Yet an atheist archaeologist can appear from the jungles of
Borneo brandishing one fossilised tooth and the scientific community can
proceed to build and entire human sub-species out of the find, complete with progenitors
and progeny - and no one raises an eyebrow.
At best this is witness to a rich imagination overlaying an increasing
desperation on the part of the scientific community to keep the theory of
evolution on the shelf well past its sell-by date. At worst it is just simple fraud. Evolutionary is an area of "science" the path of which has been
littered with frauds from the start.
If you really wanted hard
evidence for evolution, the smoking gun was, according to the devotees of the
secular liberal faith, the peppered moth. When industrial pollution in
the middle of the nineteenth century started to turn the trunks of trees black,
the peppered moth of Darwinic folk legend, once pale, started to turn black,
the better to avoid predators, or so it was hypothesized by Darwinic
arch-druids. As evidence for evolution goes it wasn’t quite earth worms
turning into elephants, but at least it was something. It had “evolved”
(or at least changed a smidgen) exactly as Darwin had predicted.
It wasn’t quite the stuff to set
the heart racing; they were still peppered moths. The secular miracle of
natural selection had nevertheless produced a minor variation within the
species. A destitute man can get excited over a few coppers
and up to that point the Darwiniacs had been pretty skint for hard
evidence. Here at last they had a grey moth that had morphed in front of
their very eyes into a radically new life form - a slightly darker grey moth.
The secular liberals ecstatically announced that “real science” had proved
evolution true yet again and went back to their favourite pastime of calling
infidels religious nutters.
One of my grandchildren also goes
noticeably darker every summer and one of my daughters-in-law regularly goes
from fat to skinny and back again. Not exactly the sort of metamorphosis
that could turn a midge into a moose, nevertheless, perhaps I could make a bob
or two selling the story of my grandson’s amazing ability to change his colour
with the seasons to the New
Scientist.
In the fifties an Oxford biologist, E.B. Ford, had spent two
happy years transporting dark grey moths from the inner city to the countryside
and light grey moths from the countryside to the inner city. After which
Ford triumphantly announced that his research had proved that birds could
easily spot the dark grey moth on light trees and light grey moths on dark
trees. Voilà - evolution had been proved yet again!
Over the next fifty years the
peppered moth’s legend became sacred to Darwinics - a sort of Fatima
for atheists. It became the snow covered peak of that “mountain of
evidence” that science journals keep telling us about. Every school child
in the west, before learning how to put a condom on a cucumber, was staring at
pictures of a light peppered moth clearly visible on a black tree trunk next to
a dark moth that was somewhat less visible.
It was all so reasonable … and yet
all so phony. Some decades later some researchers (who one must presume
had been living on another planet and were thus unaware that questioning
evolution was a capital offense on planet earth) raised a few trivial issues.
Ted Sargent, an American lepidopterist (the branch of zoology dealing with
butterflies and moths) then risked life-long incarceration by bravely pointing
out that peppered moths don’t actually alight on tree trunks! Further,
they are nocturnal and fly around at night when birds, apart from owls, are
having their forty winks.
It transpired that Ford had rigged
his experiments by physically placing moths on tree trunks, somewhere the
little critter would never have alighted had they been left to their own
devices. It that wasn’t bad enough, it also become apparent that the
famous photos of peppered moths, which regularly show up in Darwinic propaganda
even to this day, had been staged: dead moths had been literally stuck to tree trunks! The “proof” for evolution
had suddenly morphed into a sort of Monty Python dead-parrot sketch. This
experiment had been the equivalent of tying the legs of a mouse together and
throwing it to a hungry cat, and then exclaiming, “See - this confirms mice
evolved legs to escape predators - evolution is proved yet again!”
In her book, Godless:
The Church of Liberalism
, Ann Coulter
amusingly quipped to the effect that this exposé brought to an abrupt end the
secular liberals one and only recorded love-affair with air pollution.
, Ann Coulter
amusingly quipped to the effect that this exposé brought to an abrupt end the
secular liberals one and only recorded love-affair with air pollution.
And how did the Darwinacs respond
to this exposure? - you know the ones who keep telling us they are devoted to
the scientific method. Well, to be fair, a couple had the integrity to
publicly admit that the game was up, but the rest set about the science of
demonising Sargent and ruining his career - Sargent was the zoologist who had
played a central part in exposing the fraud.
Others devotees just ploughed on
regardless, hoping no one had noticed that their “statue of the Weeping Virgin”
wasn’t kosher. The New
Scientist as recently as 9th
July 2005 confidently stated, “Evolutionary biologists have long known that the
process can happen rapidly - Charles Darwin himself pointed out the observable
changes wrought by pigeon fanciers and dog breeders. A century later
biologists showed that peppered moths in England ’s industrial heartland had
evolved darker colours to camouflage themselves against soot-blackened
trees.” It came as a surprise to many that selective breeding by humans
had belonged in the “blind chance mutations of nature” column all along.
In 2005 - three years after it had
finally acknowledged that the peppered moths were a fraud - the New York Times
carried an article by a biologist, Professor H. Allen Orr, treating the
peppered moth scam as an open question “Did the peppered moths evolve dark
colour as a defence against birds or for other reasons? And what role, if
any, did the empty cans of superglue and black spray paint found at the scene
play in the moth’s evolution.” Okay - I made up the last sentence.
Orr concluded by called the
darkening of the moths a “minor squabble” among biologists that had been
inflated by sceptics of evolution. It was as if the Church was to
describe the Galileo affair as a storm in a teacup triggered by a “fanatical
pro-elliptical orbist”!
Peppered moths fly are night (when birds
are having a kip) and don’t alight on tree trunks - aren’t these what
old-school scientists used to call facts?
Is there anything funnier than
secular liberals? - they engineer comical frauds in defence of their religious
dogmas and then accuse sceptics of being driven by religious zeal, and then
constantly talk as if you are an idiot for being just a tad uncertain that your
great-grandfather was a frog!
