This is an eye-opening and satisfying expose` of the ongoing deception of evolution-promoting science. My only suggestion would be to substitute the use of "Christendom" for "Christianity" in this first paragraph about Galileo and the Pope, for in no way, shape or form is the Roman Catholic Church "Christian." - Deborah
Book Review of Darwin’s Creation Myth by Alexander Mebane
Copyright 2014 by Tom Shipley, All Rights Reserved
(Used here with author's permission)
“Even if Darwinism is false above the microevolutionary level, it is nevertheless the only
scientific theory of cladogenesis now available; and that is more important than the question of
truth or falsity.” –Thomas Henry Huxley, quote from pg. 73, Darwin’s Creation Myth by
Alexander Mebane
Until the time of Charles Darwin and the publication of The Origin of Species, scientific investigation had
been essentially a Christian endeavor, conducted mainly by Christians within the context of a larger
Judeo-Christian civilization. The heartbeat of scientific investigation had been the desire to know and
understand the nature of God’s created order. Truth and facts were all-important. Secularists like to
distort this history. For example, the famous confrontation between Galileo and the Roman Catholic
Church is routinely portrayed by the propagandists of secularism as a debate between Christianity and
secularism--whereas the reality is Galileo was a Christian with a better understanding of the Bible and
nature disputing with other Christians with a lesser understanding of the Bible and of nature. Galileo
contended that heliocentrism was consistent with the Bible. The only real question in the matter of
Galileo is which Christian perspective was the truer one. Secularism was entirely irrelevant to the
dispute. Examples of such distortion by secularists can be multiplied ad infinitum.
With the advent of Darwin’s assertion of natural evolution as the source of living species, and the
highjacking of scientific pursuits by the priests of the religion of Secular Humanism, something was
introduced into scientific investigation which had not existed previously: falsification. Make that
deliberate falsification. In addition to his scientific legerdemain, Darwin also tried to take credit as the
originator of the theory, which was far from the truth.
Many people naively assume that falsification among evolutionists has occurred only in isolated
examples such as the Piltdown Man hoax (which was promulgated as fact in school textbooks for 50
years), or the Midwife Toad hoax, or the Nebraska Man hoax. The simple fact of the matter is, nearly the
entire cadre of secular evolutionists, animated by their faith in the religion of Secular Humanism, have
strenuously endeavored to keep the general public in ignorance of the significance of the facts of
paleontology, geology, biology and biochemistry pretty much right from the beginning, starting with
Darwin himself. Deliberate falsification by evolutionary scientists goes far, far deeper than crude
manufacturing of evidence such as Piltdown Man. It involves their handling of, and explication of, the
facts of paleontology, geology, and biochemistry to the general public.
You don’t have to take my word for it. There is a veritable cornucopia of admissions of this fact on the
part of the Secular Humanists themselves, as for example the quote at the head of this article by
Thomas Huxley, adoringly known as “Darwin’s bulldog” by the zealots of this religion. (Consult also, for
1
example, The Ghost in the Machine or Janus by Arthur Koestler, for a candid perspective on this.)
Examine Thomas Huxley’s statement well and meditate upon it. To state the matter bluntly, what
Huxley meant in plain terms is that he was willing to engage and entertain ANY proposition about the
origin of life and the history of life on earth, no matter how preposterous the proposition might be--
provided that a supernatural God and intelligent design were not included in the list of propositions.
Truth or falsehood be damned! God and intelligent design were to be ruled out of court, a priori, as
inadmissible conclusions no matter how strongly the evidence might point in that direction. Atheism and
evolution (by any and all means) are the axioms of the disciples of Darwin, the guiding premises of all
thought, the sacrosanct and unquestionable presuppositions of every proposition which it is heresy and
blasphemy to call into question.
My task here is to review a short book by one of their own, Darwin’s Creation Myth, by Alexander
Mebane begins his short treatise (80 pages, bibliography and all)), making sure his readers don’t confuse
him with those awful, primitive, knuckle-dragging, Bible-thumping Creationists. Speaking about “anti-
evolution” writings, Mebane says:
“Almost 90% of such publications have based their arguments on the axiom that reliable
information is to be found in the creation-myths of the ancient Hebrews. Let me make clear at
once that this essay is not in that category!” –from the Prefatory Note
And, dear reader, don’t dare overlook Mebane’s exclamation point! Mebane cannot emphasize this
point too strongly. I am glad Mebane takes pains to distance himself from the likes of poor warped,
primitive me. No one can accuse Mebane of being a Bible thumper or seeking to advance the cause of
(as some have called it) “fundamentalist creationism,” whatever that is. And that suits my purposes here
quite well, thank you, Mr. Mebane.
Just so the reader knows, I was not raised in a Christian home with the Bible being “imprinted” on me by
my parents. I was raised in a very secular home with a professing atheist for a father and a mother with
zero interest in anything religious. I, myself, am a former atheist and believer in evolution who was
somewhat zealous to promote the cause of atheism. The first chinks in my atheist armor began when I
was in college. The University of Maryland, where I was a student, had hosted a debate between
creationists and evolutionists which I attended. I was very unimpressed at the time with both sides,
which motivated me to go look in the University of Maryland library and elsewhere for scientific papers
or books on theories regarding the biochemical basis for evolution—and found out that such books and
papers did not exist! After over a hundred years of fanatical devotion to the theory on the part of a
massive army of secular scientists, you would have thought the shelves of libraries would be overflowing
with books outlining plausible biochemical bases for evolution. I was disappointed, but did not attribute
much significance to this lack of material on the subject (until much later). This was, as I say, the first
chink in my atheist armor. It was also somewhat disconcerting to me at the time that “my” side of the
debate did not end with a resounding demonstration of evolution’s superior credibility over the
2
In a footnote, Mebane parrots the absurd claim of so-called “higher criticism” to the effect that there
are “two different creation stories” in Genesis, a ridiculous and moronic claim on its face. This is beyond
the scope of this article, but as an aside, such an utterly naïve and uninformed statement makes it
obvious why Mebane remains mired down in evolutionary speculations. He has yet to discover that he
has been duped by the academic snake-oil merchants in other disciplines, though, commendably, he has
managed to escape the grip of the great Darwinian Propaganda Machine. He would do well to
investigate what is called “higher criticism” of the Bible with the same focus with which he has focused
on the Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolutionary speculations. He will find, to his disappointment, that
the claims of the “higher critics” of the Bible are as utterly devoid of merit as is the Darwinian and neo-
Darwinian interpretations of paleontology and geology which he repudiates, if not more so. And while I
am commending areas of focus, we should add “How valid are the methods used to determine the ages
of rocks and fossils?” to the list. Want to make a guess where that line of investigation will lead?
Mebane goes on to say:
“Darwin’s theory of evolution has never been so acceptable as current popular writers would
have you believe (emphasis supplied) ...few eminent naturalists ever felt that Darwin’s
suggestion had truly solved the problem. Even Wallace himself, the co-inventor of the theory,
soon came to realize it could not be correct....Thomas Huxley, Darwin’s chief defender...felt sure
that Darwin’s picture must...be a good deal closer to the truth than the ones given us by Moses,
but he was by no means the starry-eyed convert that Darwinists like to portray. Well aware that
paleontologists could show that real changes had not proceeded by Darwin’s ‘insensible
degrees’, and that all breeders insisted that real changes could not proceed ‘indefinitely’, as
Darwin required them to do, he explicitly stipulated that he would remain skeptical...until an
example of its real operation had been experimentally demonstrated. (As we shall see, it has not
yet passed Huxley’s test; and by this time, rather heroic faith would be required to believe that
it will ever pass it.”—pg. 1
Note well Mebane’s point here: Wallace and Huxley were not convinced that Darwin got it right about
the supposed mechanism of evolution, but they clung to the fundamental proposition of evolution for
dear life anyway. Mebane goes on to point out that other prominent evolutionists had misgivings about
Darwin’s proposed mechanism, including J. B. S. Haldane, George Gaylord Simpson, Dobzhansky, De
Beer, and Ernst Mayr. They were acquainted enough with the facts to know that the magic formula of
“natural selection + random mutations + eons of time = abracadabra, presto: new species evolve,”
simply had no empirical support in any direction. Mebane points out that most professionals in the field
rejected Darwin’s “accidental and undirected” process of evolution right up until the 1930’s, when
Darwin’s proposed mechanism won the day by default. There was simply no other coherent alternative
Mebane concludes his introduction by saying:
“After 135 years (now 155 years) Darwin’s creation-myth can still claim nothing more than its
original attraction of offering us a story less obviously preposterous than the tale of the
3
Hebrews—because, in spite of its superficial plausibility, this story of Darwin’s has consistently
and conspicuously failed all of the tests that were expected to demonstrate its validity.”—pg. 2
Mebane’s characterization is, if anything, a gross understatement.
