The evidence for evolution is shaky

Stabroek News
August 15, 2001

Dear Editor,

Knowledge is composed of bits of information, ordered by relations between them so that it can be used to make changes and to generate information.

The test of knowledge is whether it can be used to do what it claims. The test of a person's knowledge is whether he can use it to do what he claims, whether he be schoolchild or teacher, apprentice or master.

Four methods of generating information can be recognized; and philosophers use them to identify the first branches of knowledge. There are various names, but I call them (a) ideal method, (b) legal method, (c) scientific method, and (d) mystical method.

The ideal method is the method of pure reason, often realized in mathematics. The starting points and guideposts, however, have to come from the real world of experience, testimony of which is covered by the legal method. The problem of subjectivity that thereby arises is managed by making a science of the information acquired. Objective repeatability is the goal of science, but it can never be absolutely attained, only minimized, because there always has to be a human being at the end of any set of instruments to give witness of what he has found.

This is the reason that no matter how accomplished an expert may be, unless the hearer is prepared to understand and actually perform the same procedures he will always have to exercise belief. That is why I do not automatically expect people to believe me when I make claims after much research and experimentation that others are not prepared to do.

To assess the claims of prediction of the future by equidistant sequencing of the letters of books, one would have to know probability, statistics, and most importantly, know the truth about the event when it occurred or occurs. (Pharaoh's magicians appeared to turn staves into snakes, but when Moses' staff?snake swallowed them up, the magicians were wise enough to recognise what happened, and they became believers.)

Unfortunately, many evolutionists just take it for granted that people, including other evolutionary scientists in the same field, will believe their conclusions. It took National Geographic almost a whole year to recant their headlined claim in November 1999 that they found feathered dinosaurs, the missing link between dinosaurs and birds. In making a clean breast of it, the first words of the investigator in the Oct. 2000 issue were indicative of the level of credulity:

"Its name - Archaeoraptor liaoningensis Sloan - is almost as long as its tail, but to my untutored eye the smattering of scrawny bones resembled nothing more than last Sunday's chicken dinner. To some prominent paleontologists who saw it, though, the little skeleton was a long sought key to a mystery of evolution."

Evolutionists would like to have us believe these are isolated incidents, blown out of proportion by creationists, but they happen more regularly than you think, all because of people believing something on the strength of the words of other people that it was "science".

The Piltdown hoax, based on a chemically treated human skull and filed apelike jawbones, fooled the British Museum and the prestigious Geological Society of London for over 40 years. Over 500 books and pamphlets, including hundreds of doctoral dissertations, were written on Eoanthropus dawsoni also known as Piltdown Man.

Consider the implications of this lie. Hundreds of Ph.D's were awarded and never recalled. All those doctors and countless other students taught evolution. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit who was involved in the 'excavation', formulated a pantheistic evolutionary theology on this kind of evidence. The Roman Catholic Church condemned this theology, but many Catholics looking for a way of not taking their Bible seriously are now embracing it. It is also returning under the banner of the New Age Movement. A whole generation of people, brought up to believe in the honesty of that kind of 'science', would have had the development of increasingly rapid world communications to aid them in spreading the dogma of evolution.

It was from that generation and their books that I learnt about evolution, and I even began to teach it. It was only when I decided to check the evidence for myself that I discovered the truth.

It does take a lot of time to go through the evidence in sufficient detail to be able to make a decision one way or the other. (None of the evolutionists found the time to show up at the August 8 seminar to contradict my Evidence for a Young Earth, or to present their evidence, even though they had the opportunity to see my outline in advance. One sent a sheaf of recent articles claiming to have evidence for evolution, but on closer inspection, they either took a more modest view of the headlined claims, or they contradicted themselves, and even provided evidence consistent with creation.)

Yours faithfully,
Alfred Bhulai