CreationUK

Please go to the New Blog - Science and Values

2009-01-27T15:12:00.000-08:00

Further blog posts will be added at:

Science and Values

Sue Blackmore - Opening Minds ?

2008-09-06T07:25:00.000-07:00

Sue blackmore reveals her ignorance in a Guardian article Opening Minds, (4th Sept 2008) that typifies the lack of understanding of some Darwinists who fail to even fully grasp the arguments relating to creation and evolution.

Ms Blackmore asserts that once natural selection is understood it will lead to acceptance of Darwinism. But all creationists accept natural selection; that isn't the problem. The problem is whether that is sufficient to account for all of life, and there are severe hurdles to overcome in the neo-Darwinian thesis because it requires a directional or progressive increase in complexity, without a director. The concept of undirected direction is an oxymoron. These hurdles are so large that many evolutionists are at a loss to explain it, they just keep the faith believing a non Darwinian explanation may one day come to their rescue - (it is called intelligent design, but they don't know it yet). Seth Bullock at a recent conference in Winchester commented that

"Evolution on its own doesn't look like it can make the creative leaps that have occurred in the history of life,...It's a great process for refining, tinkering, and so on. But self-organisation is the process that is needed alongside natural selection before you get the kind of creative power that we see around us....Understanding how those two processes combine is the biggest challenge in biology." Comments from Winchester Conference

The other problem Ms Blackmore fails to note is a foundational fallacy, the belief that scientific explanations are akin to absolute knowledge. This is scientism, long rejected by most philosophers of science because all scientific claims are based on untestable assumptions and scientism is self-refuting. Ms Blackmore needs to read up a little more on the philosophy of science before commenting further on education policy in the UK.

You can read her article here: Sue Blackmore - Opening Minds [or not]

Darwinism and Education Policy

2008-06-08T14:09:00.000-07:00

A New York Times Editorial [1] falls back on empty rhetoric and provides a rather confused argument in seeking to defend Darwinism in the US education system. Stating in the headline for instance that ‘creationism’ is a ‘con,’ and commenting that ‘creationists tend to struggle with reality’ in the first sentence, but then they fail to present a positive case for Darwinism. This rather aggressive approach to defending evolutionary science is a staple of Darwinist propaganda; firstly taken up by Thomas Huxley who was described as ‘Darwin’s bulldog;’ then by people like Andrew Dixon White who helped develop a sense of conflict between science and faith, and later by Richard Dawkins, otherwise known as ‘Darwin’s Rottweiler,’ who often uses polemical argumentation to reinforce his point in favour of atheism.

The object of the NYT attack would seem to be the Texas State Board of Education that is seeking to maintain teaching standards in the school education system. The contested approach is one that insists that evidence must be presented to schoolchildren in terms of ‘strengths and weaknesses’ in scientific theories such as Darwinism. In arguing against this the NYT falls back on the tired old dogma that ‘science must be naturalistic’ and ‘Darwinism is proved’ by naturalistic science, which is kind of a circular argument. If naturalism is assumed true at the start of scientific investigation, a naturalistic explanation will be the result, whether naturalism is true or not. They also come out with the following ill-thought out statement that defies logic, suggesting that ‘the elegant truth of evolution...has…evolved.’

‘Every student who hopes to understand the scientific reality of life will sooner or later need to accept the elegant truth of evolution as it has itself evolved since it was first postulated by Darwin.’

What happens if we apply this same logic to mathematics? Suppose a school child puts on her exam paper that although she knows her answer does not follow the rule of arithmetic the ‘elegant truth of mathematics has evolved’ and therefore she should be awarded full marks. And the Darwinists want us to believe that they are the guardians of standards in education.

Are we to believe now that truth is a relative concept that can evolve? Of course science changes over time, but that isn’t about ‘truth evolving’ it is an admission that scientific explanations were wrong in the past or only partially correct and a new and better way of understanding science has developed. Science progresses in this way because scientists study the ‘strengths and weaknesses’ of theories through a process of falsification.

In fact thinking through ‘strengths and weaknesses’ is an excellent strategy for science because it puts false science between a rock and a hard place, thus allowing truth to be seen. Dishonest science that goes through this process will be either exposed as false, or if it resists the need for scrutiny will be exposed as not science, but metaphysical dogma. That doesn’t mean that science cannot have religious or philosophical commitments, but that they must be honestly addressed. In fact it is impossible to do science without such commitments. Creationists are honest in noting that they cannot prove that design is the best explanation scientifically because of the foundational limits of science, but that design is the most logical explanation when the extreme complexity of life is fully considered. Christian faith, and belief in the creator ultimately come via revelation from God. But naturalists should at least be honest and also acknowledge that naturalism cannot be known to be true scientifically. The NYT Editorial comments that ‘All science is “naturalist” to the extent that it tries to understand the laws of nature and the character of the universe on their own terms, without reference to a divine creator.’ But science cannot fully know whether a divine creator exists or not. Such naturalistic science is exposed to the problem of searching for a solution that may not exist leaving many excellent scientists ‘barking up the wrong tree.’

The NYT article seeks to defend itself by commenting that ‘Scientists are always probing the strengths and weakness of their hypotheses. That is the very nature of the enterprise. But evolution is no longer a hypothesis. It is a theory rigorously supported by abundant evidence.’ But the NYT fails to give an example of this ‘abundant evidence’ preferring empty rhetoric instead. And the history of science shows that once well-established theories often come unstuck at a later date.

Education

The secular humanists and Darwinists want people to believe that they are the guardians of science standards in education, but they want to restrict education to learning given ‘facts’ and not allow students to think through issues for themselves, such as understanding the 'strengths and weaknesses' of Darwinism. This in effect leads to the ‘dumbing down’ of education that was incidentally a part of the pagan social order proposed in Plato’s Republic. On the other hand Christians believe that all students should be educated to the level of thinking human beings so they may find their potential in Christ, thus enabling them to consider the deeper meaning and purposes of life and not be reduced to the level of productive economic units serving the purpose of a neo-pagan or secular elite. Education is not simply about producing materialistic, economic human units, but about giving human beings the skills and ability to find their full God given humanity.