Mebane goes on to point out eight areas of disproof (he calls them “disconfirmations”) of the Darwinian
1. Experimental Disconfirmation: Observed Non-transmutability
2. First Paleontological Disconfirmation: Observed Non-Evolution
3. Historical Disconfirmation: Observed DNA Conservation
4. Second Paleontological Disconfirmation: Observed Absence of Intermediates
5. a. First Taxonomic Disconfirmation; Cladistic Iconoclasm
b. Second Taxonomic Disconfirmation: Observed Non-Genealogical Relationships
6. Disconfirmation by Prohibitive Improbability of “Accidentally” Producing Observed
Results
7. (Sensed) Aesthetic Disconfirmation
1. Experimental Disconfirmation: Observed Non-transmutability
Mebane begins with the famous experiments on the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster conducted by T.
H. Morgan which began in 1909. (Arthur Koestler found these experiments to be very significant to the
question also. See his The Ghost in the Machine and Janus). The fruit fly was a very suitable creature to
use because it was “easy to maintain and of short generation time” and “particularly easy to transmute”
by subjecting the insect to “mutation-inducing radiations of different sorts, to chemicals known to be
mutagenic.” Mebane says,
“ It appeared virtually certain that the long-drawn-out process of natural species transmutation
could be speeded up to the point where an artificially generated new species could, after a few
years be triumphantly exhibited to the world....A great many races of melanogaster, some of
them weirdly modified, emerged from the experiments, but re-mutating them was most
disappointing: the multiply-mutated flies, when viable at all, were either sterile or had reverted
to something closer to the original form”!—pg. 6
“Attempts to push a new genetic trait farther and farther always come up against natural limits
to variation, beyond which the overstrained organism must become either sterile or non-viable.
It cannot be altered indefinitely without any limit, as Darwin postulated.” –pg. 6, Mebane’s
4
This is something breeders had known since ancient times. Now, after more than a hundred years later,
no one has managed to succeed in producing any other outcome. There are built-in barriers inherent in
living organisms which prevent transmutation. Neither Mebane nor any other evolutionist seems willing
to mention the obvious, namely, that this state of affairs perfectly matches the biblical testimony of the
creation of distinct species which produce offspring “after its kind.”
#2 First Paleontological Disconfirmation: Observed Non-Evolution
“But the paleontologists of (Darwin’s) time immediately raised objections to this Darwinian
‘scenario,’ saying that what they actually found did not conform at all to Darwin’s imaginary
description...it was provably untrue that a species was ‘merely an ephemeral manifestation,’
since many species could be found unchanged throughout the whole thickness of a geological
stratum that must have been deposited over very great stretches of time.”—pg. 8
Note well that this was PROVABLY untrue (based upon the premise of geologic strata representing great
stretches of time), something of which Darwin was thoroughly aware.
Darwin’s response was: go back to the rocks and collect fossils for another hundred years and his thesis
would be confirmed.
“Darwin’s word was taken as law for more than a century thereafter. Incredibly enough, when
paleontologists actual findings persisted in ‘failing’ to confirm his prediction, it was not the
prediction that suffered, but the paleontologists! Evolutionists began to vilify them as lazy
fellows, mere ‘stamp collectors’ unworthy of the name ‘scientist’...Paleontology in England and
America became a frustrating and unrewarded activity, in which publication of non-
‘ideologically correct’ findings was often impossible.”—pg. 9, emphasis supplied
Such was the state of “open inquiry” in academia then (and now).
Mebane goes on to cite the example of German Paleontologist Otto Schindewolf who, in 1950, declared
that the record of the rocks was clear—new life forms appeared suddenly, not by Darwin’s “insensible
degrees” and then remain permanently static. This announcement made Schindewolf the object of
ridicule by evolutionists. Says Mebane:
“The ‘normal evolutionary process’ existed only in the minds of evolutionists: in the real world,
no species ‘evolves.’ It will remain unchanged for as long as it is able to survive.” –pg. 11
Such is the state of the understanding of paleontologists and biologists about the subject today. There
are still some meager number of old-school Darwinists and neo-Darwinists persisting in the old fairy
tales, but they have now been so totally discredited that the pendulum will never swing back in their
direction. Since the Stephen J. Gould/Niles Eldredge revolution of 1972, “Punctuated Equilibria” is the
5
new orthodoxy. It’s domination of the academic establishment is nearly as thorough today as was the
old Darwinism in the 1930’s. There can be no turning back.
The irony of this situation is that the average educated American is mostly ignorant of this revolution.
They have no idea how fundamentally the old orthodoxy has been overturned, discarded and replaced.
They still believe for the most part that the academic establishment believes in the magic formula of
natural selection + random mutation + eons of time = the production of new species. They could not be
more mistaken about the actual state of affairs.
Mebane concludes this section thusly:
“I hope it will not be thought unduly ‘cynical’ of me to remind the reader here that all varieties
of evolutionary theory, no matter how else they might differ, were at least in agreement on one
fundamental thesis: namely, that ‘the doctrine of the fixity of species’ was a baseless, now-
outmoded old superstition. “ –pg. 11
Knowing the extreme discomfort this admission must cause Mebane I suppose we can forgive him for
not being as pointed and explicit in this admission as a creationist might be. As confessions from
evolutionists go, this is not bad. This is far more candid than anything which ever came from Darwin. I’ll
give Mebane a B+ and articulate in my own words what Mebane simply cannot bring himself to say: the
biblical creationists were right, after all. Once a species comes into existence, it will not change. Of
course, the “comes into existence” part of the equation is something that Mebane is not willing to
concede to divine creation. He is still looking to existing species as the seedbed from which new species
emerge. He is simply not expecting any natural process to do the job.
But, the reader will ask, if there is no natural cause for evolution, and Mebane will not allow for divine
creation by an omniscient and omnipotent God, what else is there? I am jumping ahead of Mebane to
his conclusory remarks at the end of his book: Mebane maintains two possibilities: 1) that of a less-than-
omnipotent god or 2) what Mebane believes is the best theory to fit the known facts, “sporadic
productions by subdivine designers (daemones),” the fashioning of new species from existing species by
“invisible intelligent DNA designers.” –pg. 69-70
Before scoffing at Mebane, I will step in in his defense here to defend his logic. His conclusion is not
bad—if you accept his premises. I just have problems with his premises. His view is premised upon the
proposition of a four billion year old earth, and the belief that rocks and fossils can actually be reliably
dated. Remove these propositions from Mebane’s premises and he winds up in a very different universe
than he thinks he inhabits. He then winds up in—horror of horrors!—a universe in which there might
actually be an omnipotent creator God. I’ll make a prediction: Mebane will not entertain the possibility
that accepted dating techniques are fatally compromised by faulty presuppositions which skew the
6
3. Historical Disconfirmation: Observed DNA Conservation
Mebane’s third disconfirmation of Darwinism and neo-Darwinism is the simple impossibility of
chance, random mutations producing a new species as was demonstrated in the fruit fly
experiments, which also revealed embedded mechanisms to restore the organism to its original
form!!! The reason for this impossibility is so simple that even a child can grasp it. Reorganization of
DNA on the scale necessary to create an actual new species would require, not single random point
mutations in the DNA, but numerous, coordinated, and strategic (i.e., intelligently directed)
mutations all in the proper places—and all simultaneously. This is a simple fact of biology and it is
utterly devastating to any chance model of evolution. Darwinism and neo-Darwinism are both
thoroughly founded on the idea of random, chance mutations slowly building up over time and
producing new species. That such extensive random occurrences will ever result in a viable organism
is not only vastly improbable but logically impossible. This has long been known and understood by
evolutionary scientists. They’ve just preferred to keep quiet about the fact. Says Mebane:
“It is now quite openly acknowledged by experts that this inherent immunity to Darwinian
evolution is, in fact, characteristic of all forms of Earthly life. We have thus witnessed the
independent confirmation, on the most sweeping scale possible, of the genetic ‘impotency
principle’ that Goldschmidt had inferred from the observed impossibility of experimentally
transmuting a tiny fruit fly into a new viable species.”—pg. 12
“Even under the most favorable of all conditions—deliberate human attempts to bring it
about—successful natural species-transmutation is an event that is simply unable to
happen...these coordinated changes are just what accidental knocking-about is inherently
unable to provide, because chance events are subject to stringent probability limitations.”—pg.
