Scientific American’s January Darwin Propaganda Issue Debunked

Ian Juby, President of the international Mensa Creation group, recently picked up the January 2009 copy of Scientific American. SciAm called this one ‘The Evolution of Evolution’ and, as Ian Juby correctly points out, it should have more accurately been titled, ‘The Intelligent Design of Evolution.’ Of course, that might have been an insult to the concept of intelligence! Maybe we should ammend Mr. Juby’s suggestion to ‘The Sub-Intelligent Design of Evolution’ or just ‘The Imagineering of Evolution.’

In any case, he does a good job of dissecting the issue. I think one of the most surprising things he notes is that evolutionists are still using Vestigial Organs as alleged evidence for evolution, even though almost all so-called ‘vestigial’ organs have now been shown to have a previously unknown function. This is a classic argument from ignorance, Evo of the Gaps, if you will.

I should mention that this information was forwarded to me by Dr. Charles Jackson, now of Creation Truth Foundation. Here are the links to this wonderful critique of SciAm‘s gratuitous hubris:

–Sirius Knott


4 Comments Add yours

  1. The idea of evolution by natural selection is provably false. It rests on rampant assumptions, speculation, and extrapolations (such as the peppered moth obsession). It is as much a matter of faith as is creationism. It is not science. Creationist beliefs also have problems. These beliefs rest upon misinterpretations of much of the Old Testament record. An objective analysis of both sides reveals contradictions. An alternative to both is clearly required. The evolutionists, hamstrung by “gradualism,” will never explain the origin of consciousness or of language. But if we recognize the inefficacy of gradualism, and if we recognize that the Genesis creation account is not all completely literal, and if we consider a new perspective, a rational paradigm presents itself. (Pardon my breathless sentence.) We must revise our world view.

  2. Martin Euser says:

    Specifically, natural selection has been shown to be a meaningless term.
    (the fifth thesis). It should be replaced by the notion of adaptation, as the reason for survival,
    which (ultimately) means that creatures have the inborn capacity to act upon and react to the environment. (Some will argue that this capacity comes from the genes, somehow, but no one has ever shown how this can be. A true puzzle for biologists!).
    Adaptation as a principle is totally compatible with a spiritual vision on life.

    1. Sirius says:


      By this “inborn capacity” of adaption, are you alluding to plasticity?

      -Sirius Knott

  3. Martin Euser says:

    BTW, the article by “doubting Thomas” is not from my hand, but I valued it as good food for thought.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s