mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
occurs over immense time spans, always by insensible degree.

That would require that the vast bulk of all fossils should be intermediate
forms.  Since Darwin's time, only a tiny handful of very questionable
intermediates have ever been found.  Darwin himself claimed that as
earthmoving machinery was perfected, all of the intermediate forms would
appear in profusion.  Many generations of bulldozers and backhoes later,
he's still waiting.

Moreover, the mechanism which Darwinism postulated for driving
change turns out to be a mechanism for PREVENTING change beyond the micro
levels.  Natural selection weeds out anything an iota to the left or right
of center, i.e. it is a mechanism of statis.

Not only is Darwinian gradualism flately contradicted by the fossil
record, but Darwinists have been guilty of a massive coverup in this
regard:

From: philjohn at garnet.berkeley.edu (Phillip Johnson)
Date: 25 Jan 93 14:34:38 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

Chris Colby complains that Darwin on Trial reports that
biologists have been hiding things from the public.   Why not,
when leading figures have admitted as much on behalf of their
profession?  It is not I but Stephen Jay Gould who described the
prevalence of stasis and sudden appearance in the fossil record
as the "trade secret" of paleontology.  Stephen Stanley has
written that the doubts of paleontologists about the conformity
of the fossil record with Darwinist gradualism were for long
"suppressed."  Most revealing of all, Niles Eldredge confessed in
print that "We paleontologists have said that the history of life
supports [the story of gradual adaptive change], all the while
really knowing that it does not."  That is a smoking gun indeed.

We owe these candid statements to the frustration of
paleontologists with the Darwinian ideology that required reports
of stasis to go unpublished.  [For Gould's frank acknowledgement
of this and other references see Darwin on Trial, pp. 59-61 and
the research notes to chapter 4.]  We also owe them to the
assumption of the writers that the rulers of "science" are not
accountable to the public for what they do.   Dr. Gallo and Dr.
Baltimore made similar assumptions in believing that they were
beyond accountability.   As more of these instances of scientific
arrogance come to light, the public becomes become more aware
that scientists are as corruptible as members of other
professions.  This is particularly the case when science
becomes mixed with ideology, money and power.

I wrote in another thread that dogmatic Darwinists should
practice seeing themselves as others see them.  What I meant is
that many outsiders see them not as the pure truth-seekers they
claim to be, but as ideologues similar to their close cousins in
the family of scientific materialist ideology,  the Marxists and
the Freudians.  The problem is not so much that Darwinists tell
deliberate untruths as that they believe their own propaganda,
and interpret everything they see as confirming the ideology that
controls their own thinking.