Refutation of “Evolution: A Fairy Tale for Grownups” – Questions 61 – 70

Question 61

True or False question: Human embryos have gill slits, which shows that we have evolved from fish? Comfort
answers “False” and includes the following quote, “There are markings on a human embryo which superficially look like they might be “gill slits.” But these “pharyngeal clefts” never have any breathing function, and they are never “slits” or openings. They develop into the thymus gland, parathyroid glands, and middle ear canals—none of which has anything to do with breathing, under water
or above water.”
(Source: Don Batten, ed., The Answers Book [Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2000], p. 119)
Not a qualified biologist
Comfort said in the Introduction of this book he would be quoting
“evolutionary experts” and right here, Comfort provides a quote from a non-biologist.
Don Batten is a plant physiologist, not an embryologist. He is attacking something that is out of his field of expertise.
Does not damage evolutionary theory
The pharyngeal pouches that appear in embryos technically are not gill slits, but that is irrelevant. The reason they are evidence for evolution is that the same structure, whatever you call it, appears in all vertebrate embryos.


In-Depth Comment

“Almost from the beginning, evolutionists have attempted to equate the process of evolution with the progressive development of the embryo. During the famous Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925, for example, lawyers and expert witnesses defending teaching Darwinism in public schools, repeatedly confused evolution with embryology. The lawyers even insisted that evolution must be taught if physicians are to understand the development of babies in the womb! The very word ‘evolution’ (which means ‘unfolding’), was taken from the name of an early theory of embryonic development which proposed that humans are completely preformed in miniature in the fertilized egg, simply ‘unfolding’ during the development of the baby.

Obviously, the blind-chance process of Darwinian ‘evolution’ has nothing whatever to do with the exquisitely-controlled process of embryological development. Still, evolutionists have long attempted to relate embryology to evolution, presumably in an effort to extrapolate the readily-observable process of embryonic development into the unobservable process of macroevolution. Embryology continues to play a role in current evolutionary dogma. Generations of students have been told, for example, that the human embryo developing in the womb passes through stages of its evolutionary ancestry—even at one point having gills like a fish!”

(Source: David N. Menton, Ph. D., “Is the Human Embryo Essentially a Fish with Gills?” 1997

Non-Academic Source is the website for Missouri Association for Creation Inc.

Question 62

What encyclopedia spoke of evolution as being “impossible”? Comfort answers “Encyclopedia Francaise.”
Comfort provides the following: “The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate…It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is
(Source: P. Lemoine (Director of the Natural History Museum in Paris), “Introduction: De L’ Evolution?” Encyclopedia Francaise, Vol. 5, 1937, p. 6)
Outdated Source
Non-Academic Source


In-Depth Comments

“Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say that this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is in fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts.”
(Source: G. Salet, Hasard et
Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle
(1973), p. 331).
Outdated Source


“It is futile to pretend to the public that we understand how amoeba evolved into a man, when we cannot tell our students how a human egg produces a skin cell or a
brain cell.”
(Source: Dr. Jerome J. Lejeune, Discoverer of the cause of Down’s syndrome, Institute de Progenese (Paris), former Professor of Funndamental Cyogenetics).
(No other source material provided)
Outdated Source

Jerome J. Lejeune (June 13, 1926 – April 3, 1994)

“Nobody I know in my profession believes it [genetic code] evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius,and such information could not have been written any other way…Creation design is like an elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up an enormous amount of space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks thing over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn’t there!”
(Source: A molecular biologist (speaking on condition of anonymity) who identifies genetic controls over diseases, interviewed by George Caylor, The Ledger
Lynchburg,VA), February 17, 2000).

In all honesty, this piece should be dismissed out of hand for the simple fact that there is no verification of this source at all. For all that can be known, this is a complete invention of Caylor, and as
history has demonstrated countless times, creationists are well known to create fake quotes quite often. This is not the only time this has happened in this book (See Questions 2 and 85)

Distortion of Science
There is no scientific support for creationism, nor is it “an elephant in the room” regarding molecular scientists.