These stringent probability limitations are precisely what make big money for casinos and insurance
companies. Mebane then goes on to do the math of these probabilities, from which I will spare the
reader all but the conclusion: the odds of a successful string of random mutations (“successful” meaning
resulting in a viable organism) are “one in 200 billion billion.” Mebane concludes: “Darwin’s
microevolutionary route to macroevolution is simply not a passable one.”—pg. 16
I’ll toss in Arthur Koestler’s observations from his book, Janus:
“Now according to the Darwinian schema, all these changes must have been gradual, each small
step caused by a chance mutation. But it is obvious that each step, however small, required
simultaneous, interdependent changes affecting all the factors....They are all interdependent
7
within the organism—which is a functional whole, not a mosaic. The doctrine that the coming
together of all requisite changes was due to a series of coincidences is an affront not only to
common sense but to the basic principles of scientific explanation.” –pg. 176
For those not acquainted with Koestler, Koestler was also an evolutionist. What Koestler and hundreds
of biologists could not seriously entertain was the untenable chance schema upon which the dogma was
based. Koestler’s book, The Ghost in the Machine, published in 1965, was a kind of popular precursor to
Gould’s and Eldredge’s theory of Punctuated Equilibria. Koestler’s book may very well be the proverbial
straw that broke the camel’s back and made it thinkable for the Darwinian establishment to entertain
alternate theories about the supposed mechanism of evolution.
The problem, of course, is not with the mechanism but with the fundamental proposition itself.
4. Second Paleontological Disconfirmation: Observed Absence of Intermediates
Mebane’s fourth disconfirmation is the trade secret of evolutionary paleontologists, namely, there are
simply no transitional forms to be found among the fossils--zero. We certainly should have expected to
have found transitional forms in vast abundance if the Darwinian schema were correct. We have vast
numbers of some species preserved in fossils but no “great chain of descent” to be found anywhere.
Darwin predicted otherwise but his prediction has failed. Darwin himself said that if the fossils did not
eventually produce the intermediate forms, then this would be the greatest proof possible that his
theory was false. Darwin’s worshipful disciples are not willing to be so candid about the actual state of
affairs. They are attempting to validate other mechanisms as a cause of evolution.
Enter Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge. Mebane says:
“Stephen Jay Gould has told us without equivocation, in his book, The Panda’s Thumb (p. 181)
that ‘the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of
paleontology’...and that, in fact, ‘the fossil record, with its abrupt transitions, offers no support
for gradual change’.(Panda’s Thumb, p 188.) Darwin’s old rationalization, that the gaps were
‘due to extreme imperfection of the fossil record’, is by this time utterly untenable (ibid. p. 182)
‘The fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to
another’ (Stanley, New Timetable, p. 95). Eldredge has made the same flat statement: ‘No one
has found any ‘in-between’ creatures: the fossil evidence has failed to turn up any ‘missing
links’, and many scientists now share a growing conviction that these transitional forms never
existed.’”—pg. 18
It appears to me that Gould’s statement about the “extreme rarity of transitional forms” is another
example of the willful disingenuousness of evolutionists who simply cannot bring themselves to speak
the truth plainly. It seems evident to me that Gould, by this phraseology, hopes to convey to the mind of
8
the reader that there are in fact at least some proven transitional forms in the fossils, when, in fact, by
“extreme rarity” he means zero! Yes, zero is extreme, indeed! Why not just plainly say so?
Educated laity need to disabuse themselves of the false notion of the objective scientific neutrality of
evolutionary biologists and paleontologists. These scientists are NOT neutral. They are more aptly
described as zealots on a fervent mission. They have an agenda. That agenda is to salvage the theory of
evolution at all costs despite the fact that objective evaluation of the evidence points powerfully and
overwhelmingly to intelligent Divine creation. That agenda is to persuade the general public that rocks
and fossils can be reliably dated at billions and millions of years when there is plenty of evidence for a
young earth. That agenda is NOT to follow the scientific evidence wherever it might lead.
Secular scientists are committed to a faith, the faith of Secular Humanism (which the U. S. Supreme
Court recognized as a religion in the Tocaso v Watkins case (367 US 488, 1961). In faith, they commit
themselves to a materialistic, naturalistic view of reality. They are committed to unproven and
unprovable presuppositions about the ultimate nature of reality. This faith preconditions what
conclusions they are willing to entertain about scientific evidence. This faith determines what
conclusions they are not willing to entertain about scientific evidence.
Arthur Koestler, in his book, Janus, published in 1978, states:
“One of the crumbling citadels of orthodoxy...is the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution...The
contradictions and tautologies of the synthetic theory have actually been known even longer, as
a kind of open secret, and yet the dogma has been and still is strenuously defended by the
academic community, with the penalty of discreet but effective ostracism for heretics. The
reason for this paradox seems to be twofold: firstly, commitment to scientific theory can be as
charged with emotion as a religious credo—a subject much in evidence throughout the history
of science; secondly, the absence of a coherent alternative to neo-Darwinism makes many
biologists feel that a bad theory is better than no theory at all.”—pg. 165
Mebane goes on to cite the famous archaeopteryx, often touted as a transitional form, as “part bird
and part dinosaur.” Mebane agrees with this description but argues that it is not comprehensible as any
kind of transitional form, which, indeed, it is not, even if the description is correct. I don’t want to get
too far off topic to debate Mebane’s classification of this animal; my focus in this section is on
transitional forms. My own research has satisfied me that archaeopteryx was a true bird. There has been
much ado over the fact that archaeopteryx had teeth, and claws on its wings. While there are no living
birds with teeth, there are a few extinct species, indisputably birds, which had teeth and there are living
birds with wing claws. Mebane sides with the view that archaeopteryx was flightless but I suspect this to
be erroneous also as this view is based on the absence of a sternum—but archaeopteryx also had an
especially strong furcula which provided the necessary support for a strong pectoralis muscle required
for the downstroke in flight (see Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record by Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.).
Mebane’s next statements regarding the “Cambrian Explosion” are significant:
9
“The manner in which complex life first appeared on this planet must surely be considered the
most glaring of all refutations not only of Darwinism, but of all theories of evolution. Early in the
Cambrian period...we suddenly find abundant fossils of practically all the marine life forms that
have ever existed.”—pg. 22, emphasis supplied.
And a few pages later:
“Advances in paleontology have only served to prove—far more conclusively than was possible
in Darwin’s day—that what happened in Cambrian times was in fact nothing less than a fresh
creation of a world of new organisms that had no preexisting ancestors: an event that is totally
irreconcilable with Darwin’s—or, for that matter with any sort of ‘evolutionary’—conceptions of
what ‘really happens’ in this world.”—pg. 25-26, emphasis is Mebane’s
Let the reader note well that this evidence, once again, is precisely the same as the biblical claim. Why
not, then, quite frankly admit that divine creation by an omnipotent God is just as much a scientific
proposition as creation by “who-knows-what-or-whom”? Mebane himself admits a couple pages later
that “this process was a good deal closer to a truly-saltatory or ‘Biblical’ one” (pg. 28), and defies any
natural explanation.
We must at least give credit to evolutionist Mebane for his frank admissions here. This kind of
forthrightness on the part of evolutionists is seldom put forward in a book intended for the general
public.
5a. First Taxonomic Disconfirmation: Cladistic Iconoclasm
In perusing the internet for definitions of “cladism” and “cladogenesis,” some of the definitions one will
find are as follows:
a. the theory that cladistic methods based on shared characteristics of organisms yield their true
evolutionary relationships and provide the basis for a natural biological classification;
b. Cladistics is an approach to biological classification in which items are grouped together
based on whether or not they have one or more shared unique characteristics that come from the
group's last common ancestor and are not present in more distant ancestors. ...
c. noun, Biology 1.
the cladistic method of classification.
d. a method of classifying living organisms, often using computer techniques, based on the
relationships between phylogenetic branching patterns from a common ancestor
e. Cladogenesis definition, evolutionary change by the branching off of new species from
common ancestral type
10
f. Cladogenesis is an evolutionary splitting event in a species in which each branch and its
smaller branches forms a "Clade", an evolutionary mechanism and a process of adaptive
evolution that leads to the development of a greater variety of sister species.