Sources

[1] Editorial, ‘The Cons of Creationism,’ New York Times, 7th June 2008http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/opinion/07sat3.html?ref=opinion

Malnutrition, not climate change, is main threat to world.

2008-05-30T23:38:00.000-07:00

The Copenhagen Consensus initiative, which includes five Nobel laureates in its panel, has declared that tackling malnutrition should be the main priority in the world.

The Times-Online news website has reported that the provision of nutritional supplements, such as vitamin A and zinc to babies and children in the developing countries is most important in order to prevent totally avoidable deficiencies that are known to affect hundreds of millions of children. They comment that this is the 'most cost-effective way of making the world a better place.'

The aim of the report is to prioritise solutions to the world’s many problems according to their costs and benefits, and the most important priorities it concludes is to improve diet. On the other hand, efforts to reduce global warming through reductions in greenhouse gases, were rated at the bottom of the league table. The economists considered the costs of effectively tackling climate change too high with limited overall benefit, while research into renewable energy and new low-carbon technologies, such as solar and nuclear fusion power, was ranked 14th in important.

See: Peter Henderson, Forget Climate Change, we should spend on nutrition.' Date 30/05/08

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4033272.ece?token=null&offset=0

Science, ideology and idolatry

2008-05-21T04:26:00.000-07:00

There is an interesting article in the Daily Mail today (21/05/08) by Geoffrey Lean where the modern dogma of secular science is described as 'institutionalised idolatry.'

There are further examples given of the persecution of scientists because they made discoveries that did not suit the hegemony of scientism. He argues that scientism is damaging public trust in science.

"Beware scientists who insist they always know best" by Geoffrey Lean (Last updated at 12:44 AM on 21st May 2008)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1020839/Beware-scientists-insist-know-best.html

I am currently reading Michael Polanyi's Science, Faith and Society, (OUP 1946). He argues that science must be free from authority in order to pursue the evidence as a truth seeking exercise. Scientism on the other hand sets up a sort of clerical authority that actually damages science. There is a need to cool passions so that science can progress within an ethical framework.

See also: Dispatches, ‘In God’s Name’ and liberal bullying, CSM, (20th May 2008).

http://www.csm.org.uk/news.php?viewmessage=112/

Embryology Bill and the Moral Failure of Secular Humanism

2008-03-29T12:09:00.000-07:00

There is some irony in the latest developments regarding the Fertilisation and Embryology Bill going through the United Kingdom Houses of Parliament.

The most controversial idea is to place human DNA within the female gamete of an animal, such as a cow, having removed the animal’s DNA, and create human-animal hybrid embryos for the sake of stem-cell experimentation. The reason this is considered necessary is to increase the number of embryos available for research, as human embryos are apparently in short supply for stem cell research. It is argued that it is important for medical research to find cures for various genetic diseases, although such claims ignore the fact that the ends cannot be used to justify the means. It totally ignores the evidence that human stem cells can be just as effective in research of this nature, and considers the ethical disgust felt by many as simply a ‘yuk’ factor that will be overcome when the process is underway. Leading science institutions such as the Royal Society, and well-known secularists such as Lord Robert Winston, Polly Toynbee and David Aaronovitch support the measures.

Those opposed include the Catholic leader in Scotland, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, who said the Bill was a ‘monstrous attack on human rights, human dignity and human life,’[5] and the Anglican Bishop of Durham, Tom Wright who commented that ‘This secular utopianism is based on a belief in an unstoppable human ability to make a better world, while at the same time it believes that we have the right to kill unborn children and surplus old people...’ Both Winston and Aaronovitch have accused the leading clerics of ‘lying’ for objecting to this Bill in their Easter messages.

It also reveals that the philosophy of secular humanism in fact suffers from a fatal paradox. The more humanists seek to remove limits to scientific research, so as for instance to experiment on human-animal hybrids, the less human 'humanism' becomes.

Read the full text here.
Embryology Bill and the Moral Failure of Secular Humanism

Why Pigs don't have wings

2008-03-16T08:52:00.000-07:00

Philosopher of science Jerry Fodor (writing an article in the London Review of Books 18th October 2007 entitled 'Why Pigs don't have Wings') rejects natural selection as unworkable. He also claims that evolution has left us 'a little crazy' and asks why we are so good at making ourselves misrable, noting that the suffering of the last century was 'terrible,' but holds out little hope for the next. Our present science, he observes, offers little help with its Humean axiom that ought cannot be derived from is.

Fodor continues to believe in evolution, but he says that

"...the classical Darwinist account of evolution as primarily driven by natural selection is in trouble on both conceptual and empirical grounds."

"If it does turn out that natural selection isn’t what drives evolution, a lot of loose speculations will be stranded high, dry and looking a little foolish. Induction over the history of science suggests that the best theories we have today will prove more or less untrue at the latest by tomorrow afternoon. In science, as elsewhere, ‘hedge your bets’ is generally good advice."

Fodor notes that perhaps our minds have not evolved to suit our modern world, but then concludes that he doesn't feel like a hunter gatherer.

"I really would be surprised to find out that I was meant to be a hunter-gatherer since I don’t feel the slightest nostalgia for that sort of life. I loathe the very idea of hunting, and I’m not all that keen on gathering either. Nor can I believe that living like a hunter-gatherer would make me happier or better. In fact, it sounds to me like absolute hell. No opera. And no plumbing. "

Darwinists continue to struggle with the rationality of Darwinism, but believe it true despite the problems, perhaps hoping that one day someone will deal with them adequately. The overall problem is that if the Darwinists could account for everything in purely material terms, then where would non material things like truth and value fit in? Darwinism is ultimately a self refuting exercise.

Steve Jones in the Telegraph.

2008-02-29T10:44:00.000-08:00

Paul Talyor of Answers in Genesis (29/02/08) takes issue with Steve Jones article in the UK Daily Telegraph. See: Magic, Information and Faith

Taylor comments "It is amusing that Professor Steve Jones refers to his latest effort ... in the Telegraph as “View from the lab,” when nothing he has to say owes anything to the sort of real science carried out in laboratories."

