrate a transition in cranial capacity from about 600cc to 780cc. To find fossils well over 1.8 m.y. younger, but with a cranial capacity even smaller rules this transition out entirely. Sure these fossils are on an island, but they originated somewhere else and they apparently hadn't evolved on the evolutionist's sacred time scale. So how do they deal with this? Hmm, it can't be Australopithecus, it can't be a transitional fossil, so it must be...a dwarf! Of course, if the fossils don't fit, it must be some freak of nature! Evolution is so patently obvious that any data not supporting it is just a mistake. (Do you catch my sarcasm?)

Evolutionists think they can get away with having their cake and eating it too:

1.) If H. floresiensis is a dwarf species, then so can every other small cranium. In fact, Dmanisi could be a dwarf population too. By using NON-EVOLUTIONARY explanations to justify a fossil's morphology, they admit that evolution is not necessary to explain morphology at all.

2.) If H. floresiensis is not a dwarf species, then it shows that hominids with extremely small cranial capacities never evolved into hominids with larger cranial capacities. They were still just as small 18,000 y.a. on the evolutionist's time scale.

But wait, there's more. The Flores fossils are stated to be around 1 meter in height, small in skull and body. One study of an arm bone there, however, indicates that the hominid it came from could have been 1.5 or 1.6 meters in height. That's approaching the size of modern humans, though still very short. This could potentially indicate that H. floresiensis lived alongside more modern (morphologically speaking) hominids, and again destroys any vestige of evolutionary transition. It could also lend credence to the idea that these were microcephalic humans. Either way, it hurts rather than helps evolutionary theory.

The evolutionist is assured, however, that everything is ok. Talk Origins states:
"This discrepancy [the arm bone] will doubtless be thoroughly investigated"
They speak as if further investigation will somehow relieve the discrepancy. Given the tendency of evolutionists to fudge on things like morphology, taxa, and dates, when under the burner I'm sure they'll work something out. They also reassure us by saying:
"The discovery of H. floresiensis does not change the broad picture of human evolution, including our lineage - it was certainly not ancestral to us."
Their evidence for the reassurance? I didn't see any. Their evidence that these fossils are not ancestral to us? Again, I didn't see any. It only follows from their theory that such a small brained creature had nothing to do with the grand H. sapiens.

Back to Lubenow: Given all this information we could claim that either some apes could theoretically approach small human cranial size or that some extremely small humans could approach ape cranial size. Are the Dmanisi fossils humans or apes? I don't really know. How about the Flores fossils? I don't know about those either. But either way a person decides (apes or humans), the explanation clearly does not depend upon any sort of evolution. Lubenow prepares his readers for this sort of slippery evolutionist reasoning. I grant the evolutionist his point that Lubenow's line of demarcation between human and ape at 700-775cc could be called into question for these unusual (and exceptional) fossils; but, in my opinion, Lubenow remains unscathed.

These fossils surprised creationists and evolutionists alike, but I think they cause real problems only for evolution. Maybe our distinctions based on cranial capacity need to be revised. Maybe these skulls are the exception to the general rule. Maybe they are just all apes. Conclusive proof isn't available for either side of the argument. I'm not a paleoanthropologist, but I can easily see the problems that these fossils cause for the theory of evolution.

Bones of Contention (2nd Edition) [Addendum Review]

Author: Marvin L. Lubenow
Publication: Baker Books 2004

This edition of Lubenow's book has been thoroughly reworked and updated. In fact, this book is almost so different as to make it a completely separate endeavor. I am so pleased with this book that I hope he writes another edition in 8-10 more years.

This edition deals with the new fossil discoveries since the last publication, and updates several of the chapters where necessary. Overall there are about one hundred more pages of discussion and twelve more chapters. I will focus here on the changes. The first twelve chapters are essentially the same, the new material begins at chapter thirteen.