Question 63

Who said it question: “I think that if it had been a religion that first maintained the notion that all the matter in the entire universe had once been contained in an area smaller than the point of a pin, scientists probably would laugh at the idea.” Comfort answers “Marilyn vos Savant” (listed in Guinness Book of World Records for highest IQ, at 230), when asked to comment on the ‘big bang’ theory (Source: Parade, February 4, 1996, p. 7)
Not a qualified biologist
Comfort said in the Introduction of this book he would be quoting “evolutionary experts” and right here, Comfort provides a quote from a non-biologist as well as a non-scientist.
Non-Academic Source
In the Introduction to this book, Comfort said he would be providing material from “evolutionary experts.” Vos Savant may have had a high IQ, but that does not guarantee that a person is smart in all fields. Vos Savant was not a scientist, he was a magazine columnist and author. Also, cosmology and the Big Bang have nothing to do with evolution, so including this piece was pointless.
Not relevant to evolutionary theory or biology
The theory of evolution is not concerned or connected to the origin of the universe.

In-Depth Comment

“The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory. But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors.”

(Source: “Open Letter to the Scientific Community,” signed by 405 secular astronomers, scientists, engineers, and researchers, New Scientist, May 22, 2004

Not relevant to evolutionary theory or biology

The theory of evolution is not concerned or connected to the origin of the universe.

This was a letter written by Eric J. Lerner presented evidence that the Big Bang theory was contradicted by observations and that another approach, plasma cosmology, which hypothesized a universe without beginning or end. Lerner and his supporters who constructed and signed this letter contend that Plasma Cosmology (which was developed by an atheist) provides a superior basis for understanding the Universe. They protest that decisions on research funding are taken in the interests of supporting the status quo over their alternative theory.

Question 64

Which respected scientists, in a joint statement, said it’s obvious that it is “almost inevitable that our measure of intelligence must reflect in a valid way the higher intelligence”? Comfort answers “Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe.”

Comfort then adds the following, “Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate…It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect in a valid way the higher intelligence…even to the extreme idealized limit of God…Such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.”

(Source: Sir Fredrick Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (London: J. M. Dent & Sons, 1981), pp. 130-144)


Outdated Source
Not a qualified biologist
Comfort said in the Introduction of this book he would be quoting “evolutionary experts” and right here, Comfort provides a quote from a non-biologist. Neither Hoyle or Wickramasinghe are biologists.

In-Depth Comment

“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe that was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life.
In the absence of an absurdly improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.”
(Source: Arno Penzias (Physicist and Nobel laureate), quoted by D. L. Brock in Our Universe: Accident or Design (Wits, S. Africa: Star Watch, 1992), p. 42)
Not relevant to evolutionary theory or biology
The theory of evolution is not concerned with how the universe is structured or how life began.
Appeal to authority

Question 65

Which magazine reported the following: “The vast majority of artist’s conceptions are based more on
imagination than on evidence…Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more ape-like they make it.” Comfort answers “Science Digest
(Source: B. Rensberger, “Ancestors: A Family Album,” April 1981, p. 41)

Outdated Source

Quote Mine/Distorted message of author
However, immediately after the first sentence from the quote the original article states:
“But, a handful of expert natural history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there. Such a procedure calls for a detailed understanding of anatomy. Most bones have tiny ridges and grooves called muscle scars, each corresponding to a particular muscle. From these scars good artists can estimate the size of muscles that have long since vanished.”
The article then goes on to explain how artists determine how to add muscle fibers, fat pads, and skin. The reconstruction of prehistoric hominids then, according to the article, is based partly on expert analysis of bones, although this is not mentioned by Life magazine.
Distortion of Science
Does not damage evolutionary theory
Also note that paleontologists do not base evolutionary relationships on artists’ conceptions of hominids, and the quote does not in fact provide evidence against evolution.

