University Bigots and Vietnam Part 1
Leonard Magruder
05/27/2005
STUDENTS!
DON’T LET THEM FLIM-FLAM YOU!
“LAWRENCE JOURNAL-WORLD” EDITORS SCREEN OUT ALL SCIENTIFIC DEFENSE OF
INTELLIGENT DESIGN WHILE K.U. CO-CONSPIRATORS RAGE AGAINST THE DYING OF
THE LIGHT
While on the surface editors at the Lawrence Journal-World appear
to be allowing both sides of the evolution issue to be heard, in actual
fact they are screening out any defense for intelligent design submitted
by true scientists. Below are two letters in a row written by Leonard
Magruder, a retired professor and scientist, rejected by the paper.
Following the two letters we will lay out for you just how huge the holes
in evolution theory really are. This is where the debate begins, not with
intelligent design, that follows as a possible solution. The debate begins
with the clear demonstration that neo-Darwinism is widely known by a huge
and growing number of world-class scientists as being in deep trouble.
Letters to the Editor
Lawrence Journal-World
Lawrence, Ks.
Dear Editor:
Leonard Krishtalka, in lesson three of his article, “Tsunami’s How and
Why” tells us that the ‘how’ of science must be kept separate from
the ‘why’ of religion. This is “a primary lesson we should apply to
the evolution -creationism issue or to any other attempt to pit knowledge
against faith,” says the director of the K.U. Museum of Natural History.
The fact is, ‘how’ and ‘why’ are inextricably entwined across the
scientific spectrum. The world’s greatest scientists, men like Einstein,
Hawkins, Schrodinger, Bohn, and Heisenberg, all of them, when they came to
the edge of their scientific facts, felt free to speculate further, and
wrote important books of a philosophical, even religious nature rooted in
scientific facts. Beyond the ‘how,’ they wanted to know ‘why.’
Take this statement by the world-class evolutionist George Gaylord
Simpson, “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that
did not have him in mind.” That is his view regarding the question of
‘why’ made after looking at the ‘how.’
On the other hand, Anthony Flew, one of the world’s leading philosophers
and atheists, now believes in God based on his examination of the
scientific arguments of intelligent design. He concludes from the
‘how’ of intelligent design that the ‘why’ is that some
‘super-intelligence’ must have created the universe.
I suspect that anyone who wants us to separate ‘how’ from ‘why’
just doesn’t want us to think. That is how wooly stuff like evolution
gets pulled over our heads.
Leonard Magruder
***
Dear Editor:
It looks like “Journal-World” reporters are once again trying to flim-flam
the public on evolution. Their repeated use of the device,
‘creationism/intelligent design,’ is clearly an effort to condition
the public into thinking the two are the same. They are not.
Scientific creationism presupposes a supernatural agent, God, and the
scientific accuracy of the biblical account of creation. It treats the
opening chapter of Genesis as a scientific text and thus argues for such
things as a literal six-day creation, the existence of a historical Adam
and Eve, and a catastrophic world-wide flood. It attempts to match the
data of nature to the biblical account. This reliance on narrowly held
prior assumptions is what destroys its claim to be a scientific theory.
Intelligent design, on the other hand, starts with the data of nature and
from there is able to show, though the specialized scientific tools it has
developed, than an intelligent cause, which it does not specify, is
responsible for some facts of nature. It relies on widely accepted
scientific principles, largely probability analysis, which ensure its
legitimacy as a scientific theory.
Contrary to what the media tries to sell the public, intelligent design is
totally free from any religious entanglement. True, there can be an
inference from the findings to a supernatural being, but that is also
often done from the discovery of the Big Bang and the Anthropic principle.
An inference in no way discredits the underlying science.
Leonard Magruder
Sometime during the last evolution controversy in Kansas, the President of
the K.U. Student Senate sent out a request for ideas as to how to spend a
large Senate surplus. In a 21-page letter to him, Mr. Magruder reviewed
all of the scientific problems with evolution theory and proposed the
money be spent on a national symposium on these issues as well as the new
concept of intelligent design. Neither the Senate president, nor any of
the administration that received copies, bothered to even acknowledge the
letter. The famous K.U. coma.
