Five things science must accept on faith

It’s been said that atheism is a religion.  If you say that to an atheist, though, you’ll likely be met with a lot of eye-rolls, sighs of exasperation, and possibly a stern talking-to about how atheism is a lack of belief.  Yet, in spite of all their demonstrations and protests, at the end of the day, atheism is rife with religious-like faith.  There are many things that supposed “skeptics” must accept on faith but in this post, I’m going to only discuss five of them.  So if you’re ready, let’s get to them.

Science is how we learn truth

An online atheist who calls himself King Crocoduck (KC) has made a video series titled, The Arrogance of Creationism.  In video 4 of that series, he made the following comments.

You know, the most remarkable thing about science is that it works…  Hate the method for being so rigorous – hate the conclusions for not conforming to your expectations – but do NOT deny its power!... Theology and philosophy simply cannot compete with science if the goal is to construct accurate models of reality.

I literally laughed out loud the first time I listened to the part where he said, “do not deny its power!”  He sounds like a supervillain.  Anyway, KC is displaying a common belief held by many atheists called scientism.  Wikipedia defines scientism as, “the view that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.”  They have a sincere belief that anything that is true can be proven scientifically.

Let me ask you some questions: can you scientifically prove that truth can only be gained through science?  Can you show me evidence that truth can only be known from evidence?  Can I put truth under a microscope and examine it?  What scientific evidence is there, for example, that George Washington crossed the Delaware and defeated the Hessians?  Please show me scientific evidence for any of this.  Take your time.  I’ll wait.  //RKBentley taps his foot patiently//

When I ask these questions of actual believers in scientism, they always respond with a lot of rhetoric and very little evidence.  They believe it’s true.  They tell me why they believe it’s true.  But they have never shown any evidence for it.  It’s just their faith!

Every phenomenon has a natural explanation

In an article containing 15 half-truths and lies about creationists, Scientific American made this very telling quote:

“Creation science” is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism—it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms.

The obvious question is: why does modern science look for only “natural mechanisms”? That sounds like a bias to me. It's a bias toward naturalism where they intentionally exclude any possibility of a supernatural explanation in favor of natural one. 

When Bill Nye toured the Ark Encounter with Ken Ham several years ago, their quasi-debate was captured on video.  Several times in the debate, Nye made the same point as Scientific American, that science is the search for a natural explanation.  At one point, while Nye was waxing on about the account from Joshua and how science does not allow miracles, Ham interrupts him and asks, “Why should I accept your definition [of science]?” Nye pauses for a moment, then, with a straight face, replies, “Because we have so much evidence for it.”  

Regardless of how a person wants to define science, it does not change what is true.  According to Nye, any time someone invokes a miracle, it's not science.  If God created the universe in six days, then that is what happened regardless if Nye thinks it's scientific. It’s true regardless if it’s “supernatural.”  Nye desperately wants people to believe that, if something isn't scientific, it's not true. I’m sorry, Nye, but there is no evidence for your definition of science.  On what grounds can anyone say that every phenomenon must have a natural cause?  Nowhere in the universe can methodological naturalism be observed or tested so the idea even contradicts itself. This is why they call it a tenet – a belief or principle, similar to religious dogma.

New matter/Energy is not being created

If you were to take all the energy that existed at the moment the universe began and assign to it the value of 1, today, the value would still be one.  This is called the conservation of energy.  You probably heard it described in highschool this way: energy (or matter) can neither be created nor destroyed.  You can convert matter into energy (like burning a log creates heat) but the total amount of matter/energy in the universe remains constant.  Or does it?

The ultimate origin of energy is a puzzle to secular science.  If new energy can’t be created, where did all the energy come from in the first place?  Well, they sort of invoke the Big Bang like it’s some kind of miracle.  They are essentially saying that, once upon a time, new energy was created but it hasn’t happened since then and it won’t happen again.  However, this is just something they accept and can’t really prove.  No one has observed all the universe for all of time so no one can truly know if a new electron hasn’t popped into existence at some point.  And they can’t see into the future so they really have no grounds to one never will.

Interestingly, Christians have grounds to believe this scientific principle.  The Bible tells us that, after God created everything, He rested.  He didn’t rest because He was tired.  Rather, He simply stopped creating. New energy isn’t coming into existence the way it did in the creation week.  God may have done creative miracles - like feeding thousands with a few loaves and fish or turning water into wine - but I don’t know if He created new energy while doing this.  It doesn’t matter.  God isn’t bound by the workings of the universe He created.  So it’s entirely consistent for Christians to believe in miracles and simultaneously believe in the conservation of energy.