This should be sufficient to inform the reader of the nature of this section of Mebane’s thesis. It would
appear, then, that cladism is more or less the equivalent of “taxonomy” or “systematics.” This is a highly
telling and significant section of Mebane’s book.
“Well, what is meant by taxonomy?...It is the classification of organisms in a biologically-realistic
fashion, which historically goes back to Linnaeus (1707-1778)....Linnaeus concerned himself only
with displaying the interrelationships between plants and animals now living but when fossil
remains of many others now extinct began to be recognized, a need was felt to introduce the
time dimension...Although Linnaeus had taken it for granted that [note well—T. S.] species are
by nature ‘fixed’, evolutionists soon arose...who would deride that idea as a naïve old
superstition...they declared that all present species are in fact only... ‘twigs’ of a single vast
genealogical tree...the task of taxonomists was now to assign to every living or dead life
form...its proper position on the great genealogical Tree of Life.” –pg. 29
Note well that Linnaeus, the founder of zoological taxonomy, believed in the biblical view of the “fixed”
nature of living organisms. This deserves to be emphasized. This whole scenario is an example of what I
mentioned at the beginning of this article about what is essentially a Judeo-Christian pursuit being
highjacked by the priests of Secular Humanism. And it was never an honest endeavor to begin with--not
on the part of Darwin nor on the part of many other evolutionists who were all fully aware that the
existing evidence from paleontology and animal husbandry were contrary to their speculations. The
theory of evolution was never about the actual evidence, it was always about the anticipated evidence
that evolutionists hoped to find some time in the future. It has always been a theory in spite of the
evidence.
Now to the focus of this section:
“(S)ince 1965 a vigorous ‘reform’ movement called ‘cladism’ has arisen, which argues that it is a
logical mistake for a taxonomist to concern himself with ancestor-descendant relationships...and
abstain altogether from genealogical speculation...But this inevitably led to the far more radical
claim...that it is...impossible to discover genuine ancestor-descendant relations, for the very
fundamental reason that the whole classic ‘Evolutionary Tree’ picture is an unreal and merely
imaginary schema, none of which can be verified in the real world!...leading taxonomists,
experts in their field...have become so totally iconoclastic as to expressly repudiate not only
Darwin’s, but all theories of ‘natural evolution’.”—pg. 29
A couple pages later, Mebane observes:
11
“The sudden casting off of this old scheme looks, then, like a belated revolt of empirical facts
against the dead hand of the Stalinistically-enforced orthodoxy, exactly as has happened in
paleontology, where the old pretence that the evidence ‘supported Darwin’ was violently
overthrown in Europe by Schindewolf in 1950, and in America by Gould and Eldredge in
1972.”—pg.31
The reader should understand that this revolution has been done by the hand of the evolutionists
themselves feeling the juggernaut-force of overwhelming empirical facts. Pretense can only be carried
so far. There comes a point where taking pretense even further manifests oneself as a bald-faced liar,
and this is something the taxonomists have been unwilling to do. This does not mean that the
evolutionists are ready and willing to declare that all the available evidence points to the creation of life
by the hand of an intelligent, omnipotent God (although the evidence certainly does precisely that). This
is why you do not see these facts brought out, front-and-center, for public display. Don’t expect to see
the next episode of “Nature” or “National Geographic” or “Nova” or “Discovery” trumpeting the fact
that all theories of evolution are now known definitively to be false. This would require our academic
and scientific establishments to muster up more honesty and integrity than they possess. This situation
is, in essence, a test of the limits of their honesty.
Mebane says:
“The complete absence of verification of all of the necessary ancestors must inevitably lead to
skepticism about the real historical existence of a ‘tree’ whose basic skeleton consists of
deduced, but in fact unknown, taxonomic groupings.”—pg. 30
I have a question: what other field of “science” would be given a free pass on producing empirical
evidence in its support? Yet, the paleontological and biological sciences have been given precisely that
on the subject of evolution. I say it is high time (actually LONG PAST high time) to put up or shut up. 155
years of vain, baseless speculations which have proven false is ENOUGH! Way more than enough! Yet,
since the underlying religious tenets of the prophets of the religion of Secular Humanism are at stake
here, the lies and the falsehoods are given free reign to go on, year after year, decade after decade,
without being called to account.
Mebane finishes up this section thusly:
“Why has this revolution remained a ‘quiet’ one, which has not been noised about and brought
to public attention? My conjecture is that the iconoclasts have naturally been asked what ‘truer’
picture of biological history they would now put in the place of the rejected genealogical one,
and have found that an exceeding awkward question to answer...but one can hardly blame the
taxonomists if, rather than publicly affirm such a conclusion, they have preferred to say nothing
at all.”—pg. 31
12
Translation: “The truer picture of biological history is that the biblical one of distinct species created by
an omnipotent God is the only coherent picture conceivable, but we simply can’t concede this fact.
Silence is better!” The taxonomists (or “cladists” or “systematicists”, or whatever term your prefer)
understand quite well that a single word from a prominent evolutionist can forebode the end of their
academic funding or career. Silence is literally gold! Silence is the price for the continuation of a
taxpayer-funded paycheck and retirement pension.
5b. Second Taxonomic Disconfirmation: Observed Non-Genealogical Relationships
“There is also a continual reassignment of more closely studied organisms to new locations on
the ‘phylogenetic tree’, because they are now realized to possess features incompatible with the
earlier placement. And in this shifting about, it not uncommonly happens that insoluble
dilemmas arise...What we are seeing...is abundant proof that cladists are right in calling
genealogical trees imaginary schematizations, which cannot be fitted to the real facts of
‘Nature’...The fact is that taxonomists have been dutifully attempting to carry out an inherently
impossible task.”—pgs. 32-33
We have all seen illustrations of these “phylogenetic trees” endlessly paraded before us, first when we
were children in school textbooks, in popular books, on television programs, in trade publications, on
internet sites, and in natural history museums as if these representations are the assured and final
conclusions of paleontology and biology. Yet how many times have the purveyors of these
representations alerted their readers, watchers and visitors that the taxonomists themselves do not
believe in them? And that the specifics of these imaginary trees are continually shifted around? And that
the vast gulf between one notch on the tree and the next notch is so vast that no academician hopes to
ever fill the gaps? Until these facts are prominently highlighted to the general public, the charge of
deliberate falsification of the data must be levelled against all who publish and disseminate these
phylogenetic representations.
6. Disconfirmation by Prohibitive Improbability of “Accidentally” Producing Observed Results
Mebane cites the mathematical computations of French physicist Lecomte Du Nouy regarding the
chance possibilities of random chemical processes producing even the simplest of proteins. Suffice to
say the possibility is so staggeringly and mind-boggling small that the odds against such chance
occurrence are astronomically high and then some.
“This number is so invisibly tiny...that the natural formation...is thus demonstrated to be strictly
impossible. This amounts to a proof that, even when making the most favorable assumptions
conceivable, one is simply forbidden to take seriously the proposition that ‘Life on Earth must
have arisen spontaneously, in some natural and unintentional way’.”—pg. 36
13
The reader should linger long over this consideration. Though arguments from mathematics are abstract
to most people and lack the tangibility of rocks and fossils, the real world of atoms and elements and
chemicals is completely subject to these mathematical limitations. And these mathematical limitations
tell us that it is simply impossible for living organisms to originate by random, unintentional processes.
This consideration by itself is completely sufficient to validate Divine, intelligent creation of life as a truly
scientific theory.
This state of affairs can be looked at from a slightly different perspective as I did in another article, “The
Search for ET.” In the real world of living organisms, even single-celled organisms consist of irreducibly
complex components (as Michael Behe has pointed out). In other words, remove any one part of the
structure and the organism dies. Or, starting from the bottom, add one of the parts to the organism
without the others and the organism dies. This state of affairs virtually screams intelligent design. It also
shouts of the power to manipulate the component parts in tandem with the intelligence to know what
to do in order to create a living organism. The power by itself would be in vain without the knowledge of
what is necessary to create a viable living organism. Conversely, the knowledge of what is required to
create a living organism would be in vain without the power and ability to coordinate the components.