In the Telegraph Jones comments: "The idea that life began by magic a few thousand years ago is entirely absurd..." For 'magic', read 'God,' but Jones believes nature can supply its own 'magic' if given enough time. For Jones then 'no causal reason' and 'no purpose' can lead to life as we know it. Now that really is pulling rabbits out of hats.

Read: 'View from the lab: creationism' by Steve Jones

Darwinian Hagiography

2008-02-23T08:55:00.000-08:00

Denis Alexander of the Faraday Institute has a letter in the New Scientist praising the Clergy Letter Project and calling for Christians to be better educated with knowledge of evolution. Darwinists seem under the illusion that more education can make up for the failure of Darwinism to be accepted in the minds of the majority of Christians. By way of review here is the letter published 23rd February 2008.

"Celebrating Darwin There seems little doubt that religious communities are more likely to listen when people from within their own communities have something important to say, as with the Clergy Letter project (2 February, p 16). Though creationism is thankfully less of a problem in Europe, Michael Zimmerman may be interested to know that there have long been vigorous efforts within UK churches to educate Christians about science in general, and evolution in particular. For example, later this year Christians in Science http://www.cis.org.uk/ are holding a conference entitled Celebrating Darwin. Biologists who have a faith need to be active in explaining their science within their religious communities."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726440.400-celebrating-darwin.html

Interestingly according to the CiS Newsletter PreCiS No. 42 Autumn 2007 Precis42.pdf the conference in question is "Celebrating Darwin ? Creation, Evolution and Theological Challenges." That is with a question mark. As a student member of CiS I wonder why Denis would chose to turn a question into a statement in this way? Perhaps the conference has indeed changed its name, or perhaps the statement expresses the real purpose of the conference, but Denis seems to be engaging in a form of hagiography that is not shared by at least some members of CiS. The CiS apparently does not take an official line on Darwinism in its Statement of Faith and members hold different views on macro-evolution. But his letter suggests that CiS is seeking to educate the church in the ways of Darwin.

Undoubtedly Darwin raised an important theological question in terms of suffering in light of a widely held belief in design, but his own wider claims for macro-evolution have not been substantiated, and nor can they be. The solution to the problem of theodicy will not be answered by merely caving into Darwin's negative conclusions. And Christians should indeed engage in the education of Christians (and non-Christians) to warn of the fallacy known as scientism. That is; the 'belief' that 'science' can explain all reality. It is a self refuting claim.

Darwinism has failed to capure the minds of a majority of the population because of very obvious causal gaps in the theory. But in response people are asked to 'believe' in much the same way as they accept religious belief. Evolution is doubted because it is not established as science, but is really seen as a belief system where nature is said to supply the 'power of generation.'

Instead of dividing Christians along Darwinian lines it would be good to see Denis call for respectful dialogue between Christians who hold differing views, and organise a conference along such lines. But praising Darwin in church seems more important to some Christian naturalists than Christian unity.

Gatekeepers of knowledge - Peer Review and the Royal Society

2008-02-23T03:27:00.000-08:00

The author of a new book 'Sex, Science and Profits,' Terence Kealey, has written an article in the Daily Telegraph 'Peer review: the myth of the noble scientist' explaining some of the issues surrounding problems with the peer review process [1] [2]. He notes that peer review often fails to prevent fraud in science and hinders the development of new discoveries. This has some bearing on those who are sceptical of evolutionary claims, as creationists are often accused of not publishing in peer-reviewed journals. The fact is though that access is denied to such journals for creation articles because the work does not fit the prevailing paradigm required by the publication, not because of a lack of quality.

Kealey for instance notes that scientists are often in disagreement over food science issues, such as the effect of coffee consumption and sweetener use on people’s health. He quotes a figure of 15 percent of scientists at the National Institute of Health in America who admit to ‘bending data to fit their theories.’ Thus he notes that it is a myth to claim that science is a noble search for truth. Instead scientists are driven by the emotion of selfishness, and this has gone on through history. For instance Hooke published his work on elasticity in coded form in 1676 with the anagram ‘ceiiinosssttuu’ so that no one else could claim credit for his work. In Latin it is ‘ut tension sic vis,’ or stress is proportional to strain.

Kealey argues that with the development of the Royal Society, science was supposed to have formed a level playing field. But he asserts that this is not true, as the Royal Society subsequently enabled a closed shop for discovery where peer review in effect has acted as a ‘gatekeeper’ to knowledge.

It is also true that reviewers are not able to test the experiments directly, and so papers are often published on the basis of the reputation of the author. Sometimes fraud gets through and important work is rejected. Barbara McClintock’s work on gene jumping in DNA later won her the Nobel Prize in 1983, but her work was published informally because her peers rejected it.

Unscrupulous reviewers may also steal ideas and prevent a new author from getting recognition. Kealey further comments that the Internet will mean that the peer review process will inevitably change, and that ‘peer review was always an illusion, providing a deceptive imprimatur of objective truth.’

Summary

Evolution is also held in society by the gatekeepers of the scientific establishment, not through reasoned and carefully thought out arguments. The Royal Society was established along the lines of Bacon’s scientific judiciary to carefully weigh knowledge claims in the place of God and King, but it has only served to act as a gatekeeper of knowledge where a council of ‘philosopher kings’ have been able to control science and dictate to society what people should believe. The Internet is indeed serving to democratise science where new ideas can be heard where once voices were blocked.

Darwinism and Cargo Cult Science

2008-01-19T14:26:00.000-08:00

Cargo Cult Science is a term coined by Richard Feynman in a 1974 Caltech address to describe the way science is often done. Cargo Cult’s sometimes developed in tribal societies where non-natives bring advanced technologies for a time through ships or aircraft. The Cargo Cult’s sometimes started worshipping the people or technology as divine, not realising the human origin of such artefacts. Feynman argued that scientists can fall into the same trap through a desire to be right. (In terms of Darwinism, the theory itself has become so sacred that questioning of its central tenets must be rebuffed with a sort of religious zeal). Feynman felt the need to avoid this common risk of self-delusion in science through a process of questioning, with the need for scientists to doubt their own theories and results together with full investigations of possible flaws in their own work.

