Wednesday, March 31, 2010


This was the column I published in the March 25 edition of The Livestock Weekly:

I hope that you read the news in The Livestock Weekly. A recent story on global warming explained how all of the proposed costly ways to control carbon dioxide and methane from cattle flatulence would not change the temperature predictions by even one degree in the foreseeable future. The science was embroiled in political controversies and the major news sources ignore data that doesn’t support their views.
I have scientific credentials that could be questioned and am not the most intelligent person in the world but I do have a bone to pick with scientists. I am on a campaign to make all scientists honest. Based on the laws of physics and probability the concept of evolution that atoms bouncing around could form more complex molecules and form organic complex molecules, DNA and other forms of life are completely impossible. They know that and yet have had the courts hold that evolution is a scientific fact. This has been a problem with textbooks in our schools and we can’t even get the idea of questioning evolution in the schoolroom.
A worse problem is the use of the concepts in evolutionary biology that are entering the medical treatment area. If evolution is not a scientific fact then the concepts and treatments are questionable. Elimination of undesirable characteristics in people has led to the genocide of people by the Nazis, Stalinists and Maoists. Remember the name of Charles Darwin’s book was:
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". His intent was to explain why Europeans were so much more advanced that the native cultures around the world as he cruised the oceans. That is why it was the favorite reading of Hitler, Stalin, Castro and Saddam Hussein. They used the concept to eliminate entire undesirable communities who disagreed with their ideas. So it is important what you believe in.
Recent advances in DNA and genetics has shown that all people are descended from one woman. We also believe that all dogs came from one pair as all cattle, horses, etc. That means that evolution is not how we got here but some sort of creation or intelligent design must be the answer. I don’t expect scientists to accept my beliefs, but to be honest in using science. The Atheistic astronomer, Fred Hoyle, knew that evolution is impossible scientifically so he proposed that mankind is here due to aliens from outer space delivering our ancestors. That is a much better explanation than the belief that we all are derived from some primeval mud that kept evolving into more and more complex organisms to become fish, animals, and people from some ridiculous tree of life concept over many millions of years. It just doesn’t make sense. Why smart people with PhDs who use the laws of science in all of the modern developments in computers, machines, cattle genetics, etc. believe that we evolved from animals blows my mind. You can’t lie and be believed in anything that you propose that will cost us enormous government controls like cap and trade, or government controls on our health to get rid of all us older ones who have outlived our usefulness.
You can argue with me by E-mail at

Thursday, March 4, 2010

The following is a clip from an email I recieved:

In South Dakota, a resolution calling for the “balanced teaching of global warming in public schools” passed the Legislature this week.
“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant,” the resolution said, “but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life.”
The measure made no mention of evolution, but opponents of efforts to dilute the teaching of evolution noted that the language was similar to that of bills in other states that had included both. The vote split almost entirely along partisan lines in both houses, with Republican voting for it and Democrats voting against.
For mainstream scientists, there is no credible challenge to evolutionary theory. They oppose the teaching of alternative views like intelligent design, the proposition that life is so complex that it must be the design of an intelligent being. And there is wide agreement among scientists that global warming is occurring and that human activities are probably driving it. Yet many conservative evangelical Christians assert that both are examples of scientists’ overstepping their bounds.
John G. West, a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute in Seattle, a group that advocates intelligent design and has led the campaign for teaching critiques of evolution in the schools, said that the institute was not specifically promoting opposition to accepted science on climate change. Still, Mr. West said, he is sympathetic to that cause.
“There is a lot of similar dogmatism on this issue,” he said, “with scientists being persecuted for findings that are not in keeping with the orthodoxy. We think analyzing and evaluating scientific evidence is a good thing, whether that is about global warming or evolution.”
Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist who directs the Origins Initiative at Arizona State University and has spoken against efforts to water down the teaching of evolution to school boards in Texas and Ohio, described the move toward climate-change skepticism as a predictable offshoot of creationism.
“Wherever there is a battle over evolution now,” he said, “there is a secondary battle to diminish other hot-button issues like Big Bang and, increasingly, climate change. It is all about casting doubt on the veracity of science — to say it is just one view of the world, just another story, no better or more valid than fundamentalism.”
Not all evangelical Christians reject the notion of climate change, of course. There is a budding green evangelical movement in the country driven partly by a belief that because God created the earth, humans are obligated to care for it.
Yet there is little doubt that the skepticism about global warming resonates more strongly among conservatives, and Christian conservatives in particular. A survey published in October by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that white evangelical Protestants were among those least likely to believe that there was “solid evidence” that the Earth was warming because of human activity.

I am starting a campaign for scientists to become honest with themselves and the public in order for the public to believe anything that they say.
Evolution is not a scientific fact. The laws of physics and probability say that evolution is impossible and ordinary thinking confirms that fact. Scientific facts showing no possibility of animals breeding with humans confirms that humans are not animals and did not evolve from animals.
Scientists don't have to believe in God or other religions but they do have to admit that evolution is scientifically impossible and follow some other research path with their scientific experiments and quit bashing those who know that evolution is an impossibility.

We can argue about how old the earth and cosmos is and look at experiments and argue about the assumptions of age, but just admit evolution is not a scientific fact and can't be used for those assumptions, or rewrite the laws of physics.