Since Ohio was wrestling with the same issues at that time the letter was
sent to the President of the Ohio School Board, who wrote back that she
had ordered copies for each Board member, Ohio became the first state to
require students to learn about scientific criticisms of neo-Darwinism,
including intelligent design. The following is a selection from that
letter:
“Let’s review in this letter some of the problems that old line
biologists, with the help of the media, are trying to keep covered up. For
openers, in a recent lead article in the “American Spectator,” Dr.
Jonathan Wells, a PhD in molecular and cell biology from the University of
California - Berkeley, shows where almost all of the textbooks used in
high schools and colleges have for decades repeated material as scientific
fact which were discredited by scientists themselves decades ago, material
which is crucial to the case for evolution being true.
“One of these icons is the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment, which continues
to appear in textbooks as proof that life evolved from lifeless matter.
All scientists today view this experiment as fatally flawed and the whole
idea at a dead end. Another well known evolutionary icon still being
presented as scientific fact is the Darwinian “tree of life,”
according to which all modern species evolved gradually from a universal
common ancestor. But the fossil record, according to Stephen Jay Gould,
perhaps the world’s foremost evolutionist, shows that the major groups
of animals appeared all at once, fully formed, with no evidence of earlier
ancestry.
“Another icon is the set of drawings by Ernest Haeckel showing
similarities in vertebrate embryos that supposedly point to common
ancestry. Scientists have known for over a century that Haeckel faked the
similarities. Gould, in one of his books, describes being taught this in
school 50 years after it had been discarded by science. Other icons that
still appear in biology textbooks in spite of long since having been
debunked include the evolution of the horse, the elephant, Darwin’s
finches, the pepper moth, and the arguments for ‘homology.’
Writes Wells, “Contemporary biology textbooks contain massive
distortions and even faked evidence.” And at the end of his article he
gives you a list of the 10 most widely used biology texts all of which
contain these claims that were debunked decades ago.
Science demands continuity, cause-and-effect relationships. It cannot
explain discontinuities, things that appear out of nothing. But things
appearing out of nothing seem to occur in at least three places in the
natural world, the Big Bang, between lifeless matter and life, and between
animals and humans.
But things also appear out of nothing in the fossil record. The
continuity-in-evolution theory is in the minds of evolutionists. It is not
in the real world. It is something they would like to prove but cannot,
and this is the overwhelming fact that needs to be shared with students.
As David Kitt, professor of biology at the University of Oklahoma,
recently said, “Evolution is what evolutionists hope will be true, and
they hope it in spite of the fossil record.”
Microevolution refers to the fact that there are all kinds of, for
example, dogs, variation within species. Macroevolution is the distinct
Darwinian idea that dogs can evolve, for example, into cats.
Stephen Jay Gould, professor of paleontology at Harvard and a preeminent
figure in evolution theory wrote in Paleobiology, “That theory
[macroevolution] as a general proposition is effectively dead despite its
persistence as textbook orthodoxy.” Later in Natural History, he
wrote, “Most species exhibit no directed change during their tenure on
Earth, nor does a species arise gradually by the steady transformation of
its ancestry. It appears all at once and fully formed.” In a later
article in the same journal he wrote, “All paleontologists [scientists
who study fossils] know that the fossil record contains precious little in
the way of intermediate forms. Transition between major groups are
characteristically abrupt.” He then wrote that the lack of fossil
evidence for macroevolution is the “trade secret of paleontology”.
Well, its time to get this little trade secret out into the open and into
the minds of every student in Kansas, in fact, the nation.
This is just the beginning.
Dr. Steven Stanley, professor of paleontology at Johns Hopkins University,
writes, “The known fossil record fails to document a single example of
gradual evolution accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence
offers no evidence that the gradualistic [Darwinian] model can be valid.
The fossil material is now so complete that the lack of transitional
species cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The gaps
are real and they will never be filled.”
And now add this. Wrote George Gaylord Simpson, perhaps this century’s
greatest evolutionist, who preceded Gould at Harvard, “This is true of
all 32 orders of mammals. In no case is an approximately continuous
sequence of one order to another known. The break is so sharp and the gap
so large that the origin of the order is speculation. The absence of
transitional forms is not confined to mammals. It is an almost universal
phenomenon and has long been noted by paleontologists.” (Noted to each
other, perhaps, but not in the textbooks they write for the schools,
which, as Wells says, portray all kinds of transitions, illustrated, but
totally imaginary and fabricated. This is what Gould means by “textbook
orthodoxy,” a euphemism for lies.)
