People who know Darwinian evolution is biologically and genetically impossible call it a myth. It is actually a hoax.
Embolden by the scientific advancements made during the Age of Enlightenment, a small group of intellectuals led by Thomas Huxley supposedly looking for an alternative to religious irrational decided to use evolution as a surrogate antidote until real scientists were going to find the actual explanation for the origin of life. Indeed, from the beginning, the few supporters an otherwise very confused Darwin had in his corner were well aware there was no evidence in nature for gradualism.
One hundred and sixty years later nothing has changed in that regard. In fact, the advancements made in biology, genetics and theoretical physics make it clear Darwin's gradualism has no basis in what we know about the natural world and the nature of reality. Despite that today's evolutionists continue to promote evolution as fact and it is difficult to believe they are unaware of the many problems with this theory.
That leaves one with no other choice but to conclude most of them are willing participants in an orchestrated act of deception. As a matter of principle, if their agenda is to put an end to the malefic influence religious belief has on our civilization that would be a worthy cause. As revealed in the book, though, there is a more insidious purpose to the evolution hoax, and replacing a big lie with another big lie they labeled science is not beneficial to our civilization.
Much to a honest unbiased observer's surprise while deists creationists with a degree in science, not always the same with church creationists, have made it more than clear the theory of evolution is a fallacy, in recent years the Catholic Church, other Christian churches, some Judaic and Islamic leaders too have officially endorsed evolution and they practically hold hands with the evolutionists on account that god created the world the way Darwin said it happened.
On that note, few among the large public are aware that, as revealed in A Time of Change, creationists and evolutionists were both very happy when at the end of the 2005 trial in Dover, Pennsylvania the judged banned discussing intelligent design in public schools. How so? As it turns out, what intelligent design stands actually for represents a threat to both the creationist and the evolutionist dogma.
This is not the first time religious institutions would forge an alliance of convenience with the scientific community by endorsing the official theory of the day. The church found the steady state theory promoted as indisputable fact by scientists in the first half of the 20th century to be no danger to its doctrine of creation, so it subscribed to it. Then the scientific community figured out nothing was steady in the universe, it abandoned the steady state theory, embraced the Big Bang theory now as indisputable fact and so did the church. Indeed, during the November 22, 1951 Pontifical Academy of Sciences meeting, pope Pius XII announced the Big Bang theory did not conflict with the Catholic Church's view on creation.
The explanation for the current alliance between church creationists and evolutionists is that promoting biblical creationism and Darwinian evolutionism as fact serves the same purpose. The fake unison is meant to keep the people of the planet unaware of their true origin and true potential. Constantly feeding the global community false information in this matter too ensures the preservation of the status quo, something church creationists like Joel Osteen, net worth $40-60 millions, or Pat Robertson, net worth between $200 millions and $1 billion, and evolutionists like Richard Dawkins, net worth $135 millions, gladly profit from.
You do not have to be a biologist, a geneticist or a quantum physicist to realize gradual evolution is biologically and genetically impossible or that everything we perceive as material reality is not material or of the material. (More on this in A Time of Change) On the other hand, that creationists with a degree in science have a valid scientific argument against evolution does not mean an all-knowing god allegedly having supernatural powers miraculously created the world and everything in it, humans too, in six days. The evidence against evolution, however, is out there for all to see and analyze, and same as everybody else creationists too have access to it.
There are hundreds of pages of evidence against gradual evolution in A Time of Change. Someone has copied only sentences that represent the conclusions reached based on that evidence and pasted them to an one-post blog site falsely claiming I present no evidence for my conclusions. So if you Google today the title of the book and my name, among others, on your screen you will get a post title saying, "Debunking Paul Greene's "A Time of Change."
They do not hesitate to abuse the trust of those who use the Internet to discredit information that conflicts with their interests, as well as the ones who provide that information. They are not exactly brilliant though at what they are doing.
A Time of Change makes a very strong case against religion too, which is what Atheist evolutionists supposedly fight against. As a result, when this individual claims he debunked my book, the implication is he also debunked the part about religion. One could bet he did not mean that since he does not mention the many chapters on religion in A Time of Change. This is proof he did not read the book he claims he debunked and that he was not really interested in telling the truth about anything, evolution included.
One wonders, is this a case of someone unable to tell reality from illusion and with no moral compass taking it upon himself to manipulate the public's perception of reality for a "good cause?" This, however, is not an isolated case, and the question is who is behind these deliberate acts of deception.
Realizing this was now a very controversial book of little appeal to publishers that saw political correctness as a guarantee for getting a good return to their investment, at one time I briefly looked into the option of paying myself to have it published. Much to my surprise, the company that was to provide the service refused to do business with me, unless, I was told, I changed my position on evolution.