Recent editorials in Nature and New Scientist call for evolution to be promoted as ‘scientific fact’ with renewed vigour by every academy and society in the run up to the Darwin Day celebrations in 2009. Along with this is the typical misrepresentation of creationist arguments that could be described as a form of ‘Cargo Cult Science.’

Why the desperation and lack of candour you might ask with such editorials? [1] [2] Because there is continued widespread scepticism of evolutionary claims in society with over half in both Britain and America rejecting the wider beliefs of Darwinism and the naturalistic science establishment wants to hold onto its position of power.

Richard Feynman called this type of approach, where important information is ignored or misrepresented, ‘Cargo-Cult Science.’ Cargo-Cult Science has all the appearance of good science, but it is based on fallacies. Instead Feynman called for scientists to work within a framework of ‘utter honesty,' commenting.

‘It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it.'

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it.’[3]

Read More: http://www.csm.org.uk/news.php?viewmessage=95

[1] Nature Editorial ‘Spread the Word’ Vol. 451, p. 108, 10th Jan 2008
[2] New Scientist Editorial, ‘It’s evolution, stupid,’ 2638, 12th Jan 2008
[3] Feynman, R (1974) ‘Cargo Cult Science,’ Engineering and Science, Vol. 37:7, June

Hitler’s link with Darwinism

2007-06-23T01:42:00.000-07:00

Mike Brass of the British Centre for Science Education has produced a short piece entitled ‘Charles Darwin and Adolf Hitler’, which attempts to show that Hitler was not influenced by Darwinism. But does this claim fit with what is known about Darwinism and Hitler? [1]

Brass claims that Hitler was not influenced by Darwin and provides apparent religious quotes from Mein Kampf, [My Struggle] where Hitler asserts for instance that he is acting with the will of the ‘Almighty Creator’ (Hitler 1933:262). It is well known that Hitler used religious language in this way in his speeches and writing, and often appealed to German national sentiment that linked the established Lutheran church with his nationalistic agenda. However, it was Hitler’s skilful use of rhetoric that blinded so many to his very un-Christian cause, although a number of German Protestant scholars, such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Karl Barth signed the Barmen Declaration, and rejected Hitler’s fascism.

Was Hitler influenced by Darwin?

Sir Arthur Keith for one thought that Hitler was an evolutionist. He comments

‘The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him the national “front” of Europe is also the evolutionary “front”; he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people.’ (Keith 1946:9)

In order to understand Hitler it is necessary to look beyond the simple rhetoric that has blinded Mike Brass. Hitler was in fact a pantheist believing that nature and god were one and the same with nature giving creative power over itself. This was a tradition in German philosophy stretching back to Spinoza, and Darwin’s German acquaintance Ernst Haeckel was for instance a pantheistic monist. This pantheism comes out in Hitler’s comments.

‘No more than Nature desires the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race, since, if she did, her whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, might be ruined with one blow…When man attempts to rebel against the iron logic of Nature, he comes into struggle with the principles to which he himself owes his existence as a man.’ (Hitler 1933:260)

'No, there is only one holiest human right, and this right is at the same time the holiest obligation, to wit, to see to it that the blood is preserved pure and, by preserving the best humanity, to create the possibility of a nobler development of these beings. …and finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give to the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created.’ (Hitler 1933:262)

In other words, for Hitler, the ‘iron logic of Nature,’ was the process of evolution, or ‘the principles to which he himself owes his existence as a man.’ For Hitler, nature, through the process of evolution was one and the same as ‘Almighty God,’ because he believed Nature had creative power over itself. Hitler also hated Christianity, claiming that he wish to abolish it.

‘I do insist on the certainty that sooner or later—once we hold power—Christianity will be overcome and the German church, without a Pope and without the Bible, and Luther, if he could be with us, would give us his blessing’ (Hitler 1942:369).

Can we link Hitler directly to Darwin?

There are likely a number of links from Darwinism to Hitler’s fascism, but perhaps the most notable is through Charles Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton. Darwin himself corresponded with Ernst Haeckel, but it was Galton who developed eugenics and was converted to atheism through Darwin’s Origins book. Galton wrote to Darwin shortly after publication of Origins that he felt.

‘…initiated into an entirely new province of knowledge…Its effect was to demolish a multitude of dogmatic barriers by a single stroke, and arouse a spirit of rebellion against all ancient authorities whose positive and unauthenticated statements were contradicted by modern science.’ (Galton: 1908:287)

Galton’s eugenics work written in Heredity Genius has come in for severe criticism with Brookes for instance commenting that ‘Galton’s central thesis’ was ‘deeply flawed’ and notable for ‘its lack of objectivity’ (Brookes 2004:142). But many were won over to eugenics. Galton wanted to improve the human race believing this is what nature (i.e. evolution) determined. He didn’t have much respect for democracy either.

‘It is the obvious course of intelligent men – and I venture to say it should be their religious duty – to advance in the direction whither Nature is determined they shall go, that is towards the improvement of the race….But it [Democracy] goes farther than this, for it asserts than men are of equal value as social units, equally capable of voting, and the rest. This feeling is undeniably wrong and cannot last.’ (Galton 1873:119,127)

It is interesting to note from the above how closely Hitler’s writing reflects the writing of Galton. One of Galton’s German supporters was Alfted Ploetz. Eugenics began to take off in Germany, and in 1904 Galton received a letter from Alfred Ploetz who founded a journal of eugenics in Germany entitled Archiv fǘr Rassen – und Gesellschaftesbiologie. Ploetz wrote to Galton that ‘We take the highest interest in your eminent and important Eugenics’ (Brookes 2004:275).

A year later Ploetz founded the German Society for Race Hygiene in Berlin. Heinrich Himmler also publicly embraced the eugenics of Alfred Ploetz, Galton’s German admirer (Brookes 2004:289). Whereas Brass comments from a preface to Mein Kampf that Hitler picked up many of his racist and fascist ideas from catholic Vienna, Weikart asserts that time spent in Munich played an important part in Hitler’s thinking (Weikart 2004:221).

