Biodiversity and "Evolution"

When discussing "biodiversity" science writers cannot help but call it "evolution"! The very opposite of evolution - the LOSS of information - is a problem in the lucrative dairy business in Africa. Notice the mixing of the concepts of selective breeding ("assisted selection" as a opposed to "natural selection"!) with the concept of evolution (that is, "change"):

From "A Dying Breed" by Andrew Rice


"Every cow in the world is the product of some human agency. The extinct feral ancestor of all cattle, the auroch, was a fearsome horned creature that could grow to be six feet tall. There are two theories about the taming of wild aurochs. The traditional view holds that it happened around 6000 B.C. in the Fertile Crescent. But recent archaeological and genetic evidence suggests that domestication may have first occurred in Africa 2,000 years earlier, in the then-lush plains of the eastern Sahara. . . .

"For millennia, changing a breed’s genetics through husbandry required a long trial-and-error process. But today it can happen in an evolutionary eye blink. . . .

"To see the evolution in Ugandan dairy cattle, I visited a farmer named Jackson Sezibwa, who lives down a reddish dirt path outside the central Ugandan town of Mukono. A weather-beaten man of 46, Sezibwa greeted me in a torn, muddy shirt. He showed me to the metal-roofed stall where he keeps his Holstein, Kevina. . . .

"If the Ankole cattle are able to mount a comeback, it will be because circumstances have endowed them with a unique set of defenses, both evolutionary and political. Members of President Museveni’s ethnic group populate the upper ranks of Uganda’s government. . . ."

The author, Andrew Rice, seems to equate the term "evolution" with "selection." There is a continued LOSS of genetic information from the original "extinct" aurock (the oxen that came off the ark!). This is, it seems a detriment to the species - which is FAR from extinct. The worry is that there may be a pandemic in the ever warmer climate of the world bringing an actual extinction to the noble bovine race. Far fetched, of course, but possible.

The point is, true "evolution" is not at play here. The oxen - seven of which went on the ark (three pair and one to sacrifice) - were more diverse than other species because they were "clean." Therefore, it should not be of any concern to the world's guardians of "biodivesity" if the noble ankole breed disappears.

In fact, "evolution" of species is impossible! The only reason scientists continue this fable is because it takes the Creator out of the picture. The very evidence that humanist scientists use to "prove" evolution draw only from a diverse gene pool that has been diluted over time. No addition of information has ever been shown. Older species were just more diverse.

Is the polar bear "endangered"?

Sara Palin lives there, so she should know. But environmentalist groups are lobbying to put the big whites on the "Endangered Species" list based on the flimsy excuse that their "habitat" is disappearing. Not so fast, the Alaskan governor declares.

It seems that there are more polar bears now than there were forty years ago. The laws meant to protect them are working. By using "global warming" arguments, which project short term trends to a logical conclusion, environmentalists claim that as goes the ice, so goes the bear. That is discounting the vast plain of permafrost which supports much more life than do icebergs! The bears may even have a BETTER time at finding land-based prey.

Besides, how biologically diverse is a polar bear from its cousins? Perhaps it would just adapt to changing conditions. Do you think a study has been done from THAT angle? Probably not, given the present evolutionary bias in the sciences. As a matter of fact, studies are not needed. History and science are replete with examples of "hybrids" among bears. Both the grizzly and the brown bear have been known to interbreed with the polar bear -- with fertile offspring! Therefore, it can be reasonably assumed that the "species" is not in danger at all! As you get away from the frozen north, bears of other varieties are numerous. It would be sad, I suppose, if a particular "breed" of bear were to disappear. But "endangered" is not a term that need be used.

Is Science a "Religion"?

In an interesting op-ed Paul Davies concludes: "until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus." In this copyrighted article, he explains that the only rational way to be a scientist is to BELIEVE that the "laws of physics" are absolute. Whether a scientist is peering into "inner space" at the sub-atomic level, or the vast expanse of outer space, he is EXPECTING to find order, not chaos. Even when he tries to explain HOW everything came to be, he must depend on the basic laws of physics to assemble "order" from chaos.

And so, away with this nonsense that "faith" is devoid of reason! For "reason" is not devoid of faith. And, it never will be. It is impossible for a finite mind -- even the collective minds of all of humanity -- to explain the infinite source of the "laws of physics." Isaac Newton was a genius, but he was also very religious. He saw the connection. Let our self-appointed gurus of science take note.

Jesus vs. "public" schools

For the last 43 years public schools have been actively campaigned AGAINST Jesus. But it seems that the Lord warned these august institutions in the most certain terms that their modern mission is totally against HIM:

Matt. 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

That is pretty heavy stuff! These public "educators" that discipline children for giving religious Christmas cards had better think twice. The numbers of Christian children that are leaving the church is alarming. Imagine the answers the public school teachers that taught the folly of evolutionary science as THE science must give at the throne.

I tremble to think of what is to come for these "educators."

Evolution or just good design?

It amazes me that the popular press seems to equate obvious design with "evolution." In the century following Darwin first published "Origin of Species" science made great strides in the fields of genetics. This was NOT in an attempt to prove the theory, but it provided a mechanism by assumed change toward complexity might take place. However, it seems a lot more logical to assume that the original gene pool was way more complex and thus produces variants that become less complex.

In a recent editorial at the New York Times the writer assumes that genetic mutation coincided with the need for lactose tolerance as mankind in different parts of the world began to domesticate cattle. Such an assumption is ludicrous. The choices people make cannot influence the course of "random" mutation! It is far more reasonable to interprelate that such tolerance for cow's milk was in the genes all along only to be "activated" when people began to consume the milk meant for bovine infants. Those that could not tolerate such milk undoubtably could not last as long in harsh conditions that required ingestion of easily stored cheeses, for instance, but that does not mean they could not a least live long enough to produce offspring.

Adaptation is NOT the same thing as evolution. Though changes are passed on in offspring, and those with beneficial traits tend to survive into child-bearing years, it does not follow that whole populations change this way. Lactose intolerant folk still exist, and it may be that MOST folk are actually intolerant but have competing enzymes that mask the inefficient use of these products. The only thing that happenned back in the days of Jabal (Gen. 4:20) was that animals were domesticated and thus people began to utilize them in inventive ways. Can you imagine the first time they tried to milk a cow! :-)