Atheists, on the other hand, are believers in poofism.  They say there was nothing then - poof! - there was everything.  Whatever mechanism they might imagine that caused it, what’s to stop that same mechanism from causing it again?  They can’t know; they can only believe it hasn’t happened and that it won’t happen.  There’s that pesky “believe” word again!

Physical laws do not change

Science would be very difficult to pursue if physical laws changed all the time.  New technology is simply just a new way to apply things we’ve already learned.  But how could we build something new if the things we’ve learned suddenly didn’t apply anymore?  Yikes!

Fortunately, physical laws haven’t changed.  Neither do we expect them to.  To a Christian, it sort of makes sense.  When God created everything, He also created the physical laws that would govern how everything would work.  God does not change so there’s really no reason to expect Him to change the way His universe operates.

Skeptics, on the other hand, have no grounds to expect physical laws not to change.  Remember, they already believe everything poofed into existence.  To the unbeliever, there is no design or purpose to the universe.  Physical laws are just our descriptions of how matter behaves and there’s nothing sublime about it.  But if physical laws poofed into being without intent, it seems just as plausible that some other new dynamic could poof into existence that changes everything.  

Some people will say that since physical laws haven’t changed before, there’s no reason to expect them to change in the future.  That’s not very compelling.  I could say, “I’m almost 60 years old and I haven’t died yet.  I guess I’ll never die!”  While that may not be a perfect analogy, it makes a point - just because something hasn’t happened isn’t proof that it can’t happen.

Secular scientists enjoy the benefit of the unchanging laws that the unchanging God has established.  They do their work confidently, believing that what they have already learned will always continue to apply while robbing God of His glory for having created those laws in the first place.  In a godless universe, why must physical laws never change?  There’s no reason to expect that except for a blind faith.

Physical laws operate the same everywhere

Unbelieving scientists will tell you, unashamedly, that physical laws operate the same everywhere in the universe.  How can they possibly know this?  I shouldn’t even have to explain what seems obvious.  We haven’t even visited the closest star outside of our solar system, yet scientists just sort of assume things work the same there as here. They can’t conduct any experiments to prove it, it’s just their belief.

Yet, just as in the last point, God is everywhere.  God commands nature and it obeys Him.  Since God is everywhere, I would expect nature to act the same everywhere.  Christians may not be able to prove physical laws operate the same way outside of the galaxy as they do on earth, but we have a sound basis to assume they do.  Unbelievers only have a blind faith.

Conclusion

Atheists claim to be open minded.  They claim they go only where the evidence leads yet they are blind to the amount of faith they already exercise.  God has given them a mind and the ability to reason.  He has created a universe that behaves in a predictable and orderly way.  It is only because there is a God that science is even possible.  A skeptic is like a fool who claims not to believe in gravity, yet still knows better than to step off a tall building.  He is only able to do anything because of God, yet lives his life believing he is the product of dumb luck.  

Unbelievers are in denial about the religious nature of their beliefs about origins. They are trying to posit a creator with similar attributes that we normally associate with God. In other words, they want us to believe there is a supernatural, eternal, uncaused cause for the universe – but it's still not God! It's just something like God. The skeptics are invoking a god-like non-god to explain the same things Christians credit to God.

The Greek New Testament does not call the Holy Spirit an it!

Grammatical gender is rather ordinary in most languages but completely absent from English.  In English, men are he/him, women are she/her, and everything else is an it.  Because English follows a sort of “natural gender,” English speakers often believe gender in other languages also denotes the sex or personhood of what is being discussed.  If a noun in another language is masculine, for example, English speakers assume it denotes a human male.  

Grammatical gender is merely a type of grammatical designation.  In Spanish, for example, the word for a lady’s dress is el vestido, which is masculine, while the word for a man’s necktie is la corbata, which is feminine.  This seems totally absurd to English speakers because a lady’s dress should obviously be feminine and the necktie, masculine!  

In my opinion, it’s unfortunate we even use the word gender to describe it.  It might help native-English speakers if we imagine the word class when talking about gender.  For example, instead of saying masculine nouns, we could say class-M nouns.  SInce this blog is written in English, I’m assuming the people who read it also speak English so grouping nouns into classes instead of gender might help you as you think about this post.  