According to Weikart, Ploetz was active in Munich and although there is no clear evidence that Hitler met Ploetz, both were close friends of Julius Lehmann, a publisher of medical, racist and eugenic material. Lehmann was a leading member of Ploetz’s organisation and publisher of the German nationalistic journal Deutschlands Erneuerung. Lehmann had been interested in eugenics from the 1890s and joined the German Society for Race Hygiene prior to 1914. During the 1920s Lehmann had regular contact with Hitler, and was at this time publishing racist and eugenic material (Weikart 2004:221).

Was Darwinism a purely scientific theory?

It is noteworthy that Darwin was influenced by social and political thought in writing, such as work by Malthus on population growth, Adam Smith on free economics and a general Victorian attitude to liassez-faire economics. Darwin’s theory also influenced the social Darwinist Herbert Spencer, who coined the phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ and justified exploitation of workers. As such the assertion that Darwin’s theory was a purely scientific theory is not entirely plausible. Himmelfarb for instance notes that.

‘The theory of natural selection, it is said, could only have originated in England, because only laissez-faire England provided atomistic, egotistic mentality necessary to its conception. Only there could Darwin have blandly assumed that the basic unit was the individual, the basic instinct self-interest, and the basic activity struggle. Spengler, described the Origin as “the application of economics to biology”, said that it reeked of the atmosphere of the English factory…natural selection arose…in England because it was a perfect expression of Victorian “greed-philosophy”, of the capitalist ethic and Manchester economics.’ (Himmelfarb 1962:418).

Summary

Despite the assertions of Mike Brass, it is quite clear that there is a link between Darwinism and Hitler’s fascism through for instance Francis Galton’s eugenics, although it is not established that this was Charles Darwin’s intention. However, Darwin took ideas from economics and applied them to biology, and did not object to Herbert Spencer and Francis Galton applying those biological ideas of evolution back to society. As such Darwinism cannot be seen as a purely scientific concept, but was a theory of its time embedded within Victorian economic, political and social thought.

It is also regrettable that the British Centre for Science Education has produced such a poor piece of research that overlooks the mountain of evidence that exists that shows the influence that Darwinism had on Hitler’s brand of fascism. Such poor quality research damages their claim to be representatives of good standards in British education.

[1] BCSE item: http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/DarwinAndHitler

References

Brookes, M. (2004) Extreme Measures: The Dark Visions and Bright Ideas of Francis Galton, Bloomsbury Publ. Plc. London.

Galton, F. (1908) ‘Memoirs of my life: Chapter 20,’ Heredity, p.287 Methuen, London.

Galton, F. (1873) ‘Heredity Improvement,’ Frazer’s Magazine, Vol. 7, January.

Himmelfarb, G. (1962), Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, W.W. Norton, New York

Hitler, A. (1933) Mein Kampf, tr. [1969] R.Manheim, Hutchinson.

Hitler, A. (1942) Hitler’s Speeches, edited by Prof. N.H. Baynes, Oxford.

Keith, A. (1946) Evolution and Ethics, Putnam’s Sons, New York

Weikart, R. (2004) From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, Plagrave Macmillan, New York

Carbon use and human rights - putting climate change into a Christian perspective

2007-03-30T08:59:00.000-07:00

Climate change is not far from the news headlines with the general consensus being that global warming must be stopped or even reversed in order to save the planet. But what is the truth about global warming, and what should, or can be done to stop it?

The full article can be read here.

http://www.csm.org.uk/news.php?viewmessage=76

Conclusions

The evidence for man made global warming is equivocal, but it is considered likely here that a growing and developing global human population is having some impact on global temperatures. Another cause may be solar changes. But evidence from the fossil record shows that carbon dioxide levels and the average global temperature were significantly higher in the past, and in such a climate the environment thrived with an abundance of life throughout the ecosystem. Environmentalists need to address this evidence from the fossil record, which at present is largely ignored.

It can be shown that higher carbon dioxide levels lead to higher primary production and therefore higher crop yields with benefit to the global economy and global ecosystem. The natural environment is shown to have adapted to climate change in the past and this is true for whatever time frame is applied to the fossil record. The current increase in levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide fall within historic levels and should not be considered unnatural. But creationists recognise that the climate is now markedly different and direct comparisons with the past are problematic due to likely differences in the way the atmosphere responds to changes in carbon dioxide levels today compared to the pre-Flood period.

The main problems to address then are the ways in which climate change will affect human society. The greatest risk is that climate change may cause some major problems around the world with more severe and unpredictable weather, together with the risk of changes in sea level, but the latter is considered an unrealistic risk at present. However, by tackling the problem of global warming by forcing developing nations to slow or stop their development will have a negative impact on poverty reduction in the poorest nations. Developing nations have a right and duty to utilise their natural resources and reduce poverty, but within environmental constraints. Trying to restrict access to natural resources may well hinder the social development of some of the poorest countries, which would be morally wrong.

Calls to reduce carbon use are not based on the reality of historic carbon dioxide levels, nor are they based on the reality and needs of present day human population growth, but seem to have more to do with the ‘hot air’ of environmentalists and politicians keen to jump on the latest bandwagon.

The response to these social problems then should be to spend more on the development of mitigation strategies especially as a growing global population and growing prosperity will provide the resources to help protect against natural weather related disasters. A good proportion of the cost of this should be born by the developed nations and there is a need for fairness in use of natural resources and in terms of the cost of protection against adverse weather and climate. If there are effective ways of reducing human dependence on fossil carbon-based fuels without excessive taxation and damage to the global economy then these should be implemented, with such technological know how also transferred to the developing nations for maximum benefit.

Stuart Kauffman admits that biological complexity defies scientific explanations

2007-03-22T04:17:00.000-07:00

There are some quotes from the complexity evolutionist Stuart Kauffman (2004, Prolegomenon to a General Biology, in Debating Design by Dembski and Ruse p166 & 172) that are worth remembering next time someone says ID and Creationism are just pseudo-science. Kauffman recognises complexity, but says nature is 'self organised' and he hopes that science will develop a fourth law of thermodynamics to account for such apparent 'self organisation,' as a naturalistic explanation for complexity. Kauffman is here assuming the truth of the thing he wishes to prove, and Behe's work on Irreducible Complexity is a direct challenge to Kauffman.