New Material: This edition is now organized into seven groups of chapters with a new introduction before each one. The new material starts in section three, which highlights the inherent racism of evolution. This section is quite enlightening and very effective with Lubenow's overall argument. By highlighting the inherent racism of evolution, which he extends to human ancestors such as Neanderthal, he is able to show a reasonable source of a large amount of bias and prejudice (mostly toward fossils) by the scientific community. This argument seems rather unique to Lubenow. His discussion is direct and piercing. By exposing this fundamental aspect of evolutionary theory, he effectively explains many of the suppositions and assumptions that evolutionists make in order to make their theory palpable to the politically correct arena. This section reflects powerful arguments and brilliant original thought.

Section four discusses several things, one of which is the African Eve theory, especially as it exists as a reaction against the inherent racism of evolution. It also discusses two branches of evolution which he labels as "splitters" and "lumpers". The last chapter in this section discusses the implications of the Sima de los Huesos Cave material, how it has changed the evolutionary theories of science and how it supports the creationist claim that the morphological variety found among fossil humans is the result of genetic variation within H. sapiens, not the result of evolution.

Section five is all about Neanderthal. He here exposes volumes of scholarship demonstrating the full humanity of the Neanderthal people. He also discusses why evolutionists are so adamant about removing Neanderthal from H. sapiens lineage: racism (or rather the scrambling fear of seeming racist). What does racism have to do with human fossils? Well basically, the Out of Africa model states that all modern humans have a single point of origin: African Eve. In order for this to be true, all other human fossils must be extinct forms of proto-man that were either killed or replaced by the modern humans from Africa. This scenario, as Lubenow shows, is so very popular precisely because it seems to deflect any accusations of racism against evolution. The other main theory of evolution states that modern man evolved from different populations independently on each continent. This becomes racist because the fossils seem to indicate (based on evolution, that is) that different populations have been evolving for different lengths of time. Therefore, a population who achieved modern manhood two or three hundred thousand years behind another would seem genetically inferior; it hasn't had as much time to evolve. See the racist implications?

Section six is completely new in this edition. It contains a discussion and analysis of the RATE project, a creationist led scientific coalition with astounding evidence for a young earth. The findings of RATE speak for themselves, Lubenow just exposes them to the reader. He also shows that even if the reader can not stomach the implications of RATE's findings, evolution still doesn't measure up on its own old earth timescale.

Section seven sums up his arguments and includes a bit of information on Genesis (nearly identical to the first edition). This edition lacks his old earth/young earth theological implications discussion that the first edition had. In this edition, all of Lubenow's charts are found at the end of the book and they have been updated and changed into a new format.

Conclusions: This edition is vastly superior to the first, and substantially different. It lacks a lot of the theological discussion of the first edition and has a different format for his fossil charts. The new chapters on racism, Neanderthal, African Eve, and dating methods add significantly to the value of the book and quite easily justify the new edition.

If Lubenow's last book knocked evolution off its feet, this book finishes the job with a knockout. Although I stated that this edition lacks some of the theological discussion, it still contains plenty of passing statements. One reason I like Lubenow so much is that he is not afraid to admit that, aside from the glaring scientific flaws, a substantial reason to label evolution false is that Jesus Christ is the Lord and he created life in six days. If you are not a Christian, the scientific evidence in this book is thorough and complete. If you are a Christian, the spiritual evidence only makes his arguments stronger and more personal.

Read this book!!!!!

Thursday, June 01, 2006

Analysis: Glen Rose Fossils

The fossil evidence, as presented by Dr. Carl Baugh, would utterly destroy modern evolutionary theories. After all, how would they explain human footprints right alongside dinosaur prints? How did the scientific community respond?

They resorted to nothing less than utter character assassination, especially after his public appearance on NBC.

But what about his evidence? As for his footprints, they worked their hardest to discredit such a problematic find. After concluding that they were dinosaur prints, rather than human prints, they considered the matter settled. But not all of the prints could be classified as dinosaurian. For those, they resorted to the impeccable logic of obscurity:

"Some of the reputed prints are erosional features or other irregularities" - See above link for context -

...except for the ummistakably human print, which they readily labelled a hoax. In fact, after labelling this a hoax they seemed content to discredit all of his evidence without so much as a stir.

As for the artifacts, they gave worthless responses. His cretaceous hammer was dealt with easily enough:

"The hammer is encrusted with calcium carbonate, which can happen quickly. The fossils are in nearby rocks, not part of the material encrusting the hammer. There is no evidence that the hammer is more than a few decades old."