In-Depth Comments

“Echoing the criticism made of his father’s Homo habilis skulls, he added that Lucy’s skull was so incomplete that most of it was ‘imagination, made of plaster of Paris,’ this making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion about what species she belonged to.”
(Source: Interview with Richard Leakey (Director of National Museums of Kenya, son of Louis Leakey) in The
Weekend Australian
, May 7-8, 1983, Magazine section,  p. 3)
Outdated Source
Does not damage evolutionary theory
This my be a problem IF those were the only skulls we found. One
incomplete skull is one thin, but over the years paleontologists have discovered hundreds of skulls that belong to the same family (some
more complete than others). These collections help us understand how the species looked and behaved.
“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question: ‘How did this ever happen?’”
(Source: Dr. Soren Lovtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (Beckingham, Kent: Croom Helm, 1987), p. 422)
Does not damage evolutionary theory
Despite his melodramatic book title, Lövtrup accepts evolution, but disagrees with the mechanisms of it and the historicity of Darwin’s role in proposing it.
Lövtrup’s ideas would likely be considered “out of the mainstream” by most scientists.

Question 66

True or False question: In 2004, legendary British philosopher and proponent of atheism Professor
Anthony Flew renounced his atheism because “the argument to intelligent design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.”
Comfort answers “True.”
Comfort adds: He said, “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have
provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” He admitted he “had to go where the evidence leads.”
(Source: Quotes by Rich Deem, “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest?”
Not a qualified biologist
Comfort said in the Introduction of this book he would be quoting “evolutionary experts” and right here, Comfort provides a quote from a non-biologist. Flew is not a scientist, he is a philospher.
Non-Academic Source
God and Science is a Christian apologetic site, not a science or academic site.
Distortion of Science
Nowhere in this reference, book, or any creationist material provides a compelling argument for “design.” In fact, there is no debate:
there is no design.
The argument for design is not only fallacious, it is pseudoscientific
that even the courts spell out that it is not scientific.

In-Depth Comments

“The DNA Double Helix is one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. First described by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953, DNA is the famous molecule of genetics that establishes each organism’s physical characteristics. It wasn’t until mid-2001, that the Human Genome Project and Celera Genomics jointly presented the true nature and complexity of the digital code inherent in DNA. We now understand that each human DNA
molecule is comprised of chemical bases arranged in approximately 3 billion precise sequences. Even the DNA molecule for the single-celled bacterium, E. coli, contains enough information to fill all the books in any of the world’s largest libraries.”
(Source: “DNA Double Helix: Information Code,” All About Science
Not a qualified biologist
Non-Academic Source
All About Science is a Christian apologetic site, not a science or
academic site.
Does not damage evolutionary theory
Describing the structure of DNA is not a argument against the theory of evolution. Nowhere in this reference does it indicate that the DNA
molecule cannot be the product of natural biochemistry.

“Many investigators now consider nucleic acids to be much more plausible candidates for the first self-replicating molecules. The work of Watson and Crick and others have shown that proteins are formed according to the instructions in DNA. But there is a hitch. DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In
short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins. To those pondering the origin of life, it is a classic chicken-and-egg problem: which came first, proteins or DNA?”
(Source: John Horgan, Science writer, “In the Beginning…,” Scientific American, Vol. 264, No. 2, February 1991, p. 103)
Does not damage evolutionary theory

This “chicken and egg” dilemma is no longer a dilemma. As Dr. David E. Commings, M. D. explained in his book Did man Create God? the answer is that they evolved together (p. 198). Commings points out that the first nucleic acids must have been RNA, which can function as enzymes (known as ribozymes). This is what solved the “Which came first?” problem: the RNA world. (Source: Gilbert, W. The RNA World. Nature. 310: 618. 1986) De Duve thought that this answers was not enough, to he developed the “protometabolism” model, explaining the chemical steps that developed the formation of RNA structures. After this, the steps for the development of life became very clear, such as adenine from ammonium cyanide (Source: Oro, J. Mechanisms of synthesis of adenine from hydrogen cyanide under possible earth conditions. Nature. 191: 1193-1194, 1961) to polymerization of amino acids.