Spanish only has two genders: masculine and feminine.  There is no neuter gender in Spanish.  However, Greek has three genders, masculine, feminine, and neuter.  Since the New Testament was written in Greek and since English uses he, she, and it, the tendency to project our English understanding of gender onto the text becomes almost irresistible.  Therefore, problems sometimes arise when people try to use the gender of a Greek word to make a doctrinal point.  

A blog that calls itself Examining the Trinity has pointed out that the Holy Spirit in the original Greek is neuter.  They went on to say this:

But "Holy Spirit" in the original Greek is neuter and therefore the neuter pronouns "it," "itself" are used with it in the original NT Greek! Any strictly literal Bible translation would have to use "it" for the holy spirit (since it is really not a person, but God's active force, a literal translation would be helpful in this case).

This is an extremely amateurish argument. It demonstrates how a little knowledge can be dangerous. Most people who use this argument really can't read Greek. Instead, they have heard once that the Greek word for “Spirit” is neuter so, because of their understanding of English, they buy into the argument that the Spirit is an “it.” Of course, there are some people who indeed understand Greek's grammatical use of gender but still repeat the argument with the intention of preying on the audience's ignorance of the subject.

First, this is a blatant example of special pleading because the same people who raise this argument don't apply this same standard everywhere. In Matthew 2:11, for example,  the Bible says the wise men, “saw the young child with Mary his mother.” The Greek word for child here (paidion, παιδίον, Strong’s word 3813) is neuter so, to be consistent, they should translate this verse as “they saw the young child with Mary its mother.” Of course they don't do that. Neither do they refer to the church as her or the book as him or “correctly” render the hundred other instances where Greek gender does not agree with English ideas of gender.

There's another subtle flaw in the above quote that might escape notice. The author seems unaware of the flaw and cites a source that commits the same mistake. See if you can spot it in this quote:

The Greek word for 'spirit' is neuter, and while we use personal pronouns in English ('he,' 'his,' 'him'), most Greek manuscripts employ 'it.' [bold in original]

Did you catch it? If not, don't feel bad because it's sort of a technicality and some might accuse me of splitting hairs. However, I feel it's an important consideration. This quote says, “most Greek manuscripts employ 'it.'” The reality is that NO Greek manuscript contains the word, it! The word it is an English word which conveys a certain meaning in English. It is more precise to say that the Greek manuscripts use the neuter pronoun (auton) whenever the antecedent is a neuter noun. The original authors were not thinking “it” whenever they wrote "auton." Again, think, “class” instead of gender and it might help.  Class-N nouns use class-N pronouns.  

A language is more than its vocabulary; each language also has its own grammar as well as its own idioms. The goal of any translation is to express the same meaning in the target language that is conveyed in the original language. A good translation should obey the rules of the target language – not slavishly render a hyper-literal, word for word exchange of the original language. The pronouns used in our translations should follow the rules of English, not Greek! If the antecedent is an object, the English pronoun should be it. If the antecedent is a person, the English pronoun should be he or she.

If anyone wants to deny the Personhood of the Holy Spirit, he must make his case using Scripture. A weak appeal to the gender of a Greek word – especially an appeal made by someone who can't even read Greek – isn't even close.

7 simple facts that prove evolution is impossible!

There’s a sort of No True Scotsman argument that works off the premise that if someone doesn’t believe evolution, it must be because he doesn’t understand it!  Evolutionists will often admit there are some things they don’t understand about evolution - like how, where, or when things evolved - but their lack of understanding will never lead them to doubt the theory itself.  They might wonder how something evolved but they will eagerly profess that it evolved!

Of course, I have a completely different opinion of the situation.  I am convinced that, if more people understood evolution, fewer people would believe it.  The more I’ve studied evolution, the more impossible I see that it is.  It’s not a question of how something evolved but rather, how could anything evolve!  Here are seven, simple facts that I believe show why the theory of evolution is impossible.

1) ABIOGENESIS

Evolution theorizes that all biodiversity on earth is descended from a single, common ancestor.  The question then becomes, where did this common ancestor come from?  Evolutionists try to dismiss the question saying that’s not part of the theory but, for something that’s not part of the theory, they spend a lot of time obsessing over it.  I don’t believe a biology textbook exists that doesn’t contain a paragraph about the origin of life, prebiotic soup, or the failed Miller-Urey experiment. 