When we look at the details of living organisms, myriads of irreducibly complex systems, intelligent
design and a staggeringly immense power both stare us in the face. Irreducible biological complexity, as
with a watch or an automobile, is a hallmark of a powerful, intelligent, conscious creator. There is no
other known source of irreducible complexity except intelligent manipulation. Blind, natural processes
never produced trains, planes and automobiles—or living beings.
So what is the reaction of secularists to the reality of intelligent design of living organisms by some
immensely powerful agency staring them in the face? Mebane observes:
“Shapiro discreetly refrains from drawing attention to the consequence of this disproof for the
credibility of Darwinism: he calls, not for the necessity of intelligent design, but for the discovery
of ‘some new natural principle’ (pg. 298) capable of simulating intelligent design (the same
appeal made by Wesson In his Beyond Natural Selection...”—pg. 36
This is nothing less than the suppression of the truth. This may possibly be an example of sinking into a
state of psychological denial. Both Shapiro and Wesson clearly recognize that living organisms are
constituted in such a manner that they admit of no other known mechanism for their creation except
that of intelligent design. So, instead of following the evidence and investigating the clear fact staring
them in the face, they engage in subversion and sabotage of the truth. Like Darwin before them, relying
on hoped-for intermediate forms to show up in the fossils in the future to refute the non-evolutionary
picture actually there in the fossils, Shapiro and Wesson are relying on hoped-for evidence to be found
in the future to refute the clear evidence actually before them in the present. Thus, the clear
implications of the actual, real-world evidence that we actually possess is denied in favor of a flight of
How conscious is all of this on the part of evolutionists? Are they simply incapable of seeing the plain
truth before them? Or, is their denial of the truth more calculated, deliberative, willful? I suppose it
14
depends of which particular evolutionist is in question. I find it very hard to believe that the evolutionists
who admit the failure of the evolutionary model in private but then present a different face in public do
so inadvertently.
An example from Luther Sunderland’s book, Darwin’s Enigma, is illuminating. On pages 89-95,
Sunderland relates an incident regarding Niles Eldredge. Niles Eldredge may properly be regarded, along
with Stephen Jay Gould, as one of the two High Priests of the religion of Secular Humanism, being one of
the two co-founders of the “punctuated equilibria” revolution. This is yet another example of
evolutionists’ proclivity, from no less a personage than Niles Eldredge himself, to a knee-jerk resort to
prevarication when the true status of the theory of evolution is in jeopardy of being disclosed to the
general public. In 1979, Eldredge, as Curator of the American Natural History Museum, went on record
in an interview with Sunderland calling the famous horse evolution depictions “the best example of a
lamentable imaginary story being presented as though it were literal truth,” and that, “I admit that an
awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true.”—pg. 90
Then on February 14, 1981, during the Seagraves evolution textbook trial in California, Eldredge, on the
ABC national television program “20/20,” being interviewd by Sylvia Chase, proclaimed before the world
at large the horse evolution myth as evolutionary fact after already going on record calling the horse
series “a lamentable imaginary story.” Eldredge was simply carrying on the Darwinian tradition here
with this kind of deceit. Let me state the obvious: Eldredge is willing to twist and distort the facts of
paleontology to the world at large when the chips are down (i.e., when influencing public opinion in
favor of evolution), rather than plainly tell the truth that the fossils provide no evidence for evolution.
But in doing so, he forfeits his own credibility and integrity.
That this was all cynical public posturing on Eldredge’s part is manifest on its face. Eldredge’s statements
on ABC television have no more credibility—or integrity—than something we might hear from the U. S.
President’s Press Secretary defending the President in the aftermath of some sex scandal. This is on the
same level as President Clinton saying, “I did not have sex with that woman.” Eldredge should have been
made to walk around with a scarlet “L” on his forehead for a year. This is Eldredge fornicating with
Princess Prevarication.
But I digress.
Transmutation of one species into another by random processes is simply not possible. This has been
well understood for a very long time now by evolutionary biologists, for well over a hundred years. It is
not something that there is even any genuine debate about. Nor is there even a speck of empirical (or
even theoretical) validity for the “theory” which has replaced it, Eldredge’s and Gould’s “punctuated
equilibria,” which proposes (ironically) miracles of transformation, magic out of biological hats,
naturalistic rapid evolution (note well) on the scale of divine creation, with not even a remotely-
dreamed-of potential mechanism to accomplish the feat. We are asked by the evolutionists to accept
their fairy tales by faith.
15
7. (Sensed) Aesthetic Disconfirmation
In this section, Mebane lists esthetic beauty in his list of disconfirmations of naturalistic, gradualistic,
Darwinian evolution. In other words, would we not expect randomness to produce not beauty and form
and symmetry, but ugliness or blandness and disorder? Yet the real world we occupy has “vast carpets
of georgeous wildflowers of various hues” and “the quite unnecessary beauty...of birds like
peacocks...the grace and beauty of cats” etc. which “ for utilitarian purposes would have been just as
viable (...or even more viable) without them,” (pg. 44). Mebane goes on to cite the beauty of seashells
and “the inhabitants of coral reefs” whose brilliant hues could never be seen by anyone until the scuba
was invented by Jacques Cousteau.
“The explanation that this wonderful feast of naturally invisible colors was provided by some
benign Designer expressly for the delectation of late twentieth century humans seems too
absurd to take seriously—but even more absurd...is the Darwinist’s explanation that all of this
amazing hidden beauty was produced unintentionally, purely by accident!...
“I cannot point to any ‘reasonable’ resolution of these misgivings; I believe that no one could;
but, speaking for myself, the manifest presence of aesthetic beauty in ‘Nature’ is the only
argument for the agency of a ‘God’ that I have ever been able to take seriously.”—pg. 45
Thus Mebane concludes his series of disconfirmations of Darwinistic evolution. Mebane asks:
“If Darwinism would seem to be the only scientific explanation of life’s history—but has
nonetheless proven to be a thoroughly false one—what then?”—pg. 54
Yes, indeed, what then?
Mebane is hindered from the truth at this juncture because he has not yet discovered the fact that the
academic establishments of Europe and the Americas have subverted truth for a very long time now,
not only in regard to Darwinian evolution, but also in regard to many other related aspects of
archaeology, geology, biology and—surprise!—biblical studies. The bogus “discipline” of “higher
criticism” of the Bible reigns supreme (perhaps we should say runs rampant) throughout the religion
departments of virtually every college and university in the developed world, and is just as rigidly
dogmatic and (regrettably) pervasive in its reach as is the discipline of naturalistic evolution. Sad but
true, the academic con-artists run the show. Mebane, unfortunately, is one of their unwitting victims.
He may as well have never escaped the academics’ delusion-inducing Great Darwinian Propaganda
Machine. He is still a prisoner chained to the wall in the dungeon of deceit.
The Bottom Line
So what is it all about? What are the underlying motivating factors that animate and motivate the
evolutionists? Mebane should know because he remains one of them:
16
“It seems fairly safe to predict that the great majority of professionals will continue (at least in
public) to pretend that ‘Darwin’s theory of evolution has been verified as true’, even if they are
consciously aware that that asseveration is a lie—exactly as Thomas Huxley did more than a
century ago...
“Two powerful pragmatic motivations exist for adhering to that seemingly ‘scandalous’
justification: one is political, the other psychological. In this country...any public admission that
the history of life defies scientific explanation would simply open the floodgates to the zealots
who would put the Bible back in the classroom....Anyone with the slightest inclination to critical
thinking must turn cold at the thought of such a victory for the forces of overt irrationalism. That
is the political motivation—a compelling one. The lie is a ‘lesser evil’ than the truth would prove
to be.”—pg. 73, bold emphasis supplied
And, No, that is not your humble narrator putting words in someone else’s mouth. That is a verbatim
quote. I could not have levelled the accusation any more pointedly myself.
Mebane concludes his book:
“Faced with so dismaying an alternative, thinkers on this topic will understandably continue to
persuade themselves—just as Huxley did, so long ago now—that, ‘Even if Darwinism is not the
correct answer, it is a scientific one; so we must hold onto it, as a stop-gap, until the true
scientific solution finally comes to light.’ So far as I can see, this ‘psychologically necessary’
rationalization, having persisted for more than thirteen decades, may well persist forever.”—pg.
74
It cannot be stressed too strongly that the proponents of evolution tell willful, deliberate, conscious lies
about the subject for the purpose of obstructing the truth of God. Let them consider the Word of God:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has
shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His
invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without
excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God,
nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish
hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools.—Romans
1:18-21
17
So where do things stand today? At the time of the writing of this review (2014), Darwinian gradualism
is as dead as the dodo bird, as extinct as the tyrannosaurus. The “punctuated equilibria” of Gould and
Eldredge has won the day among the faithful devotees of evolution and now prevails over the kingdom
of Secularism. This is not what evolutionists had hoped for. They fought it tooth and nail for a century.