Studies answering these questions were already published by the time Horgan wrote this in this paper. He was wither unaware of their publications or did not understand them.


Question 67

Which national magazine reported this statement about evolution? “So heated is the debate that one Darwinian says there are times when he thinks about going into a
field with more intellectual honesty: the used-car  business.”
Comfort answers “Newsweek
(Source: Evolutionist Sharon Begley, “Science Contra Darwin,” April 8, 1985, p. 80)
Non-Academic Source
Newsweek is not an academic source.
Outdated Source
Quote Mine/Distorted message of author

It seems that this is taken out of context. Begley seems to be replied to several anti-evolutionists rants. This one in particular with the “used-car” part, the rant attacks the theory of evolution as “slippery” and makes no predictions, as well as just as useful as creationism. It does not even name that one “Darwinian.” In the previous sentence, he was more than capable of naming and quoting ichthyologist Donn Rosen.

Then Begley includes the following reply:

“Selection: The critics have taken on a formidable target, for Darwin changed the face of science forever. Without his theory, very little in biology makes sense. Evolution can explain why human embryos look like gilled fishes, why hummingbirds and gorillas both have backbones, why disease-causing bacteria have become immune to penicillin. To Darwinians, the key is natural selection. Random changes in the genes of an organism produce diversity within the species to which it belongs, something Darwin realized when he saw 13 different species of inches on the Galapagos Islands. Each had evolved a different beak shape, adapted to exploit a different flower, insect or other food. For any of a number of possible reasons — adaptation to climate, sexual attractiveness or, like the finches, superiority in food gathering — some members of a species are more likely to reproduce than others. Thus natural selection, once described as “survival of the fittest,” is now more acceptably stated as “differential reproduction”: different combinations of genes produce different degrees of reproductive success. Some creatures leave more offspring than others, passing on their genes to the next generations until the new traits become dominant.”

So, case and point, the theory of evolution DOES provide predictions and it does explain certain things that creationism does not. Evolution is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidential support or scientific validity and no would be alternative notion has ever met even one of the criteria of being a theory.


In-Depth Comment

“When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own
special branch of physics.”
(Source: Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical  Physics), The Physics of Immortality (New York: Doubleday, 1994), Preface.)
Does not damage evolutionary theory
This source addresses cosmology and physics, but none at all that
addresses biology or specifically the theory of evolution.
Appeal to authority

Tipler is a mathematical physicist and cosmologist, holding a joint appointment in the Departments of Mathematics and Physics at Tulane University. Tipler has authored books and papers on the Omega Point, which he claims is a mechanism for the resurrection of the dead. It has been labeled as pseudoscience. Tipler is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design, a society advocating intelligent design.

Critics of the final anthropic principle say its arguments violate the Copernican principle, that it incorrectly applies the laws of probability, and that it is really a theology or metaphysics principle made to sound plausible to laypeople by using the esoteric language of physics. Martin Gardner dubbed FAP the “completely ridiculous anthropic principle” (CRAP). Oxford-based philosopher Nick Bostrom writes that the final anthropic principle has no claim on any special methodological status, it is “pure speculation,” despite attempts to elevate it by calling it a “principle.” Philosopher Rem B. Edwards called it “futuristic, pseudoscientific eschatology” that is “highly conjectural, unverified, and improbable.”

Researcher Anders Sandberg pointed out that he believes the Omega Point Theory has many flaws, including missing proofs.

Tipler’s Omega Point theories have received criticism by physicists and skeptics. George Ellis, writing in the journal Nature, described Tipler’s book on the Omega Point as “a masterpiece of pseudoscience … the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific and philosophical discipline,” and Michael Shermer devoted a chapter of his book Why People Believe Weird Things to enumerating what he thought to be flaws in Tipler’s thesis. Physicist Sean M. Carroll thought Tipler’s early work was constructive but that now he has become a “crackpot.”