Once upon a time, people believed in spontaneous generation.  It’s the belief that living things could rise spontaneously from nonliving matter.  They used to think, for example, that maggots grew out of rotting meat.  Evolutionists still cling to the long discarded idea that life did indeed come from nonliving matter only now they call it abiogenesis.

Scientists have struggled for decades to create life in a lab yet still haven’t.  They don’t even have a plausible story about how it could have happened.  If all life has descended from a common ancestor, there must necessarily have been a common ancestor.  If the first living thing could not have risen from nonliving matter, then the entire rest of the theory could not have followed!

2) ORGANIZATION AND DESIGN IN NATURE

Darwin was a believer in the pseudo-science of spontaneous generation.  While most examples of the spontaneous generation of higher life forms (like maggots or mice) had been debunked by his time, he still believed that “simple” life forms, like single cells, could form spontaneously.  We know now that even the “simplest” cell is incredibly complex - far too complex to be the fortunate arrangement of pond scum.  This is why we’ve not been able to recreate life in a lab.  Imagine trying to build something as complex as the space shuttle only making it too small to see with your naked eye, and then you’ll have an idea of how complex a single cell is.

Amino acids are considered the “building blocks” of life.  When scientists found amino acids could be formed naturally, they believed they were one step closer to solving the elusive problem of abiogenesis.  However, believing amino acids could arrange themselves into a DNA molecule is like believing rocks could arrange themselves to build the pyramids.  Life is not about materials but, rather, is about organization.  All living systems are characterized by their complexity.

Think about our circulatory system.  We have a heart to pump our blood, veins and arteries to carry the blood, and there’s the blood itself.  Have you ever asked which evolved first?  I mean, what’s the use of having a heart unless there’s blood to pump and veins to carry it.  But why have blood before there’s a heart or veins?  What a pickle!  Remember too that blood has a purpose; it delivers food and oxygen to all the cells in our bodies so you also must have a respiratory system and a digestive system.  But again, why even have these other systems until there’s a circulatory system?!

Life is complex.  Even the simplest living thing is far too complex to have formed naturally.  Yet that “simple” thing didn’t have a heart or lungs or a stomach.  For that first living thing to evolve to become us, it would require entire systems (like circulatory, respiratory, etc) to arise simultaneously and function together perfectly.  I’m sorry, but that’s impossible!

3) THE STASIS OF KINDS

For evolution to occur, populations must acquire novel traits. To turn a dinosaur into a bird, it would have to acquire feathers. To turn a reptile into a mammal, it would have to acquire hair. Remember that the alleged first-living-thing didn’t have feathers or hair.  Neither did it have skin or cells, bones or blood, nor any organ of any kind.  For a molecule to turn into a man, it would require a billions of years long parade of novel features being added generation after generation. If evolution were true, new traits would have to appear in populations with a fair amount of frequency. They don't.

I like the color blue.  I also like dogs.  There are blue birds, flowers, reptiles, fish, and insects but there aren’t any blue dogs.  Could I selectively breed dogs to create a blue dog?  What if I did it for 50 years?  100 years?  1,000,000 years?  It still wouldn’t matter.  Dogs come in a lot of colors but they don’t come in new colors.  Just as the term implies, natural selection can only select from traits already present in the population.  Since there aren't blue dogs already, I could never selectively breed dogs and end up with a blue dog - not even in a million years.

Since populations need new traits to evolve, the theory has a problem.  Natural selection can’t ever add anything.  What we observe is that dogs remain dogs, birds remain birds, and people remain people.

4) GENETIC BURDEN

As DNA duplicates itself, successive generations will contain errors.  It’s an observed fact.  Most of these errors are considered “neutral” because even though they exist in the DNA, the host animal won’t appear to have any deleterious effects from them.  DNA mutations sometimes express in ways that are harmful to the host.  They can range in severity from something as mild as color-blindness to extreme conditions that are not compatible with life.  

Every once in a while, however, a mutation could add a benefit to the host.  An example of this is the blind cave fish.  In a cave where there is no light, eyes don’t offer a benefit.  In fact, while swimming around in the dark, a fish could bump into a rock and injure its eye which could lead to dangerous infections.  In this type of environment, a mutation causing the fish to be born without eyes actually gives the fish a slight advantage over seeing fish.