But 100 plus years of ever-mounting and overwhelming disproofs of evolution have taken their toll and
the retreating forces of Secular Humanism have retreated into what may very well be their last refuge,
the sanctuary of “rapid evolutionary change.”
This shift away from the proposed gradualistic mechanism, however, comes with a very heavy price for
them to pay: how does one explain this casting off of the old Darwinism when there is absolutely zero
empirical evidence for the new punctuated equilibria hypothesis? This does not bode well for public
relations even with the entire academic and media establishments on their side of the issue. It looks,
even to the casual uninterested eye, suspiciously like rationalization and a Last Ditch Attempt to avoid
surrender to the forces of supernaturalism—whether that supernaturalism comes in the form of historic
biblical creationism, or, alternately, the Vitalism of the pantheists. There is not even an inkling of any
realistic theory about the biochemical basis for such rapid evolution. Moreover, punctuated equilibria
differs in essence not one whit in kind from creationism. It proposes a miraculous transformation of
living animals into new species. The new evolutionary orthodoxy has been forced to borrow from the
creation model in order to maintain a touch of reality.
Recommended reading
The Ghost in the Machine by Arthur Koestler
Janus by Arthur Koestler
The Case of the Midwife Toad by Arthur Koestler
The Genesis Flood by John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris
Shattering the Myths of Darwinism by Richard Milton
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton
The Young Earth by John Morris
The Intelligent Universe by Fred Hoyle
Darwin’s Doubt by Stephen Meyer
Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer
Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe
Darwin Retried by Norman MacBeth
18
Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson
The New Evolutionary Timetable by Steven M. Stanley
The Collapse of Evolution by Scott M. Huse
The Bone Peddlers by William R. Fix
Fossils in Focus by J. Kirby Anderson and Harold G. Coffin
The Fossil Record by John D. Morris and Frank J. Sherwin
Darwin’s Enigma by Luther Sunderland
Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil Records by Duane T Gish, Ph. D.
Dinosaur by Carl E. Baugh, Ph. D.
Why Do Men Believe Evolution Against All Odds? by Carl E. Baugh, Ph. D.
Honorable mentions: website of Institute for Creation Research link: check out their articles regarding
dinosaur soft tissue finds, including red blood cells of tyrannosaurus rex, as well as other animal and
plant species going all the way back supposedly to 550 million year old Cambrian rock, which finds prove
that dinosaurs found in the rock of the earth are thousands of years old, not millions, here:
http://www.icr.org/article/did-scientists-find-t-rex-dna/
and http://www.icr.org/article/triceratops-horn-soft-tissue-foils
And this one: http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue from Bob Enyart and Fred Williams of Real Science
And check out this page from the Genesis Park website showing photographs of historical depictions and
carvings of dinosaurs from all around the world:
http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/
Also, here is an excellent Youtube video presentation by geologist Don Patton about the age of the
earth, a little over an hour long: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ncxikycht_U
19
most glaring of all refutations not only of Darwinism, but of all theories of evolution. Early in the
Cambrian period...we suddenly find abundant fossils of practically all the marine life forms that
have ever existed.”—pg. 22, emphasis supplied.
And a few pages later:
“Advances in paleontology have only served to prove—far more conclusively than was possible
in Darwin’s day—that what happened in Cambrian times was in fact nothing less than a fresh
creation of a world of new organisms that had no preexisting ancestors: an event that is totally
irreconcilable with Darwin’s—or, for that matter with any sort of ‘evolutionary’—conceptions of
what ‘really happens’ in this world.”—pg. 25-26, emphasis is Mebane’s
Let the reader note well that this evidence, once again, is precisely the same as the biblical claim. Why
not, then, quite frankly admit that divine creation by an omnipotent God is just as much a scientific
proposition as creation by “who-knows-what-or-whom”? Mebane himself admits a couple pages later
that “this process was a good deal closer to a truly-saltatory or ‘Biblical’ one” (pg. 28), and defies any
natural explanation.
We must at least give credit to evolutionist Mebane for his frank admissions here. This kind of
forthrightness on the part of evolutionists is seldom put forward in a book intended for the general
public.
5a. First Taxonomic Disconfirmation: Cladistic Iconoclasm
In perusing the internet for definitions of “cladism” and “cladogenesis,” some of the definitions one will
find are as follows:
a. the theory that cladistic methods based on shared characteristics of organisms yield their true
evolutionary relationships and provide the basis for a natural biological classification;
b. Cladistics is an approach to biological classification in which items are grouped together
based on whether or not they have one or more shared unique characteristics that come from the
group's last common ancestor and are not present in more distant ancestors. ...
c. noun, Biology 1.
the cladistic method of classification.
d. a method of classifying living organisms, often using computer techniques, based on the
relationships between phylogenetic branching patterns from a common ancestor
e. Cladogenesis definition, evolutionary change by the branching off of new species from
common ancestral type
10
f. Cladogenesis is an evolutionary splitting event in a species in which each branch and its
smaller branches forms a "Clade", an evolutionary mechanism and a process of adaptive
evolution that leads to the development of a greater variety of sister species.
This should be sufficient to inform the reader of the nature of this section of Mebane’s thesis. It would
appear, then, that cladism is more or less the equivalent of “taxonomy” or “systematics.” This is a highly
telling and significant section of Mebane’s book.
“Well, what is meant by taxonomy?...It is the classification of organisms in a biologically-realistic
fashion, which historically goes back to Linnaeus (1707-1778)....Linnaeus concerned himself only
with displaying the interrelationships between plants and animals now living but when fossil
remains of many others now extinct began to be recognized, a need was felt to introduce the
time dimension...Although Linnaeus had taken it for granted that [note well—T. S.] species are
by nature ‘fixed’, evolutionists soon arose...who would deride that idea as a naïve old
superstition...they declared that all present species are in fact only... ‘twigs’ of a single vast
genealogical tree...the task of taxonomists was now to assign to every living or dead life
form...its proper position on the great genealogical Tree of Life.” –pg. 29
Note well that Linnaeus, the founder of zoological taxonomy, believed in the biblical view of the “fixed”
nature of living organisms. This deserves to be emphasized. This whole scenario is an example of what I
mentioned at the beginning of this article about what is essentially a Judeo-Christian pursuit being
highjacked by the priests of Secular Humanism. And it was never an honest endeavor to begin with--not
on the part of Darwin nor on the part of many other evolutionists who were all fully aware that the
existing evidence from paleontology and animal husbandry were contrary to their speculations. The
theory of evolution was never about the actual evidence, it was always about the anticipated evidence
that evolutionists hoped to find some time in the future. It has always been a theory in spite of the
evidence.
Now to the focus of this section:
“(S)ince 1965 a vigorous ‘reform’ movement called ‘cladism’ has arisen, which argues that it is a
logical mistake for a taxonomist to concern himself with ancestor-descendant relationships...and
abstain altogether from genealogical speculation...But this inevitably led to the far more radical
claim...that it is...impossible to discover genuine ancestor-descendant relations, for the very
fundamental reason that the whole classic ‘Evolutionary Tree’ picture is an unreal and merely
imaginary schema, none of which can be verified in the real world!...leading taxonomists,
experts in their field...have become so totally iconoclastic as to expressly repudiate not only
Darwin’s, but all theories of ‘natural evolution’.”—pg. 29
A couple pages later, Mebane observes:
11
“The sudden casting off of this old scheme looks, then, like a belated revolt of empirical facts
against the dead hand of the Stalinistically-enforced orthodoxy, exactly as has happened in
paleontology, where the old pretence that the evidence ‘supported Darwin’ was violently
overthrown in Europe by Schindewolf in 1950, and in America by Gould and Eldredge in
1972.”—pg.31
The reader should understand that this revolution has been done by the hand of the evolutionists
themselves feeling the juggernaut-force of overwhelming empirical facts. Pretense can only be carried
so far. There comes a point where taking pretense even further manifests oneself as a bald-faced liar,
and this is something the taxonomists have been unwilling to do. This does not mean that the
evolutionists are ready and willing to declare that all the available evidence points to the creation of life
by the hand of an intelligent, omnipotent God (although the evidence certainly does precisely that). This
is why you do not see these facts brought out, front-and-center, for public display. Don’t expect to see
the next episode of “Nature” or “National Geographic” or “Nova” or “Discovery” trumpeting the fact
that all theories of evolution are now known definitively to be false. This would require our academic
and scientific establishments to muster up more honesty and integrity than they possess. This situation
is, in essence, a test of the limits of their honesty.