This is what you have to deal with on the social media and in the world of publishing if you dare making the case against evolution, and literary agents would not even read your manuscript if you take that position.
Many among the very few who promote gradualism as fact act in dishonest ways to protect the evolution hoax from being exposed. Indeed, there are only a dozen or so scientists going around endorsing gradual evolution in public while everybody else within the academia remains silent on the topic.
These on-call propagandists are no different from politicians who would say anything to win elections for the benefit of their party and their big sponsors no matter how false what they state is. The pay off in this instance is scientists of no scientific accomplishment get to appear on TV all the time while their papers and books are published no questions asked, after they were peer reviewed by fellow evolutionists espousing the same erroneous views. Last but certainly not the least they are received with open arms on the lecture circuit in colleges and universities around the world, which allows them to become even more famous and, a consequence of that, to sell even more of those books falsely promoting evolution as fact.
They claim 97% of all scientists believe evolution is fact. I am yet to meet though a biology professor who would endorse evolution during a private conversation. What they declare in public is a different thing and it pretty much represents a submissive acceptance of the official position taken by the leadership of their academic institution, an insincere rubber stamping act rationalized by the way of appellations to self-preservation.
Pro-evolution videos with highly deceptive titles promoting proven falsehood are planted all over YouTube, and the lead actors featured in them are more or less the same individuals: Richard Dawkins, Kenneth Miller, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and on occasion Michael Shermer, Bill Nye, Jerry Coyne, Eugenie Scott and Kevin Padian. What they all have in common is none of these people has produced something even close to being worth mentioning science wise. Nevertheless, someone has appointed them spokespersons for the entire scientific community and chief apologists of the theory of evolution.
Albert Einstein was not just a great physicist but also a philosopher. He has not once made a public comment in favor of, or against the theory of evolution, and we know he was well aware of the controversy. Same as Einstein, Richard Feynman, another prestigious theoretical physicist, he too a philosopher in his own ways is not known to have weighed in on the theory of evolution, and the question everyone should ask himself is, why the silence?
In a 1996 paper published in Nature called The Tallest Tale, Stephen Jay Gould, a leading American evolutionist at the time makes the definitive case against gradual evolution. This was not the only instance when he would point at evidence proving gradualism was a figment of a Darwinist's imagination.
In 1978, this Harvard paleontologist became the first scientist to define Darwinism as a "just-so story," and then he did it again in The Tallest Tale, reason why fellow evolutionists would hate him with a passion. In the same 1996 paper, though, he too succumbs to peer pressure and, in the end, Gould somehow reaches the conclusion that, well, evolution is indisputably a fact, reason why he would be praised by fellow evolutionists desperately looking to established an appearance of unity among scientists when it came to the so-called theory of evolution.
In a book called Life Itself, Francis Crick, who was awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize in Physiology for discovering the DNA, states that the DNA is not of planet Earth. It was created somewhere else, he says, and then someone brought it here.
It makes perfect sense. To have a functioning species you would first have to have its DNA. Could any of those aware of the magnificence and the complexity of this genetic device even entertain the notion that the DNA was formed by chance in nature? In fact, the DNA has written genetic engineering all over it.
Same as Gould, though, Crick makes a very strong case against evolution by the way of solid scientific evidence, and then, apparently to comply with demands made by those behind the pro-evolution editorial politics, in the same book he declares evolution could have certainly done all those things he just demonstrated could not have happened in nature by chance.
It is more than obvious there is a code of silence most everyone abides by. You cannot mention within the walls of an academic institution or on TV evidence debunking gradual evolution, or expose someone for making false claims on the side of evolution without risking your career or being ostracized by the scientific community.
Those who have the courage to disregard the code would often pay a price, and one would think this could not happen within the confines of a higher education institution where truth is what everybody is supposed to be initiated into, looking for, and where freedom of expression is indispensable to the process of learning and discovery. A consequence of this absurd situation, we exist as a civilization according to a false perception of reality induced by church creationists and materialist evolutionists working together to protect the status quo, a false perception of reality that generates the aggravated state of crisis we are experiencing today.
Anyone who reveals this publicly is labeled in the mainstream and on the social media a "conspiracy theorist." Few are aware, though, the same Stephen J. Gould described by some as one of the most acclaimed American evolutionists admitted publicly the conspiracy is real. As you are going to see in A Time of Change, he complained about the fact that the academia quietly forbids scientists to tell the truth openly about evolution. Its excuse is this would give creationists comfort, as well as the upper hand in the creation v. evolution debate.
Considering that truth has always been the dreaded enemy of the institution of religion, not only is that false, scientists lose credibility when they hide away facts or misinterpret the ones the public is aware of, and then the publics finds out about it. This is why according to recent Gallup polls scientists and science journalists are getting very low grades from the American public. Indeed, truth is the enemy of all belief systems, the cult of evolution included.