It is these “beneficial” mutations that evolutionists claim are the source for novel features appearing in populations.  They consider the eye-less cave fish to be a new species that have evolved from seeing fish.  I see a lot of problems with this.  First, a mutation that removes the fish’s eyes doesn’t explain how a single celled creature evolved eyes in the first place.  Also, the blind fish are less fit overall.  They might thrive in a specialized environment but they can’t compete with unmutated fish in most other environments.

The biggest problem I see with mutations driving evolution is the cumulative effect the mutations will have over many generations.  How often do “beneficial mutations” occur?  Maybe once in 100,000 mutations or maybe every 10,000 or even as little as once in every 1,000.  Remember that evolutionists claim life has been evolving for billions of years so they don’t concern themselves with how slow it might go.  They don’t see the problem.  How long could life be sustainable when DNA deteriorates thousands of times faster than it’s improving?!  When one evolutionist realized this he speculated, “Why are we not dead a hundred times over?”  I say, Why indeed!!

5) THE SCARCITY OF FOSSIL SPECIES

Have you ever heard that 99% of all the species that have ever existed are extinct?  Probably.  I’ll bet you haven’t heard that there are more living species than there are species found only in fossils!  Estimates vary but there are between 2-10 million species living (about 1.5 million have been identified and named).  There are only about 200,000 - 500,000 species only known from fossils.  

In his book, Charles Darwin speculated, “innumerable transitional forms must have existed.... [J]ust in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous.”  He was curious why every rock layer wasn’t full of such intermediate links.  He believed that since fossilization seems to happen rarely, most of the species just didn’t leave fossils.  This is usually the defense most evolutionists propose.  

We have found fossils of many living species.  Just google the term “living fossil” and see hundreds of examples for yourself.  Think about this too: we find trilobite fossils by the millions.  We’ve found hundreds of Australopithecus afarensis fossils.  We’ve also found dozens of T-rex fossils. Why do we find lots of species abundantly represented in the fossil record but no fossils of the billions of other species evolutionists claim have existed?  

What we observe is relatively few species abundantly represented in the fossil record.  Evolutionists claim there have been billions of species that have left no fossil trace.  I say there are no fossil remains because billions of other species simply never existed!

6) ORIGINAL BIOMATTER IN SUPPOSEDLY ANCIENT FOSSILS

Some years back, Dr. Mary Schweitzer – entirely by accident – discovered red blood cells in a t-rex fossil believed to be 68 million years old. At first, her discovery was met with disbelief by the majority of the scientific community. However, since her initial find, other specimens have been found. From Science News Explores we read, “Researchers from London have found hints of blood and fibrous tissue in a hodgepodge of 75-million-year-old dinosaur bones. These fossils had been poorly preserved. That now suggests residues of soft tissues may be more common in dino bones than scientists had thought.”

Think about that quote: soft tissues may be more common in dino bones than scientists had thought. What exactly do you think scientists thought about the possibility of soft tissue being found in dino bones? Obviously they thought it was impossible for soft tissue to be preserved for 65 million years! In an article about Dr. Schweitzer's find, Smithsonian.com wondered, “If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization.” 

Hmm.  Maybe the textbooks are right about fossilization.  It does seem totally impossible for red blood cells to remain intact for 65 million years.  Evolutionists refuse to give up their long ages so would rather search for some fantastic, natural mechanism that could preserve biomatter for millions of years.  In the meantime, the rest of us resort to the common sense solution - the bones aren’t really millions of years old!

7) THE BIBLE SAYS WE ARE CREATED

Have you ever heard a rock talk?  I ask because I read this quote online once:

When the rocks say they are 4 billion years old and the Bible says they are less than 10,000 years old; who do you believe: the author of the Bible or the author of the rocks?

I thought it was strange because my family is from eastern Kentucky and I grew up visiting the hills of Appalachia. I've literally seen mountains of rocks and in all my life, I've never heard any of them “say” anything.  

You see, rocks don’t talk.  Fossils don’t talk.  “Science” doesn’t talk.  Only people talk.  And when people are telling you things about the rocks, fossils, and evolution, it’s the people, not the evidence, that’s doing the talking.  Call me simple, call me dogmatic, call me any name you want but I will choose the clear meaning of the words of the Bible over the fanciful theories invented by men with corrupt minds and deceitful hearts.  