Kauffman says "The hoped-for fourth law of thermodynamics for such self-constructing systems will be that they tend to maximinse their dimensionality, the number of types of events that can happen next."p172

However, the Universal Probability Bound as highlighted by William Dembski shows that there are universal limits to 'what can happen next.' Many biological systems exceed the Universal Probability Bound by massive margins.

Kauffman perhaps recognises the problem. He comments; "And astonishingly, we need stories. If as I suggest, we cannot prestate the configuration space, variables, laws, initial and boundary conditions of a bioshpere, if we cannot foretell a biopshere, we can, nevertheless, tell the stories as it unfolds. Biospheres demand their Shakespeares as well as their Newtons. We will have to rethink what science is itself. And C.P.Snow's "two cultures," the humanities and science may find an unexpected, inevitable union.' p172

Kauffman says "We do not understand evolution...The strange thing about evolution is that everyone thinks he understands it."p166

The appliance of science

2007-03-14T11:44:00.000-07:00

This is an excellent article by an environmental scientists on climate change in the Guardian.

"Politicians and the public look to scientists to explain the causes of climate change and whether it can be tackled - and they are queuing up to deliver. But, asks Mike Hulme, are we being given the whole picture? Wednesday March 14, 2007

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html

"But there are two other characteristics of science that are also important when it comes to deploying its knowledge for the benefit of public policy and society: that scientific knowledge is always provisional knowledge, and that it can be modified through its interaction with society."

Interview with Creationist Kurt Wise

2007-03-07T14:40:00.000-08:00

Creationist Kurt Wise has given an interview for BP news. Wise earned his Ph.D. from Harvard University in paleontology, studying under the late evolutionist Stephen J. Gould. As a result of Wise's commitment to Creationism, Richard Dawkins has called Wise “the greatest disappointment he knows in modern science.” That sounds like a badge of honour to me.

In the interview, Wise comments that evolutionists are motivated by fear in rejecting Creationism because belief in a Creator would make them accountable to God. Wise comments;

“If it’s true that there was a creation, then you realize that means there’s someone in control...And if there was a flood -- in other words, a creator who actually judged this creation -- that means we’re in big trouble. So I think there’s every reason why an evolutionist would be very frightened of creationists advocating creationism.”

Wise makes a very good point here - it reveals that the justification for evolution is not based on a purely rational and objective set of scientific criteria, but is based on an emotional response to a theological premise that God exists.

In terms of Creation and repeatable science, Wise commented that “... [Scientists] cannot deduce anything about a creation...[T]hey’ve never seen a creation before -- not a creation out of nothing of the universe. Their experience is limited to what they see and hear in the present. With those kinds of limitations, they couldn’t possibly deduce the right thing about the beginning of things.”

Wise also commented that evolution is itself a deeply religious belief. “Science drips with theology. You cannot do science without making theological assumptions.”

The full interview can be read here.

Creationist Kurt Wise critiques secular science on program

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=25121

Sir John Houghton calls for Severn Barrage

2007-02-24T06:21:00.000-08:00

Sir John Houghton, a practicing Christian and a leading climate researcher, has called for the construction of a Severn Barrage to help reduce CO2 emmissions noting that the Government should just get on with it. He also comments that wind power should not be the top priority because it destroys the beauty of the countryside. IC Wales reports him saying.

"We should get on with it [developing tital power] because we could get 20% of our electricity from tidal energy... Wind is not the only solution, and it's not the top solution and we don't want to cover our landscape with wind farms....With tidal power you know when it's going to come and unlike wind it's very reliable....But the Government has not seemed very interested in tidal for reasons that I don't understand."

From (Steve Dube, Rhodri backed on climate claims, Western Mail, Feb 23 2007 )

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0700world/tm_headline=rhodri-backed-on-climate-claims&method=full&objectid=18663117&siteid=50082-name_page.html

Stuart Burgess in The Independent

2007-02-10T10:29:00.000-08:00

Professor of Design and Nature Stuart Burgess has been interviewed in the Independent speaking about Intelligent Design. Burgess is also the well known author of Hallmarks of Design.

Stuart Burgess comments that science should be more open minded about design. He comments "Current scientific philosophy is to rule out completely the possibility that a creator was involved. But there is no scientific justification for making such a sweeping assumption. Science should always be open-minded."

You can read Against The Grain: 'There are strong indications of intelligent design' here

http://education.independent.co.uk/higher/article2246761.ece

Grand Canyon fault lines - Tom Vail's book under attack again

2007-01-28T08:33:00.000-08:00

Tom Vail's book entitled Grand Canyon has caused a stir again, this time coming under attack from a group called Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Why such a group should consider attacking this book is a mystery as it doesn't seem to be in their area of interest - and they have got their facts terribly wrong, so much so that a leading evolutionist Michael Shermer has been forced into an embarrasing retraction.

You can read the full story here.

PEERing into the manufacturing of an anti-creationist urban myth
by Mark Looy, CCO, AiG–US
January 23, 2007

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0123peering.asp

A.E.Wilder-Smith - videos of talks available online

2007-01-19T11:05:00.000-08:00

A.E.Wilder-Smith was a pioneer of Intelligent Design in biology, although ID wasn't recognised as something separate from Creationism then. Wilder-Smith was a leading academic, lecturing at Universities in the UK, Switzerland and America. he was also a Vice-President of the Creation Science Movement. One of those books, The Creation of Life a Cybernetic approach to Evolution inspired Dean Kenyon a leading proponent if ID.

“Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith was one of the two or three most important scientists in my life. He very powerfully influenced my intellectual development and my change of opinion on the origin of man. His writings, in particular The Creation of Life and The Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory, and the discussions I had with him were outstanding and had a great impact on my views and thoughts on origins. He was a courageous, supportive and gracious man, and he is greatly missed.” Dr. Dean Kenyon - Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University

There is now a website dedicated to Wilder-Smith, and you can watch some of his talks on video. http://www.wildersmith.org/library.htm

Titles include; Logos in Biology, Is Biogenesis Scientific?

--------------------------------------------------------

Intelligent Design in the Guardian - article by Richard Buggs

2007-01-09T14:25:00.000-08:00

Richard Buggs has written an excellent article in the Guardian on Intelligent Design. It has raised quite a lot of comment from Darwinists, upset no doubt to hear that they may have bought into a Darwinian faith system.