Someone out there wants to make the people of the planet believe only creationists deny gradual evolution happened and that the debate is solely between them and the scientists. In reality, there is a deep chasm between genuine science and the pseudo-science of alleged incremental gradual mutations and an imaginary natural selection.
This was acknowledged, inadvertently it appears, in a 2012 Nature article announcing that, at the advise of a panel of scientists the theory of evolution was taken out of school curriculum in South Korea. (A Time of Change, Volume 2, Chapter 17) Nature described that as a victory for creationists when in reality it was a victory for science. A few months later, though, the South Korean government dismissed the initial group of scientists, assembled a new panel, and this one put back evolution into school curriculum in a hurry. This is more proof the government's support for evolution has nothing to do with a genuine searching for answers to the question of our origin. This is all about manipulating the narrative regarding the issue of origin.
The code of silence is the actual reason why we rarely hear from scientists who do not endorse evolution, and not because they unanimously support gradualism. This is also why most YouTube videos showing the indisputable scientific evidence against evolution are produced by individuals who also entertain religious beliefs and by deist scientists.
One of the main consequences of this global act of deception is religious leaders have regained credibility in the eyes of their followers. No doubts about it, evolutionists making irrational claims in schools, universities and in the media have given irrational religion a new life.
To control the narrative on the social media the evolutionists would organize Internet teams made mostly of young people convinced that by going after those who expose the fatal problems with the theory of evolution, and they were made to believe only creationists do that, they are making a valuable contribution to a good cause.
As you are going to see in A Time of Change, they have booklets with instructions for street teams telling them what to say and how to say it in order to counter those who on Facebook, YouTube or Twitter present evidence against evolution and express their opinion that evolution is a poorly put together myth. The problem with that is what they are asked to say has no relation to known truth or rational logic. In fact, how they act and what they say on social media could only be described as lying and bullying.
Their tactics include presenting known false evidence in support of evolution and describing scientific evidence against evolution as evolution evidence. Every time someone places a comment on social media criticizing the theory of evolution, or their preferred evolutionist, they gang up on him with an avalanche of derogatory personal attacks, insults and expletives included. They do that in order to denigrate him and his input into the conversation and to make him leave the thread.
When asked to address the known huge problems with the theory of evolution, they react by totally ignoring the demand or by labeling those valid concerns as creationist propaganda. Even if you have stated your opposition to religion loud and clear, they call you a creationist anyway, so that anyone reading their comments at a later time would be fooled into believing you are a church guy who obviously does not believe in evolution because supposedly you believe in a creator god. In other words, this is pure and unadulterated scripted evolutionary dishonesty the academia never disassociates itself from and it never condemns.
Love science. Beware of scientists! One of the pro-evolution videos on YouTube shows evolutionist Richard Dawkins explaining the alleged intermediate life forms. An intermediate life form is supposed to be one allegedly created in nature over millions of years, they say, as a result of alleged small mutations no one has actually seen generated during an alleged process of adaptation to changes in the environment, small mutations supposedly causing life form A to evolve into life form B. (See "Richard Dawkins: Show Me the Intermediate Fossils! Nebraska Vignettes #1," YouTube, running time 2:31)
This one was published on June 5, 2014, and it was done under the auspices of something pompously called "Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science." In the description of the video we have, "Richard Dawkins shows how whales evolved from a cloven-hoofed ancestor, and reveals whales' closest modern-day cousin," and yet you could see none of that there. All the video shows is Dawkins pointing at several more or less similarly looking artistic reconstructions of animal fossil deceptively put next to each other on a display board, the false implication being these are transitional life forms.
He claims they have evolved from each other, and that those alleged intermediary life forms prove hippopotamuses gradually turned into something else that turned into something else with that cycle of miraculous transformations ending up producing whales that for reasons no evolutionist could explain decided to stop evolving into something else. This is a classic evolutionary baseless assumption, and contrary to what the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science states in the title and to what Dawkins himself states in the video, the evidence for the transition is actually nowhere to be seen. It is not shown in this or in any other video, and the reason for that is that no one on the planet has it.
The fact that two species look similar is no proof one has gradually evolved into the other. They assume this was what happened, and yet assumptions do not count as scientific evidence while the gaps in their logic are huge. To cover that up, once in a while they change the wording in the definition of the theory of evolution hoping that will allow them to get away with issuing multiple interpretations of the new definition. While the wording may be different, though, the idea remains the same and it is as scientifically undefendable as it was before.
