The evolutionists will look for anything in an attempt to prop up the faultering foundation of their questionable theory of origins. They walk out of meetings in protest when the evolutionary dogma is being scrutinized by other scientists. It’s their claim that to question Darwin is to question science,[1] and they won’t be a part of it. I wonder what their reaction would have been when Louis Pasteur proposed the germ-theory of disease when there was near agreement from the scientific community that he was dead wrong?
Today’s evolutionists remind me of a scene from the 1968 version of Planet of the Apes starring Charlton Heston and Roddy McDowell. You can only see it in the Letter-Box edition of Planet of the Apes. You will recall the three Orangutans who did not want to hear the evidence that explained Taylor’s existence in their world: Hear no evil, see no evil, and speak no evil. Don’t confuse me with the facts. The old theories are the correct theories because they support the status quo and the intellectual hierarchy and the perks that come with them. Let’s not forget that with no God everything is possible and permissible.
Scientific theories have been challenged in the past without science itself being questioned. When Newtonianism was questioned, nobody claimed that science itself was being challenged. No, it was simply questioning a theory of science developed by Isaac Newton. The same is true of any claim of science. Many scientists, some who are even “mainstream scientists,” question the sacrosanct dogma of evolution. Does this mean that they are no longer legitimate scientists because they have questions about a questionable theory?
The latest evolutionary theory claims that a new species has been found that is the missing evolutionary link between meat-eating dinosaurs and their vegetarian descendants. The fossil remains of Falcarius utahensals are said to be 125 million years old. Here’s the dogmatism: “This little beast,” says Utah Museum of Natural History paleontologist Scott Sampson, “is a missing link between small-bodied predatory dinosaurs and the highly specialized plant-eating therizinosaurs.”[2] He knows no such thing. The fact that an animal eats both meat and plants is no indicator that it’s a missing link. This animal ate both meat and vegetables because it liked meat and vegetables because God made it that way. We eat meat and veggies and milk and cheese and yogurt and chocolate. Where do we fit in on the scale of missing links?
Since our children were very little, we’ve owned Golden Retrievers. Ivy is our latest. She’s a sweet, smart dog with an appetite for meat and an inordinate fear of a small wooden gate that blocks her entrance from the kitchen to the rest of the house. It’s a healthy fear. But in addition to liking meat, she also loves carrots, nuts, strawberries, cheese, and crunchy lettuce. Does this make her a missing link? If 125 million years from now, someone digs up her fossilized bones, will they conclude that her breed is a missing link between small-bodied predatory canines and a highly specialized plant-eating vegiecanine? If there are evolutionists still around, I wouldn’t doubt it.
Endnotes:
[1] Alex Johnson, “The Evolution of the Fight to the End,” MSNBC (May 4, 2005): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7736155
[2] Mike Toner, “Fossils hint at dinosaur diet shift,” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (May 5, 2005), A3.