God spoke the universe into existence.  Jesus commanded the wind and waves to be still and they obeyed Him.  Even the dead hear His voice and it was He who called Lazarus out of the tomb.  So when God says He created the world in 6 days, I will believe Him!!

How many times are they allowed to redraw the tree?

Just recently, I wrote about a fossilized jawbone of an alleged human ancestor.  A headline from National Geographic claimed, “Oldest Human Fossil Found, Redrawing Family Tree.”  That article was written in 2015 and is no longer available but it seems to me I read headlines like this all the time: “New Fossil Rewrites Evolution!!”  It’s funny -  I mean downright hilarious - that seemingly everyday, some new discovery pops up that forces evolutionists to redraw the so-called, “Tree of Life.”

Richard Dawkins once spoke a great lie when he said, “Evolution could so easily be disproved if just a single fossil turned up in the wrong date order. Evolution has passed this test with flying colours.” (The Greatest Show on Earth, p.147). Well, the above jawbone was said to put “the first members of the human genus Homo in the Afar region of Ethiopia half a million years earlier than previously thought.”  So, Mr. Dawkins, just one fossil, right?  Flying colors, right?  Well consider your theory disproved!!

Alas, it doesn’t work that way.  Out of order fossils don’t disprove their theory - they correct their theory.  You see, they’re already convinced evolution happened so when some find shows up somewhere they didn’t think it would be, they go back to work redrawing lines on paper.  They know (!) humans evolved, they’re just not sure about the how, when, and where of human evolution.

Just read some of these headlines:

Human-evolution story rewritten by fresh data and more computing power (Nature, May 18, 2023)

The 2023 discoveries that made us rethink the story of human evolution (NewScientist, December 13, 2023)

A Cave of bones could rewrite the history of human evolution, and more… (CBC Radio)

Remember too that these headlines are only dealing with alleged human ancestors – the most desirable of fossil finds. Every fossil primate skull that has ever been found for the last several decades is evaluated for a potential place in the ancestral tree of humans.  After more than a century since Darwin said we evolved from apes, the fossil record still hasn't shown us any “clear progression” of such a thing happening. In spite of every effort by evolutionists, no clear lines can be drawn. Scientists only continuously rearrange broken branches that may not even belong on the same bush.

Look at this illustration from Scientific American.  It’s supposed to be a supposed representation of human evolution.  Do you notice anything peculiar about it?  It’s a cool drawing, I admit, but none of the branches of supposed human ancestors actually connect to the tree!!  Look particularly at the Homo sapien fossil at the top; can you draw a line from that skull directly to any supposed ancestor?  The usual evolutionist’s claim is that humans aren’t descended from apes; rather, humans and apes share a common ancestor.  However, nowhere do we see this common ancestor.  It’s very strange.

Besides human evolution, evolutionists' theories about the evolution of other species are continuously being upset by new discoveries. Here are a few more headlines for your amusement:

Sea Lampreys Rewrite Our Understanding of Vertebrate Brain Evolution (Technology Networks, February 27, 2024)

1.63 Billion-year-old fossil may rewrite the history of multicellular life (Big Think, February 8, 2024)

Scientists uncover a “bizarre” leggy dinosaur unlike anything seen before, and it could rewrite the history of bird evolution (Business Insider, September 7, 2023)

It’s beginning to sound like scientists aren’t really sure how, when, or where anything evolved.  What other scientific theory can be as imprecise as evolution and still be taken seriously by the scientific community?  It’s a good thing evolution really has nothing to do with real science.  If we were as wrong about something like physics as we are about evolution, bridges would be collapsing and planes would be falling from the sky.  As it stands now, if everything we thought we knew about evolution were suddenly proven wrong, it would have no impact on any other field of science.  It certainly wouldn’t stop us from continuing to produce life improving technologies.  Evolution is sort of like the trivial pursuit of science.

Are evolutionists never embarrassed by news like this? I've been told ad nauseum that the so-called “tree of life” is evidence of common descent. It’s often cited by evolutionists while defending their theory. But how can it be evidence for anything if it has to be redrawn every other day? I understand that sometimes people exaggerate headlines in order to attract readers but when you read many of these types of articles, you'll see that in most of these stories, some new find indeed does change the previous understanding of how something allegedly evolved. So how many times do they have to be wrong about the theory before people begin to question the theory itself? How many times are they allowed to redraw the tree until people begin to realize there is no tree?!