Actual proof of evolution would be evidence showing the hippopotamus turning step by step, incremental genetic mutation by incremental genetic mutation into one of those "intermediary" species, and then how that new species turned step by step into another species on its way to becoming a whale. No such evidence exists, and in addition to all the other problems with their theory, no one is able to tell if there were three evolutionary steps or mutations, five transitional life forms, or millions of them. That did not stop though Dawkins & Co. from claiming for decades now evolution is fact.
Claiming something is easy. Proving what you claim true is another story. There is more though to this particular act of deception.
For many years now even among evolutionists the origin of whales and hippos has been a hotly debated issue, and that would be way before this video was made. In a Science Daily article from 2009 based on a paper released by the University of Calgary, we were informed different groups of evolutionists were having different views on how we ended up with whales and hippopotamuses on our planet. (Is The Hippopotamus the Closest Relative to the Whale? Source: University of Calgary, sciencedaily.com) Most importantly, none of them would claim whales evolved from hippos, as Dawkins does five years later counting on his audiences not being aware of that. That's not all, though.
"There are plenty of intermediate fossils," he claims in the 2014 video. However, in 2010, the same Dawkins took most everyone by surprise when he suddenly abandoned the fossil record in a book called The Greatest Show on Earth - The Evidence for Evolution. His explanation was he no longer needed the fossil record to make the case for evolution.
So why would he dump the fossil record when for decades evolutionist held it to be solid proof evolution happened the way Darwin says it did? Could the answer be that the fossil record was actually never proof evolution happened the way Darwin said it did? In fact, as even Darwin would admit in the Origin of the Species, the fossil record has always been one of the biggest challenges to his theory of gradual evolution.
As acknowledged by many scientists, some evolutionists included, we have zero gradual evolution evidence in the fossil record. In other words, the transitional species are nowhere to be seen there, and by now many among the public too became aware of that. This was the actual reason why, under false pretenses, Dawkins was getting rid of a fossil record proving Darwin's evolution never happened.
That was then. Four years after he published a book, it was poorly received with less than 60,000 copies sold world wide, in which he was discarding the fossil record for allegedly being totally unnecessary to make the case for evolution, in the 2014 YouTube video the same Dawkins is more than happy now to announce "There are plenty of intermediate fossils" in the fossil record he no longer needed.
This could only suggests an accentuated state of confusion, something he seems to be seriously afflicted by considering the many other self-contradicting statements he made along his entire career. This also looks like incriminating evidence someone is lying to the population of the planet with the help of the media and the academic institutions. This, however, is not all and what follows is even more outrageous than what you have been introduced to up to here.
In the same video, as he labels the hippo an ancestral "cousin" of the whale, a Dawkins that in The Greatest Show on Earth throws the fossil record in the garbage sticks now to the old false claim that the fossil record provides plenty of evolution evidence. Once again, his proof is a number of more or less similarly looking animals that supposedly gradually evolved into other animals that eventually lost their legs, he says, to become a humpback.
All these animals represent "a lovely series of intermediates," he also says. During a 2007 taped interview, though, unable to provide a single example of an increase in genetic information in the DNA of a species observed in nature, which would be proof of evolution through incremental mutations, after a long and embarrassing pause he had to ask the interviewers to stop the camera. When they restarted taping the interview, much to everyone's surprise, to get out of a bind Dawkins resorted to changing the one hundred and fifty year old at the time definition of evolution, and this is what he stated:
"There is a popular misunderstanding of evolution which says that fish turn into reptiles, and reptiles turn into mammals, and somehow we ought to be able to look around the world today and look at our ancestors, we ought to be able to see intermediates between fish and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals,..." (Richard Dawkins stumped by creationist's question, YouTube, running time 1:55)Indeed, in one instance Dawkins claims confidently "There are plenty of intermediate fossils." In the other, he is adamant the notion that we should "see intermediates between fish and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals" is a "popular misrepresentation of evolution." Then in 2011, to add injury to insult, Bantam Press (UK) publishes another Dawkins masterpiece, a book called The Magic of Reality. Among others, in it we are informed that
"looking at a picture of one's grandfather or great-grandfather one is looking at a picture of a human—but if one looked at a picture from 185 million generations back one would see an image of some kind of fish-like animal." (Wikipedia page for The Magic of Reality)Not everything Dawkins has ever stated is false but everything he has stated on evolution certainly is and we have the evidence to prove it. To a rational logical human being, though, claiming white is black and then that black is white when in reality what we look at is neither black, nor white makes Richard Dawkins an impostor. More than that, this was not the only time he would contradict himself repeatedly by taking many different irrational positions on the same issue.
Extremely significant in terms of understanding the reality of the kind of world we live in, no academic organization has ever exposed Dawkins for making all these false statements on the side of Darwin's gradualism. Instead, they invited him to lecture in colleges and universities across America, they continued to promote him as a prominent voice of reason, and that makes them an accomplice in the evolution hoax.