Continuing, Richard Goldschmidt, professor of geology at the University of
California at Berkeley, writes, “Darwin’s theory of natural selection
has never had any proof. There may be wide discrepancies within species
(microevolution), but the gaps with between the species (macroevolution)
cannot be bridged.”
And still more.
Wrote D’Arcy Thompson in one of the great classics of biology On
Growth and Form, “Evolution has not taught us how birds descended
from reptiles, mammals from earlier quadrupeds, quadrupeds from fishes or
vertebrates from invertebrates. To seek the stepping stones between the
gaps is to seek in vain, forever.”
And more.
From the Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History,
“Species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change
during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.
It is rarely clear that the descendants were actually better than their
predecessors… biological improvement is hard to find.”
I just don’t see how we can keep this stuff from the kiddies any longer.
Because we know that evolutionists are honorable men, we know that all the
above will be included in the new biology classes.
Now let’s really go crazy. Said Donald J. Johanson (discoverer of Lucy),
“Modern gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere, as
it were. They are here today, they have no yesterday.” On the evolution
of reptiles, University of California paleontologist R.A. Simpson points
out, “There is no proof from the fossil record.” Says Boston
University biologist Paul Weiss, “The first and most important steps of
animal evolution are even more obscure than those of plant evolution.”
Said the dean of French zoologists, Pierre-P. Grasse, “We are in the
dark concerning the origins of insects.” Said E. White, world-class
authority on lungfishes, “The lungfish, like every other group of fish
that I know, have their origins firmly based on nothing.” Said David
Raup, professor of geology at the University of Chicago, “The origins of
the higher categories are shrouded in mystery; they appear abruptly in the
fossil record without evidence of transitional forms.”
And now, unbelievably –
Said professor of paleontology Steven Stanley at Johns Hopkins University,
“The known fossil record fails to document a single morphological
transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model of
Darwinism can be correct. Doubts about gradualistic evolution have been
for long years suppressed.” Said Niles Eldridge, prominent evolutionist
and colleague of Gould, “We paleontologists have said that the history
of life [the fossils] supports the story of gradual adaptive change, all
the while knowing that it does not.”
What the hell is going on here?
Phillip E. Johnson, in his book, Darwin on Trial, has probably
asked the defining question: “How could a deception of this magnitude
possibly have been perpetrated by the whole body of a respected science
dedicated almost by definition to the pursuit of truth?”
The truth of the matter is that the number of prominent scientists around
the world who have proclaimed their loss of faith in macroevolution is
huge and growing, and that their collective weight is absolutely
formidable. But the media and the university are hiding this fact from the
public in one of the great cover-ups of American history.
Yes, there are such things to consider as stratomorphic intermediates
species, such as Pikaia among the chordates, Archaeopteryx among the
birds, Pakicitus among the whales, and a few more. But then, where are the
transitional forms leading up to them and away from them?
The true situation as regards evolution today is probably best summed up
by the noted entomologist W.R. Thompson in his introduction to the
centenary edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species: “This
situation where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are
unable to defend scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific
rigor, attempting to maintain its credibility with the public by the
suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal
and undesirable in science.”
The following problems have proven utterly intractable, not only for the
mutation-selection mechanism, but also for any other undirected natural
process proposed to date: the origin of life, the origin of the genetic
code, the origin of multicellular life, the origin of sexuality, the
absence of the transitional forms in the fossil record, the biological Big
Bang that occurred in the Cambrian era, the development of complex organ
systems, and the development of irreducibly complex molecular machines.
Wrote Niles Eldridge, “Each new generation, it seems, produces a few
young paleontologists eager to document examples of evolutionary change in
their fossils… of the gradual progressive sort. The fossils, rather than
exhibiting the expected pattern, just seem to persist virtually unchanged.
This extraordinary conservatism looks to the paleontologist keen on
finding evolutionary change as if no evolution has occurred. These studies
are considered ‘failures’ and are not even published. Paleontologists
see stasis [no change] as ‘no results’ rather than a contradiction of
the prediction of gradual progressive evolutionary change.”
To bury disconfirming evidence is the height of scientific dishonesty,
right up there with all the lies in our high school textbooks.
This article may be reproduced in any form. Copy this article, distribute,
add us as a link.
Leonard Magruder
Founder/President, V.V.A.R.
Phone: 785-312-9303
Magruder44@aol.com
"Support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic"