Richard comments;

'If certain Darwinists also had the intellectual honesty to distinguish between science and their religious beliefs, the public understanding of science would be much enhanced.'

Intelligent design is a science, not a faith

Spoiling the beauty of creation with wind farms

2007-01-05T04:08:00.000-08:00

Like many urban socialists Polly Toynbee wants to destroy the beauty of the British countryside with highly inefficient, unpredictable wind turbines. As I live in Devon I object strongly to wind turbines being placed in rural areas, although as part of an urban landscape they may be acceptable.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1983176,00.html

Of course in order for such turbines to be economical, they have to receive big subsidies for business. And doesn't New Labour love getting cosy with big business in the name of progress?

Urban socialists tend to have an anthropocentric mindset with little concern for nature therefore missing out on the spiritual nourishment that comes from a love of God's creation. They seem to want to ruin further rural areas with ugly human industrialisation because they believe that nature is the product of a mindless process of evolution. Heavy industry has brought poverty and ugliness to many as can be seen in the once lovely Welsh valleys, now spoiled by the legacy of coal, iron and steel industries, poor housing, large factories and slag heaps.

To help understand why country people are so opposed to wind turbines, imagine if you would if someone from the country went to London and demanded that all the art work in the galleries should be viewed through a wire mesh. Rural people from the extremities of Britain do not want ugliness and poverty thrust upon them so that business friends of urban socialists can grow rich on subsidies under New Labour.

Renewable energy is important, and solutions would include localised biomass fuel and solar energy, highly efficient and clean smallscale waste to energy plants, (possibly a Severn Barrage) but wind turbines are not the answer for areas where preserving the beauty of the countryside is vitally important for quality of life and tourism. Localised solutions maintain control and wealth in local communities.

Government to allow Intelligent Design in schools.

2007-01-04T02:11:00.000-08:00

The Sunday Times 31st December 2006 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2524442_1,00.html reports that Lord Adonis, the education minister, is to allow teaching of Intelligent Design in schools under the RE syllabus.

The Times report comments that Adonis said in a parliamentary answer: “Intelligent design can be explored in religious education as part of developing an understanding of different beliefs.”

This followed action by 12 prominent academics, who recently wrote to Tony Blair and Alan Johnson, the education secretary, arguing for inclusion of ID as part of science in the national curriculum. The letter applauded the Truth in Science initiative, commenting that empirical science has "severe limitations concerning origins" and Darwinism is not necessarily "the best scientific model to fit the data that we observe". They asked the Government "...that, where schools so choose, you ensure an open and honest approach to this subject under the National Curriculum, at the same time ensuring that the necessary criteria are maintained to deliver a rigorous education."

The Truth in Science website has also reported on this letter.
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/blogcategory/51/63/

Authors of the letter included Norman Nevin OBE, Professor Emeritus of Medical Genetics, Queen's University of Belfast and Antony Flew, former Professor of Philosophy at Reading University.

The other signatories of the letter were: David Back, Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Liverpool; Steve Fuller, Professor of Sociology at Warwick University; Mart de Groot, Director, Retired, Armagh Astronomical Observatory; Terry Hamblin, Professor of Immunohaematology, University of Southampton; Colin Reeves, Professor of Operational Research at Coventry University and John Walton, Professor of Chemistry, St Andrews University, as well as the three University Professors who are members of the TiS Board and Council.

Neutral mutations prove harmful.

2007-01-03T10:23:00.000-08:00

Scientists have found that so-called neutral mutations are not as neutral as previously thought. Previous scientific theories considered neutral or silent mutations to have no effect on the expression of proteins. However, the latest research has shown that neutral mutations can have a serious negative effect on protein expression.

There are four types of nucleotides in the genome, labelled A,C,G,T, and every three letter sequence forms a codon, which codes for an amino acid. Four raised to the power three provides sixty-four combinations, but there are only twenty amino acids in the genome, as different codons are believed to code for the same amino acid. It was thought that silent mutations that change the letters of the codon, but do not change the amino acid have no effect on the way proteins fold and function.

However, the latest research by Kimchi-Sarfaty (2006) in Science has shown that even neutral mutations can in fact cause changes in the way the protein folds and functions.[1] The researchers studied three mutations that can alter the way a specific protein pumps toxins out of the cell. Tests involving small changes in this protein have shown that when two of the silent mutations are present it can change the shape of the protein and change that way cancer cells resist chemotherapy. Tests in lab dishes showed that when the silent mutations were present the cell was able to more efficiently block the drug that is used to halt the cancer cell’s development. It would also seem that evidence for the negative effects of silent mutations have been known about for twenty years, but largely ignored.[2] This latest evidence also ties in with comments by John Sanford in Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome [3] who claimed that even neutral mutations can have an accumulative degrading effect on the genome.

Other research has shown that silent mutations involved with the cystic fibrosis disease can alter the way a specific RNA molecule is spliced up and therefore change the shape of the protein rendering it inactive.[4] (RNA is involved in copying and translating the DNA and converting genes into proteins). Franciso Baralle comments that failure to identify the importance of silent mutations may have led to wrong diagnosis in some patients. It would seem that there is now a need to re-examine the effects that silent mutations have on genetic diseases and therefore improve medical research. Once again the theory of evolution has led to poor predictions in medical research.

As far as evolution is concerned the neutral theory was developed to overcome some of the problems associated with modelling genetics in evolution. J.B.S. Haldane for instance noted that in order for beneficial mutations to be fixed in a population, evolution by mutation must progress very slowly indeed. This slow process was considered necessary to give time for natural selection to weed out the far more numerous harmful mutations that would otherwise lead to error catastrophe in the population. There was also a very high cost in terms of excessive birth rates that higher vertebrates could not hope to meet, and Haldane saw in this a paradox that effectively falsified gradual neo-Darwinian theory. (See for instance: Walter ReMines, The Biotic message)

The Neutral Theory was developed to try and overcome this paradox. As an example, if it is considered that about one in a thousand mutations are beneficial, with fifty percent harmful with the rest neutral, then an increase in the number of neutral mutations would reduces the harmful ones, and seemingly helps to overcome the paradox that Haldane identified.[5] However, this latest evidence, that these neutral mutations are not nearly as neutral as previously thought, does further serious damage to the neutral theory and to the theory of macro-evolution as a whole.

