Critique of the Theory of Evolution. Walter Friedman

wholeheartedly are the anthropologists.

      Much support for the evolutionary theory comes from Scientific American. But the magazine earned an awful reputation because of unqualified support of another unscientific theory, the so-called Superstring Theory, which defies any experimental verification. Less than 1% of physicists believe that there is any truth to the story of the Superstrings. Perhaps Scientific American should change its name to Idiot’s Guide to Science.

      14 : Hobbits

      Recently, the skeletons of “small people” or “hobbits” who stand only 90 cm (3 feet) tall were discovered on a remote Indonesian island; anthropologists believe that the hobbits and humans have a common ancestor.

      The group of archeologists who discovered these small people were interviewed on 60 Minutes; they say that the first unearthed skeleton was that of a woman. It seems these evolutionists were using circular logic: these beings are humans → this skeleton more closely resembles the human female skeleton → this is a hobbit female → these beings are humans. When this type of logical deduction is used, the first step in the chain of inferences coincides with the last one. In reality, no one knows how to distinguish a female hobbit skeleton from a male one because not a single hobbit has been captured alive or dug out of a fresh grave.

      Not a single physicist or chemist uses this type of logical deduction; only the evolutionists are stupid enough to put it to use.

      Actually, the very existence of small people proves that the evolutionary theory is incorrect.

      What kind of advantage could such small size possibly have? A little body requires a little amount of food—clearly, this is an important advantage. But this is the only advantage. Now, let’s take a look at the disadvantages.

      1) Attacks by birds of prey. Often, predatory birds attack little children but almost never attack human adults because of their size. The hobbits were as small as human children, so they would have been in constant danger of being attacked.

      2) Small people can’t hunt in places with tall grass because their vision is blocked by it.

      3) Small people can’t cover large distances in search of food because their leg muscles are too weak to carry them for prolonged periods of time.

      Clearly, the number of disadvantages is larger than the number of advantages. If the principle of natural selection is correctly applied, it proves that these small people are fiction.

      Anthropologists are notorious for the bending and twisting of data to fit it into their wacky theories. One of them told 20/20 that the seven year itch is, in fact, a four year itch—it takes four years for an animal couple to raise cubs, and after that the partnership is kaput. Apparently, she had statistical data showing that the number of divorces peaks after four years of marriage, so, in her view, humans follow the same pattern as their animal cousins. There is a problem with this assessment, though—while it takes four years for certain animal species to raise offspring, a vast majority of animals stay with their progeny for only two years, so the whole theory of human-animal behavioral resemblance breaks down.

      Some anthropologists decided to look for an explanation of certain characteristics of human behavior beyond the animal world because the animal socialization, in their words, is too primitive. Ants, for example, have a much more complex societal structure with the queen, workers, soldiers, nannies, etc., so these anthropologists stick their heads into anthills in an attempt to find extremely valuable data about human society.

      For certain governments, the discovery of “human ancestors” became a matter of national prestige. They lavishly finance anthropological digs and hail their anthropologists as if they were national heroes. Ideally, all departments of anthropology would receive no support from the government; this measure would force the universities to transfer “old bones of human ancestors” to the departments of paleontology.

      section iii

Legal Matters

      15 : Anti-Evolution Stickers

      Some time ago, an Atlanta court ordered the removal of creationist stickers from biology textbooks—apparently it was a violation of the principle of separation between state and church. However, it is possible to design stickers in such a way that they would criticize the evolutionary theory without violating the aforementioned principle.

      The following could legally be included on such a sticker: “The evolutionary theory is deemed totally unscientific by many scientists. For more information read the articles . . . [list of articles].” There are plenty of articles expressing strong criticism of the evolutionary theory that do not mention any religion; these articles are written by geneticists, paleontologists, biochemists, etc., who criticize certain aspects of the theory without offering any religious alternative. Any lawyer would agree that this approach does not go against the principle of separation of church and state; a court order demanding removal of this sticker would violate the principle of free speech. School libraries could be ordered by the Board of Education to have copies of the articles so it would be easier for the students to gain access to them.

      Another type of legitimate sticker would be something like this one: “Darwin committed scientific fraud in order to promote racist views reflected in the evolutionary theory. Examples of his racist views are as follows: . . .” (Darwin was never shy about his extremely racist views; there are plenty of examples).

      The aforementioned stickers could be used simultaneously—there is nothing in the laws that would prevent such usage.

      How about this one: “The evolutionary theory is not the only theory claiming to have the answer to the question about the origin of life. There are other theories as well.” The evolutionists’ lawyers will argue that this statement refers solely to the theory of Intelligent Design, but they are wrong; there are at least two more competing theories. These theories are as follows: 1) the theory of alien intervention stating that extraterrestrial civilization created the earth life forms and 2) the theory, believed by a very small number of scientists, that the universe and its life forms were never created because they always existed.

      Neither of these two theories violates the principle of separation between the state and the church.

      “As the history of mankind shows, mankind produced several theories regarding the origin of life; these theories include Intelligent Design, the evolutionary theory, the theory of the extraterrestrial origin of earth’s life forms, etc.” This sticker is simply a historic reference; there is nothing in the US Constitution, or the constitution of any other country, that would prevent the use of historic references in a textbook; otherwise, any reference to a religion should be banished from history textbooks (say goodbye to Zeus and Aphrodite!).

      16 : Darwin as a Racist

      The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla. (Darwin, Descent, 178)

      Up until now, creationists have tried in several states to convince the courts that the evolutionary theory should be removed from biology books because it is extremely racist, but they have failed. Evolutionists brought their lawyers who successfully argued that it doesn’t matter whether the evolutionary theory is racist or not because it is correct.

      Now any unprejudiced person can see that the evolutionary theory is bullshit; nothing could be more unscientific than it.

      Now is a good time to try again; however, a more successful tactic is needed to achieve the removal of the evolutionary theory from biology textbooks. Instead of taking the matter directly to the court, creationists should provide all the pertinent data showing the evolutionary theory’s inadequacies and Darwin’s racist views to the parents of minority students and ask them to sign petitions demanding withdrawal of the theory from school curriculums. Parents should also be encouraged to instruct their children not to attend biology classes unless the evolutionary theory is removed from their school curriculum.