Mebane says:
“The complete absence of verification of all of the necessary ancestors must inevitably lead to
skepticism about the real historical existence of a ‘tree’ whose basic skeleton consists of
deduced, but in fact unknown, taxonomic groupings.”—pg. 30
I have a question: what other field of “science” would be given a free pass on producing empirical
evidence in its support? Yet, the paleontological and biological sciences have been given precisely that
on the subject of evolution. I say it is high time (actually LONG PAST high time) to put up or shut up. 155
years of vain, baseless speculations which have proven false is ENOUGH! Way more than enough! Yet,
since the underlying religious tenets of the prophets of the religion of Secular Humanism are at stake
here, the lies and the falsehoods are given free reign to go on, year after year, decade after decade,
without being called to account.
Mebane finishes up this section thusly:
“Why has this revolution remained a ‘quiet’ one, which has not been noised about and brought
to public attention? My conjecture is that the iconoclasts have naturally been asked what ‘truer’
picture of biological history they would now put in the place of the rejected genealogical one,
and have found that an exceeding awkward question to answer...but one can hardly blame the
taxonomists if, rather than publicly affirm such a conclusion, they have preferred to say nothing
at all.”—pg. 31
12
Translation: “The truer picture of biological history is that the biblical one of distinct species created by
an omnipotent God is the only coherent picture conceivable, but we simply can’t concede this fact.
Silence is better!” The taxonomists (or “cladists” or “systematicists”, or whatever term your prefer)
understand quite well that a single word from a prominent evolutionist can forebode the end of their
academic funding or career. Silence is literally gold! Silence is the price for the continuation of a
taxpayer-funded paycheck and retirement pension.
5b. Second Taxonomic Disconfirmation: Observed Non-Genealogical Relationships
“There is also a continual reassignment of more closely studied organisms to new locations on
the ‘phylogenetic tree’, because they are now realized to possess features incompatible with the
earlier placement. And in this shifting about, it not uncommonly happens that insoluble
dilemmas arise...What we are seeing...is abundant proof that cladists are right in calling
genealogical trees imaginary schematizations, which cannot be fitted to the real facts of
‘Nature’...The fact is that taxonomists have been dutifully attempting to carry out an inherently
impossible task.”—pgs. 32-33
We have all seen illustrations of these “phylogenetic trees” endlessly paraded before us, first when we
were children in school textbooks, in popular books, on television programs, in trade publications, on
internet sites, and in natural history museums as if these representations are the assured and final
conclusions of paleontology and biology. Yet how many times have the purveyors of these
representations alerted their readers, watchers and visitors that the taxonomists themselves do not
believe in them? And that the specifics of these imaginary trees are continually shifted around? And that
the vast gulf between one notch on the tree and the next notch is so vast that no academician hopes to
ever fill the gaps? Until these facts are prominently highlighted to the general public, the charge of
deliberate falsification of the data must be levelled against all who publish and disseminate these
phylogenetic representations.
6. Disconfirmation by Prohibitive Improbability of “Accidentally” Producing Observed Results
Mebane cites the mathematical computations of French physicist Lecomte Du Nouy regarding the
chance possibilities of random chemical processes producing even the simplest of proteins. Suffice to
say the possibility is so staggeringly and mind-boggling small that the odds against such chance
occurrence are astronomically high and then some.
“This number is so invisibly tiny...that the natural formation...is thus demonstrated to be strictly
impossible. This amounts to a proof that, even when making the most favorable assumptions
conceivable, one is simply forbidden to take seriously the proposition that ‘Life on Earth must
have arisen spontaneously, in some natural and unintentional way’.”—pg. 36
13
The reader should linger long over this consideration. Though arguments from mathematics are abstract
to most people and lack the tangibility of rocks and fossils, the real world of atoms and elements and
chemicals is completely subject to these mathematical limitations. And these mathematical limitations
tell us that it is simply impossible for living organisms to originate by random, unintentional processes.
This consideration by itself is completely sufficient to validate Divine, intelligent creation of life as a truly
scientific theory.
This state of affairs can be looked at from a slightly different perspective as I did in another article, “The
Search for ET.” In the real world of living organisms, even single-celled organisms consist of irreducibly
complex components (as Michael Behe has pointed out). In other words, remove any one part of the
structure and the organism dies. Or, starting from the bottom, add one of the parts to the organism
without the others and the organism dies. This state of affairs virtually screams intelligent design. It also
shouts of the power to manipulate the component parts in tandem with the intelligence to know what
to do in order to create a living organism. The power by itself would be in vain without the knowledge of
what is necessary to create a viable living organism. Conversely, the knowledge of what is required to
create a living organism would be in vain without the power and ability to coordinate the components.
When we look at the details of living organisms, myriads of irreducibly complex systems, intelligent
design and a staggeringly immense power both stare us in the face. Irreducible biological complexity, as
with a watch or an automobile, is a hallmark of a powerful, intelligent, conscious creator. There is no
other known source of irreducible complexity except intelligent manipulation. Blind, natural processes
never produced trains, planes and automobiles—or living beings.
So what is the reaction of secularists to the reality of intelligent design of living organisms by some
immensely powerful agency staring them in the face? Mebane observes:
“Shapiro discreetly refrains from drawing attention to the consequence of this disproof for the
credibility of Darwinism: he calls, not for the necessity of intelligent design, but for the discovery
of ‘some new natural principle’ (pg. 298) capable of simulating intelligent design (the same
appeal made by Wesson In his Beyond Natural Selection...”—pg. 36
This is nothing less than the suppression of the truth. This may possibly be an example of sinking into a
state of psychological denial. Both Shapiro and Wesson clearly recognize that living organisms are
constituted in such a manner that they admit of no other known mechanism for their creation except
that of intelligent design. So, instead of following the evidence and investigating the clear fact staring
them in the face, they engage in subversion and sabotage of the truth. Like Darwin before them, relying
on hoped-for intermediate forms to show up in the fossils in the future to refute the non-evolutionary
picture actually there in the fossils, Shapiro and Wesson are relying on hoped-for evidence to be found
in the future to refute the clear evidence actually before them in the present. Thus, the clear
implications of the actual, real-world evidence that we actually possess is denied in favor of a flight of
How conscious is all of this on the part of evolutionists? Are they simply incapable of seeing the plain
truth before them? Or, is their denial of the truth more calculated, deliberative, willful? I suppose it
14
depends of which particular evolutionist is in question. I find it very hard to believe that the evolutionists
who admit the failure of the evolutionary model in private but then present a different face in public do
so inadvertently.
An example from Luther Sunderland’s book, Darwin’s Enigma, is illuminating. On pages 89-95,
Sunderland relates an incident regarding Niles Eldredge. Niles Eldredge may properly be regarded, along
with Stephen Jay Gould, as one of the two High Priests of the religion of Secular Humanism, being one of
the two co-founders of the “punctuated equilibria” revolution. This is yet another example of
evolutionists’ proclivity, from no less a personage than Niles Eldredge himself, to a knee-jerk resort to
prevarication when the true status of the theory of evolution is in jeopardy of being disclosed to the
general public. In 1979, Eldredge, as Curator of the American Natural History Museum, went on record
in an interview with Sunderland calling the famous horse evolution depictions “the best example of a
lamentable imaginary story being presented as though it were literal truth,” and that, “I admit that an
awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true.”—pg. 90
Then on February 14, 1981, during the Seagraves evolution textbook trial in California, Eldredge, on the
ABC national television program “20/20,” being interviewd by Sylvia Chase, proclaimed before the world
at large the horse evolution myth as evolutionary fact after already going on record calling the horse
series “a lamentable imaginary story.” Eldredge was simply carrying on the Darwinian tradition here
with this kind of deceit. Let me state the obvious: Eldredge is willing to twist and distort the facts of
paleontology to the world at large when the chips are down (i.e., when influencing public opinion in
favor of evolution), rather than plainly tell the truth that the fossils provide no evidence for evolution.
But in doing so, he forfeits his own credibility and integrity.
