I’m not talking about finch beaks changing marginally as wet or dry conditions prevail, because they remain finches. They never become eagles or anything but finches.

What I ask Darwinists to defend is the assertion that interspecies transfer, e.g. apes to man, ever took place. “Why, everyone knows it!” is the usual response.

I deal with this subject with a fictional but highly educational and entertaining debate between a preacher and a lawyer in my new end-times novel, “Trouble in the House of Jacob.” You can see the web page at http://tinyurl.com/4d79yt if you wish.

Many thanks,
Hale Meserow

I think this has to do with their feelings about a broad pattern of evidence that they think they see, although history shows that the imagery and imaginary associations that they tend to believe is evidence may not be what they think it is. At any rate, they usually say that they feel “overwhelmed” by it. What seems like an obvious truth to seems to be combined with their mythological view of Progress and they conclude that as long as students are convinced of the fact/truth of evolution then the details and evidence will naturally and inevitably be filled in later. One thing seems to be consistent to Darwinian reasoning, whether such reasoning is based on imagining things about the past or about future Progress it often has little to do with the empirical evidence here and now.

Yes you may!

May I take that as a compliment?

“I do believe that they were blinded by their assumptions.”

It is an exceedingly difficult thing to not be blinded by one’s assumptions — blinded, that is, to what seems obvious on the basis of other assumptions.

I’ve asked Darwinists numerous questions in the past, and they have a complete inability to understand the question because of their assumptions that Darwinism is true.

First, I don’t recall any particular cases where you asked me a question that I didn’t understand. Care to remind me?

Second, how do you know that someone’s inability to understand a question is due an epistemic deficiency on their part? This is a far trickier matter than you seem to realize.

It’s one thing to fault someone for being unable to provide an answer to a question that they understand . . . it’s something far, far different to fault someone for being unable to understand a question that’s being asked of them.

It seems to me that Haeckel’s forgeries lasted so long in textbooks (and does in many to this day) because the Darwinism “meme” needs to pollute impressionable minds with “vivid” imagery (i.e. propaganda) which then tends to structure a largely imaginary view of biology in general. In my experience Darwinists often use the term “overwhelmed” to describe their mental state with respect to their view of the evidence but being overwhelmed may have more to do with indoctrination than eduction.

It seems like to me that to the Darwinist, the end justifies the means. They already “know” that evolution is true, so it doesn’t matter much to them “how” people are convinced. It only matters that they are convinced. I’ve asked Darwinists numerous questions in the past, and they have a complete inability to understand the question because of their assumptions that Darwinism is true. They are completely uncritical of Darwinism. The attitude seems to be, “So what? Darwinism is true. This is a lie, but Darwinism is true. It doesn’t matter.”