His fossilized finger, an impressive fossil indeed, was labelled a shrimp tunnel, despite the CT Scans showing bones and the very clear outline of a fingernail.

There is more evidence, but the scientific community doesn't seem too concerned. After dealing with him once (and fiercely discrediting everything about him along the way), they feel ignoring him is safe enough now. So his iron pot found in coal, and his cretaceous handprint from Glen Rose are condemned to the annals of silence.

Do Dr. Baugh's fossils prove that dinosaurs and man lived contemporaneously? Maybe, maybe not. But the behavior of many evolutionists shows that they won't tolerate evidence that doesn't support them and that they'll gladly resort to disgraceful behavior when threatened. Science doesn't matter to them, only evolution matters.

What about Richard Leaky whose credentials were lacking (as talkorigins.org claims about Baugh)? Sure his parents were famous, but that doesn't give him automatic credentials. Yet he's a hero for evolution because his evidence was what they wanted. Credentials only matter if you're on the right side of the fence.

Not all evolutionists would necessarily behave this way (and I grant that my only sources for this post are from talkorigins.org), but I really think that Dr. Baugh was unfairly the butt of dogmatic hatred instead of the professional respect he certainly deserves.

Why Do Men Believe Evolution Against All Odds?

Author: Carl E. Baugh
Publication: Bible Belt Publishing 1999

I picked up this small book on my recent trip to Glen Rose, TX. While there I visited the Creation Evidence Museum run by Dr. Baugh and was eager to pick up any material cataloguing his discoveries. This book provides a short section detailing his fossils with photographs.

Essentially, this book is a running list of reasons why evolution, both biological and cosmological, is not a valid explanation of life. Dr. Baugh's research is evident, as demonstrated by his frequent quotations. This book is too small and too broad to satisfy most, but it does contain some good information and research and it does contain a short section of the Glen Rose fossil material (which, as I said, is why I wanted this book in the first place).

Chapter one provides a list of reasons why evolution, as a world view, is both depressing and unfulfilling. Chapter two links evolution to both ancient and modern religious ideas. Chapter three gives a brief description of the big bang and illustrates why it is implausible and impossible. Chapter four provides reasons as to why life could not have originated spontaneously by purely natural forces. Chapter five combats the idea that evolution can account for change beyond the genus/species level; in other words, he argues that macroevolution is unfounded. Chapter six probes the issue of stasis, both in the fossil record and modern life forms. Chapter seven discusses the geological column; it is here that Dr. Baugh discusses his fossil discoveries and provides photographs. Chapter eight argues for a young universe. Chapter nine discusses design in the universe. Chapter ten discusses evolution as a tormented world view. Some of Dr. Baugh's quotes are useful and impressive. He has obviously done a lot of reading.

As for the Glen Rose fossils, I don't know of any other books where these can be found together. Alongside his pictures, he discusses the fossil footprints (which Dr. Baugh maintains are human), a fossilized human finger, and a fossilized handprint. All of these fossils have been found amoung cretaceous rocks. His evidence is quite interesting. In addition to his Glen Rose material, he discusses some Permian fossil prints (one of which is clearly human) from the Robledos Mountains in New Mexico, a fossilized hammer, some ancient burial stones with very clear dinosaur images on them from Central America, and the recent find of fossilized cowboy feet/legs inside leather boots. The hammer is supposedly cretaceous, which creates obvious problems for evolutionists. The burial stones are very interesting and raise the serious question of 'How did ancient people know exactly what dinosaurs looked like (we're not talking about images of bones)'. The cowboy fossil is obviously recent but provides further evidence that complete fossilization can occur in shockingly small amounts of time (in this case less than 30 years).

This book is a quick read and the money, in my opinion, goes to a good cause. Dr. Baugh is building a new musuem facility with a large hyperbaric biosphere where he will attempt to recreate pre-flood earth conditions. Some of his preliminary experiments demonstrate that animals can grow much larger and live much longer under these conditions. His experiments are very intriguing.

This book is interesting. If for nothing else, at least for the Glen Rose material.