Question 68

Who said the following: “I find it difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the
advances of science.” Comfort answers “Wernher von Braun, the world’s most famous rocket scientist, and former head of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center”
(Source: “My Faith,” American Weekly, February 10, 1963)

Appeal to authority

Boasting that a great scientist believed or once believed in theology or the like does not make it true. For instance, if someone tried to argue alchemy was really genuine by quoting Sir Isaac Newton, that would not make alchemy true.
Not relevant to evolutionary theory or biology
One man’s faith or lack thereof has no bearing on the theory of evolution whatsoever, no more than it does on the theory of gravity or atomic theory.

In-Depth Comments

“What gambler would be crazy enough to play roulette with random evolution? The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Durer’s ‘Melancholia’ is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye; besides, these errors had no relationship whatsoever with the function of the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform. There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.”
(Source: Pierre-Paul Grasse (French zoologist), Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic
Press, 1977), p. 104).
Quote Mine/Distorted message of author
Pierre-Paul did accept evolution as a fact. This is confirmed by examining page 3 of the same source ‘Evolution of Living Organisms’ (New York: Academic Press, 1977).
“Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position and base it primarily on documents provided by paleontonlogy, i.e., the history of the living world.”
Note: His views on the mechanisms of evolution are indeed not Darwinian.
“If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? There is another theory, now quite out of favor, which is based upon the ideas of Lamarck: that if an organism needs an improvement it will develop it, and transmit it to its progeny. I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that they only acceptable explanation is creation. I know this is an anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence
supports it.”
(Source: Dr. H. S. Lipson, F.R.S. (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK), “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, May 1980, p. 138).
Outdated Source
Not a qualified biologist
Comfort said in the Introduction of this book he would be quoting “evolutionary experts” and right here, Comfort provides a quote from a non-biologist. As the source provided by Ray Comfort states, Lipson is not a biologist, he is a physicist.
Not relevant to evolutionary theory or biology
Lipson is concerned here with the origin of life, which has no bearing with the theory of evolution.

Question 69

“We must not build on the sands of an uncertain and ever-changing science…but upon the rock of inspired
(Source: Sir Ambrose Flemming, British electrical engineer and inventor.)
Appeal to authority
Not a qualified biologist
Comfort said in the Introduction of this book he would be quoting “evolutionary experts” and right here, Comfort provides a quote from a non-biologist. Flemming was an engineer, not a biologist. Therefore, any claims he may have made about the theory of evolution were all out of his field of expertise, thereby rendering not an “evolutionary expert” in the slightest.
Plus Comfort does not provide anything else in his source to validate where and when Sir Ambrose Flemming said such a thing.
“I believe that the Bible is to be understood and received in the plain and obvious meaning of its passages; for I cannot persuade myself that a book intended for the
instruction and conversion of the whole world should cover its true meaning in any such mystery and doubt that none but critics and philosophers can discover it…Education is useless without the Bible.”
(Source: Daniel Webster, American politician and noted orator.)
Not relevant to evolutionary theory or biology
Not a qualified biologist
Comfort said in the Introduction of this book he would be quoting “evolutionary experts” and right here, Comfort provides a quote from a non-biologist. Webster, as Comfort’s reference notes, was a politician, not a scientist – or any “evolutionary expert” in the slightest.
Appeal to authority
Comfort does not provide anything else in his source to validate where and when Daniel Webster said such a thing.