References

[1]. Kimchi-Sarfaty C., et al. (2006), Science, doi:10.1126/science.1135308

[2]. See: Pearson, H., (2006), Silent mutations speak up, Nature, 21st December 2006 http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061218/full/061218-12.html

[3]. Sanford, J. C., (2005) Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, Ivan Press

[4]. Pagani F., et al. (2005) Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 102. 6368 - 6372

[5] ReMines (1993) The Biotic Message, St Paul’s Science, pp.237-253 shows that the neutral theory does not provide selective advantage and it too has a high cost.

Judge Jones and the ACLU

2006-12-21T02:05:00.000-08:00

A Comparison of Judge Jones’ Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with
Plaintiffs’ Proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”

Judge Jones relied heavily on quotations from the ACLU. The fact that the ACLU has not accused him of plagarism demonstrates that the ACLU allowed Jones to use its comments on ID virtually verbatim. This calls into question the independence of the American Judicial system and is damaging to the ACLU cause again ID.

Just one quote from a paper written by the Discovery Institute.

""" In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004-word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling. Judge Jones even copied several clearly erroneous factual claims made by the ACLU. The finding that most of Judge Jones’ analysis of intelligent design was apparently not the product of his own original deliberative activity seriously undercuts the credibility of Judge Jones’ examination of the scientific validity of intelligent design. """

Read on>>> http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1186

Ekklesia tries to undermine Intelligent Design Initiative

2006-12-21T02:04:00.000-08:00

Date: 28th November 2006
It is with regret that we report that Ekklesia, who claim to be a Christian ‘think tank’ have worked to undermine an excellent initiative by Truth in Science. Truth in Science sent copies of the DVD Unlocking the Mystery of Life into every secondary school in the country so that school children can consider the evidence for Intelligent Design alongside evolution as allowed by the National Curriculum. However, this initiative has come in for some vigorous criticism by the British Humanist Association (BHA), and from Ekklesia who joined with the BHA to lobby the Government Minister.
Read more >>> http://www.csm.org.uk/news.php?viewmessage=70

The logical fallacies and dangers of Dawkins’ atheism

2006-12-21T02:00:00.000-08:00

Originally posted on CSM - Date: 9th November 2006
Richard Dawkins has been promoting his new book The God Delusion with missionary zeal, stating that he wants to convert young people to atheism. But to make his case for atheism Dawkins is guilty of using fallacious logic. So what are the Dawkins’ fallacies that young people should be aware of?
read on >>> http://www.csm.org.uk/news.php?viewmessage=69

Truth in Science - letters in The Times

2006-10-08T06:08:00.000-07:00

Truth in Science - letters in The Times

Both Prof. Andy McIntosh and Richard Buggs from Truth in Science have letters published in The Times over the weekend.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2392177,00.html

Richard invites critics to identify any errors on their website.

Andy suggests their critics are seeking to brainwash the next generation into humanism and notes that children should be taught how to think not what to think, and be exposed to an honest debate.

More on Dikika girl.

2006-10-05T05:38:00.000-07:00

Despite the evolutionary slant put on the find of Dikika girl by the popular media, this latest find instead provides strong evidence that Lucy and her kind were in fact apes and not some ancestor of human beings...the study also found that the once fluid filled semicircular canals of the inner ear were distinctly like that of the chimpanzee, and not like a human at all. As these canals are crucial for balance, it therefore demonstrates that Dikika girl was more at home in the trees than on the ground, and therefore bipedal locomotion would not have been the norm. The means of locomotion on the ground of Australopithecus afarensis would have been much closer to that of an ape than human being.

When this evidence is added together it shows that it in many important respects Dikika girl and the Australopithecus afarensis species as a whole should now be considered to be typical of apes and not a transitional form. Although in previous finds the shape of the pelvis has indicated some morphology that is different from modern apes, the presence of an ape-like semi-circular canal and general upper body shape demonstrates that the means of locomotion of Australopithecus afarensis is more ape-like than previously claimed. Dikika girl provides strong evidence that Australopithecus afarensis should now be identified as a species of ape.
http://www.csm.org.uk/news.php?viewmessage=67

Truth in Science ruffles feathers

2006-10-02T03:32:00.000-07:00

A new organisation has recently appeared in the UK challenging the official science education policies because some of the evidence presented as fact can be shown to be false. Oops.

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/

Check out the evidence (or lack of ) for evolution.

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/category/18/52/65/

Salem A baby for Lucy?

2006-09-25T07:40:00.000-07:00

Anyone interested in understanding the truth about Lucy and other Australopithecus afarensis should read this article from Creation Ministries International.
The ‘Lucy Child’More good news for creationists by Carl Wieland
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4654

Although 'Lucy' has some aspects of physiology that show possible bipedal locomotion, in all important ways Lucy and her child are very much like an ape. Lucy has a similar brain size to an ape, a chimp like hyoid bone, curved finger bones used for knuckle walking and climbing and ape like shoulder bones.

Read the full article for more.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4654

Beaver-like mammal from the middle Jurassic of China

2006-09-25T05:36:00.000-07:00

Palaeontologists have recently uncovered an aquatic mammal from the middle Jurassic, Jiulongshan Formation of Northeast China. Although it has many similarities with modern mammals such as the beaver and the otter, it has been placed in the order Docodonta because of the shape of the teeth and the fact that the evolutionary paradigm prevents identification as a modern mammal in this period.

Once again the fossil layers of China are throwing the evolutionary paradigm into chaos with mammals very similar to modern forms popping up in deeper layers than previously thought possible. As creationists we believe that this is only to be expected, that although some species have become extinct, the direct ancestors of modern animal kinds must have been present on the pre-Flood period. Although palaeontologists have placed these animals in different orders than modern mammals, the degree of similarity suggests that this different classification is driven more by the dogma of evolution rather than major differences in form between the animals.

For full story read the article here.

http://www.csm.org.uk/news.php?viewmessage=66