That this was all cynical public posturing on Eldredge’s part is manifest on its face. Eldredge’s statements
on ABC television have no more credibility—or integrity—than something we might hear from the U. S.
President’s Press Secretary defending the President in the aftermath of some sex scandal. This is on the
same level as President Clinton saying, “I did not have sex with that woman.” Eldredge should have been
made to walk around with a scarlet “L” on his forehead for a year. This is Eldredge fornicating with
Princess Prevarication.
But I digress.
Transmutation of one species into another by random processes is simply not possible. This has been
well understood for a very long time now by evolutionary biologists, for well over a hundred years. It is
not something that there is even any genuine debate about. Nor is there even a speck of empirical (or
even theoretical) validity for the “theory” which has replaced it, Eldredge’s and Gould’s “punctuated
equilibria,” which proposes (ironically) miracles of transformation, magic out of biological hats,
naturalistic rapid evolution (note well) on the scale of divine creation, with not even a remotely-
dreamed-of potential mechanism to accomplish the feat. We are asked by the evolutionists to accept
their fairy tales by faith.
15
7. (Sensed) Aesthetic Disconfirmation
In this section, Mebane lists esthetic beauty in his list of disconfirmations of naturalistic, gradualistic,
Darwinian evolution. In other words, would we not expect randomness to produce not beauty and form
and symmetry, but ugliness or blandness and disorder? Yet the real world we occupy has “vast carpets
of georgeous wildflowers of various hues” and “the quite unnecessary beauty...of birds like
peacocks...the grace and beauty of cats” etc. which “ for utilitarian purposes would have been just as
viable (...or even more viable) without them,” (pg. 44). Mebane goes on to cite the beauty of seashells
and “the inhabitants of coral reefs” whose brilliant hues could never be seen by anyone until the scuba
was invented by Jacques Cousteau.
“The explanation that this wonderful feast of naturally invisible colors was provided by some
benign Designer expressly for the delectation of late twentieth century humans seems too
absurd to take seriously—but even more absurd...is the Darwinist’s explanation that all of this
amazing hidden beauty was produced unintentionally, purely by accident!...
“I cannot point to any ‘reasonable’ resolution of these misgivings; I believe that no one could;
but, speaking for myself, the manifest presence of aesthetic beauty in ‘Nature’ is the only
argument for the agency of a ‘God’ that I have ever been able to take seriously.”—pg. 45
Thus Mebane concludes his series of disconfirmations of Darwinistic evolution. Mebane asks:
“If Darwinism would seem to be the only scientific explanation of life’s history—but has
nonetheless proven to be a thoroughly false one—what then?”—pg. 54
Yes, indeed, what then?
Mebane is hindered from the truth at this juncture because he has not yet discovered the fact that the
academic establishments of Europe and the Americas have subverted truth for a very long time now,
not only in regard to Darwinian evolution, but also in regard to many other related aspects of
archaeology, geology, biology and—surprise!—biblical studies. The bogus “discipline” of “higher
criticism” of the Bible reigns supreme (perhaps we should say runs rampant) throughout the religion
departments of virtually every college and university in the developed world, and is just as rigidly
dogmatic and (regrettably) pervasive in its reach as is the discipline of naturalistic evolution. Sad but
true, the academic con-artists run the show. Mebane, unfortunately, is one of their unwitting victims.
He may as well have never escaped the academics’ delusion-inducing Great Darwinian Propaganda
Machine. He is still a prisoner chained to the wall in the dungeon of deceit.
The Bottom Line
So what is it all about? What are the underlying motivating factors that animate and motivate the
evolutionists? Mebane should know because he remains one of them:
16
“It seems fairly safe to predict that the great majority of professionals will continue (at least in
public) to pretend that ‘Darwin’s theory of evolution has been verified as true’, even if they are
consciously aware that that asseveration is a lie—exactly as Thomas Huxley did more than a
century ago...
“Two powerful pragmatic motivations exist for adhering to that seemingly ‘scandalous’
justification: one is political, the other psychological. In this country...any public admission that
the history of life defies scientific explanation would simply open the floodgates to the zealots
who would put the Bible back in the classroom....Anyone with the slightest inclination to critical
thinking must turn cold at the thought of such a victory for the forces of overt irrationalism. That
is the political motivation—a compelling one. The lie is a ‘lesser evil’ than the truth would prove
to be.”—pg. 73, bold emphasis supplied
And, No, that is not your humble narrator putting words in someone else’s mouth. That is a verbatim
quote. I could not have levelled the accusation any more pointedly myself.
Mebane concludes his book:
“Faced with so dismaying an alternative, thinkers on this topic will understandably continue to
persuade themselves—just as Huxley did, so long ago now—that, ‘Even if Darwinism is not the
correct answer, it is a scientific one; so we must hold onto it, as a stop-gap, until the true
scientific solution finally comes to light.’ So far as I can see, this ‘psychologically necessary’
rationalization, having persisted for more than thirteen decades, may well persist forever.”—pg.
74
It cannot be stressed too strongly that the proponents of evolution tell willful, deliberate, conscious lies
about the subject for the purpose of obstructing the truth of God. Let them consider the Word of God:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has
shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His
invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without
excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God,
nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish
hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools.—Romans
1:18-21
17
So where do things stand today? At the time of the writing of this review (2014), Darwinian gradualism
is as dead as the dodo bird, as extinct as the tyrannosaurus. The “punctuated equilibria” of Gould and
Eldredge has won the day among the faithful devotees of evolution and now prevails over the kingdom
of Secularism. This is not what evolutionists had hoped for. They fought it tooth and nail for a century.
But 100 plus years of ever-mounting and overwhelming disproofs of evolution have taken their toll and
the retreating forces of Secular Humanism have retreated into what may very well be their last refuge,
the sanctuary of “rapid evolutionary change.”
This shift away from the proposed gradualistic mechanism, however, comes with a very heavy price for
them to pay: how does one explain this casting off of the old Darwinism when there is absolutely zero
empirical evidence for the new punctuated equilibria hypothesis? This does not bode well for public
relations even with the entire academic and media establishments on their side of the issue. It looks,
even to the casual uninterested eye, suspiciously like rationalization and a Last Ditch Attempt to avoid
surrender to the forces of supernaturalism—whether that supernaturalism comes in the form of historic
biblical creationism, or, alternately, the Vitalism of the pantheists. There is not even an inkling of any
realistic theory about the biochemical basis for such rapid evolution. Moreover, punctuated equilibria
differs in essence not one whit in kind from creationism. It proposes a miraculous transformation of
living animals into new species. The new evolutionary orthodoxy has been forced to borrow from the
creation model in order to maintain a touch of reality.
Recommended reading
The Ghost in the Machine by Arthur Koestler
Janus by Arthur Koestler
The Case of the Midwife Toad by Arthur Koestler
The Genesis Flood by John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris
Shattering the Myths of Darwinism by Richard Milton
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton
The Young Earth by John Morris
The Intelligent Universe by Fred Hoyle
Darwin’s Doubt by Stephen Meyer
Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer
Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe
Darwin Retried by Norman MacBeth
18
Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson
The New Evolutionary Timetable by Steven M. Stanley
The Collapse of Evolution by Scott M. Huse
The Bone Peddlers by William R. Fix
Fossils in Focus by J. Kirby Anderson and Harold G. Coffin
The Fossil Record by John D. Morris and Frank J. Sherwin
Darwin’s Enigma by Luther Sunderland
Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil Records by Duane T Gish, Ph. D.
Dinosaur by Carl E. Baugh, Ph. D.
Why Do Men Believe Evolution Against All Odds? by Carl E. Baugh, Ph. D.
Honorable mentions: website of Institute for Creation Research link: check out their articles regarding
dinosaur soft tissue finds, including red blood cells of tyrannosaurus rex, as well as other animal and
plant species going all the way back supposedly to 550 million year old Cambrian rock, which finds prove
that dinosaurs found in the rock of the earth are thousands of years old, not millions, here:
http://www.icr.org/article/did-scientists-find-t-rex-dna/
and http://www.icr.org/article/triceratops-horn-soft-tissue-foils
And this one: http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue from Bob Enyart and Fred Williams of Real Science
And check out this page from the Genesis Park website showing photographs of historical depictions and
carvings of dinosaurs from all around the world:
http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/
Also, here is an excellent Youtube video presentation by geologist Don Patton about the age of the
earth, a little over an hour long: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ncxikycht_U
19