Question 70

Who said it question: “Why, the march of science, falsely so called, through the world may be traced by exploded fallacies and abandoned theories. Former explorers once adored are now ridiculed; the continual wreckings of false hypotheses is a matter of universal notoriety. You may tell where the supposed learned have encamped by the debris left behind of suppositions and theories as plentiful as broken bottles.” Comfort answers “Charles
(Source: The Sword and the Trowel, 1877, p. 197)
Outdated Source
Non-Academic Source
Not a qualified biologist
Comfort said in the Introduction of this book he would be quoting “evolutionary experts” and right here, Comfort provides a quote from a non-biologist. Spurgeon is not a scientist, he was an Evangelical preacher and minister – who often times was mistaken about the methods and nature of science.
Here is the full quote by Spurgeon;
“We are invited, brethren, most earnestly to go away from the old-fashioned belief of our forefathers because of the supposed discoveries of science. What is science? The method by which man tries to hide his ignorance. It should not be so, but so it is. You are not to be dogmatical in theology, my brethren, it is wicked; but for scientific men it is the correct thing. You are never to assert anything very strongly; but scientists may boldly assert what they cannot prove, and may demand a faith far more credulous than any we possess. Forsooth, you and I are to take our Bibles and shape and mould our belief according to the ever-shifting teachings of so-called scientific men.What folly is this! Why, the march of science, falsely so called, through the world may be traced by exploded fallacies and abandoned theories. Former explorers once adored are now ridiculed; the continual wreckings of false hypotheses is a matter of universal notoriety. You may tell where the supposed learned have encamped by the debris left behind of suppositions and theories as plentiful as broken bottles.”
Turns out Spurgeon is no more smarter than Ray Comfort. Spurgeon is factually wrong about many things. Going in order;
  1. Science is not a method to hide in ignorance. Rather, it is a method to overturn ignorance. Undiscovered knowledge is out there, and we have to find it. Science is a tool to help us discover the unknown, not to keep us from knowing.
  2. Science is not dogmatic, nor do scientists assert things things they cannot prove. Science, as Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron often love to cry about, science has been wrong before as new evidence is discovered and new models are
    developed. In science, everything must be falsifiable, because future data could reveal current models to be false. This is why scientists do not use absolute terms and Ray Comfort knows this. Ray Comfort often loves to point out the lack of using absolute terms as what he calls the “language of speculation.” So even Ray knows that scientists are not dogmatic.
  3. Science does not demand faith. Evidence is always provided, everything is peer-reviewed carefully. A theory has to be tested indefinitely. It demands understanding instead of belief. So it must be based on verifiable evidence; It must explain related observations with a measurable degree of accuracy; It must withstand continuous critical analysis in peer review, and it must be falsifiable too. If it doesn’t fulfill all these conditions at once, then it isn’t science. If it meets none of them, it may be religion.


In-Depth Comments

“We have all heard of The Origin of Species, although few of us had the time to read it…A casual perusal of the classic made me understand the rage of Paul Feyerabend…I agree with him that Darwinism contains ‘wicked lies’;
it is not a ‘natural law’ formulated on the basis of factual
evidence, but a dogma, reflecting the dominating social philosophy of the last century.”
(Source: Kenneth J. Hsu, “Sedimentary Petrology and Biological Evolution,” Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, Vol. 56, September 1986, p. 730.)
Outdated Source
Not a qualified biologist
Comfort said in the Introduction of this book he would be quoting “evolutionary experts” and right here, Comfort provides a quote from a non-biologist. Hsu is a scientist (geologist, paleoclimatologist and oceanographer) but his is not appropriate person to reference in the field of biology regarding the theory of evolution.
“As I said, we shall all be embarrassed, in the fullness of time, by the naivete of our present evolutionary arguments. But some will be vastly more embarrassed than others.”
(Source: Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, Principal Research Associate of the Center for Cognitive Science at MIT, Inevitable Illusions: How Mistakes of Reason Rule Our Minds (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1994), p. 195).

TOTALS FOR THIS SEGMENT (Q 61 – 70) 28 Total Quotes

Fallacy Number of Fallacies
Quote Mining 3
Appeal to Authority 5
Outdated Source 10
Non-Academic Source 7
Not a qualified biologist or scientist 10
Not Relevant to Evolutionary theory or Biology 6
Not Damaging to Evolutionary theory 7
Distortion of Science 3
Total 51

One comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *