Want Some Answers ???

Evolutionism
Index
Home



To BBC Radio.

Dear Sir/Madam

I’m beginning to think that those who organize programs for the BCC World Service are a strange lot indeed.

The greater percentage of the Nature or Discovery documentaries are always trying to convince the listeners that evolution is a proven scientific fact. What is the problem at the BCC ?

I have written on this topic before to the BCC only to find that the BCC doesn’t answer it’s mail, or could not answer the questions of its listeners.

The theory of evolution is not a proven fact. In the circles I move, the BCC World Service is fast becoming a joke. Every time we have another Nature program, out of the radio pops a half-monkey half-human from the BCC.

Is the BCC on some kind of propaganda campaign to brain wash everyone into thinking life came from green-slime and chance, and it just took millions of years?? Well, I think The BCC World Service has proven itself incompetent by continually broadcasting such programs.

Yours Sincerely
Mark Purchase PhD
New Zealand


The monkey from the BBC replied -



To: Editor, Science, Technology & Medicine BBC Science (World Service)

Dear John,

Thanks for your reply and time. There's a few things about evolution, which are not understood today and I cover them by going through your e-mail. Feel free to correct if wrong. I quote -

>>“May I say first of all that I fully respect the view you have on the subject of evolution. There are many people who come to the subject of creation from a religious or other viewpoint, which they are perfectly entitled to hold. It is not therefore appropriate for me to engage in any sort of intellectual debate on a personal level. You do, however, challenge me to justify the approach adopted by the BBC in its programmes, so here goes...”<<

Firstly, Evolution is a scientific religion. Real science can only deal with things that can be observed or measured. It depends on measuring or watching something happen, and checking it by doing it again. Evolution at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer. While its easy to construct stories of how one form gave rise to another, such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So by evolution we mean the non-provable [ie. religious] belief that all things have made themselves by means of their own natural properties without outside input.

Secondly, I suggest the BBC have “adopted” the wrong approach. It needs to include the comments of those who CAN "
engage in intellectual debate” to BALANCE the many MISLEADING reports and the ‘claims’ of evolutionists. You write -

>>1) Any appearance of treating evolution as fact is merely the result of a convention widely adopted for theories that are almost universally accepted. Otherwise we would have to prefix every statement with pedantic qualifiers. Any philosopher of science would be quick to point out, in fact, that science has almost no 'facts'. Everything remains a 'best-fit' theory until new solidly-based evidence emerges”.

How do you know I’m not a philosopher of science? Darwinian evolution is not “a best fit theory” and the facts do not speak for themselves, they are read in the light of the theory. Scientists who accept evolution are prepared to bend their observations to fit in with it. It remains an unproven hypothesis in the laboratories of science and utterly destitute of proof. If you have “no facts” you have no right to form a theory. If there’s “almost no facts” in science, how do you know anything? True science must be based on facts. Speculation without facts is not scientific.

It’s correct that evolution is not universally accepted. Many highly qualified scientists today reject evolution. In the USA alone, it is conservatively estimated that there are upwards of 10,000 professional scientists [the vast majority not officially linked to creation organisations] who believe in biblical creation.

>>2) In reporting science for 30 years, I've yet to come face to face with a single scientist who questions the existence of evolution in some form. To quote an authoritative dictionary: 'How evolution works in every detail is still not known, but the concept is now well established and accepted as fact by the scientific community'. Another loose, but conventional use of the term fact!”<<

Why endorse a theory we don’t see happening, there’s no proof it has and we don’t know how it has? Evolution is wrongly “accepted as fact” by many [ie, popular- misconception]. But the scientific community has a wide radius of thought and not united on evolution. If it’s a universal law of nature, why has the “scientific community” not found one instance of change from one species into another? Where are the missing links in the evolutionary chain from primitive to modern plants? From single cells to invertebrates? Invertebrates to fish? Fish to amphibians? Amphibians to reptiles? Reptiles to birds? Reptiles to mammals? Land mammals to sea mammals? Non-flying mammals to bats? Apes to humans? Please write and tell me won’t you. Millions of fossils have been discovered and identified but the evidence has not turned up. I’m surprised if you have no knowledge of this.

There should be millions of transitional forms between the species. Where are they? If the Stone Age lasted for at least 100,000 years as they say, there should be millions of skeletons. Where are they? The idea of a time-scale and any evolutionary sequence is an utter shambles in the fossil record. And that’s “the facts”! You write -


>>3) Whenever new evidence emerges, the BBC is all too ready to report it. The whole process of science is a humbling one of readiness to modify existing hypotheses”.<<

Yes, “all too ready” to sensationalise and hype-up ‘proofs’ of evolution. The BBC does not research evolutionary claims and scientists who might dispute the claims never balance the reports. And after researchers reveal the error of the claims, there’s no clarification from the BBC. New evidence emerges repeatedly that is devastating to evolutionary hypotheses, none of this finds it way into BBC news items or reports, why not? Eg. Dinosaur bones that are not fossilised have been discovered – proving they cannot be millions of years old. Dinosaur blood cells discovered – blood cells cannot survive millions of years [There’s many other examples].

Since Darwin the history of science is fill of fake discoveries that promised the missing link but never delivered [Consider E.Haeckel]. Numerous claims of “clear evidence” of evolution yet all failed under examination. Remember “Pithecanthropus Erectus”, “Heidelberg Man”, “Lucy”, “Neandlberg Man”, “Pitdown Man”, “Little Foot”, “Swanscombe”, “Hisperopithectus”, “Hesperopithecus” or “Zinjanthropus”? [There’s others]. Many claims from evolutionist are from palaeontologists who spend their lives picking-up fragments of bones, skulls and jaws bones. They have a strong desire to exaggerate the importance of those fragments and the BBC falls for it every-time. Palaeontologists want so hard to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone. The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions and our inability to even imagine and construct functional intermediates is a continual problem for evolution. You write –

>>Only recently we reported some clear evidence of evolution in action today”.<<

Perhaps you might forward to me what you think you heard? We don’t see evolution happening. Every living thing contains a program [eg. DNA - information written on a long molecule]. Even the simplest-known one-celled creatures are mind- bogglingly complex but they never accidentally have an increase of information. That is, a coding for new structures, functions, or specified complexity. Changes we do see don’t involve increasing information but a decrease. The origin of the genetic code is another baffling aspect for evolution; there are no laboratory models. For evolution to occur an increase of information to the DNA is vital. You write -

>>4) As a news organisation, we are required to be involved in debates on virtually every issue, and to report them dispassionately and in accordance with the weight of opinion”.

I've never heard any debate on the BBC about evolution. There are many qualified scientists able to dissect the errors in evolutionary theory, yet I've never heard one BBC programme on the bankrupt nature of evolution, not one! Yet the evidence against evolution is colossal and persuasive. In fact why is evidence against evolution so rigorously excluded? Has anyone in your science production unit read the following books? I think not! Otherwise the BBC would not give such a fraudulent deceptive theory such credibility -

“Evolution: A Theory In Crisis” Dr.Michael Denton.
“Darwin’s Black Box”. Pro.M.J. Behe.
“Bones of Contention”. Mavin Lubenow.
“Not A Change” Dr. Lee Spetner.
“Evolution: the fossils STILL say NO!” Dr. D.T. Gish
“Darwin on Trial” P.E. Johnson.
“Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems” L.D. Sunderland.
“Collapse of Evolution” S.Huse.
“The Young Earth” Dr.J.D Morris.
“In the Minds of Men; Darwin and the New World Order” Pro.I.T.Taylor.
“Early Earth” Dr. J.C.Whitcomb
“The Fossil Evidence” Dr.G.Parker
“The Biotic Message” W.J.ReMine
“Starlight and Time” Dr.R. Humphreys

[Others could be mentioned] You write -

>>5) Whilst I respect your views and uphold your right to communicate them, I do not think it constitutes incompetence to concern ourselves mainly with views that almost every mainstream scientist and publication regards as solidly based”.<<

I don't believe “mainstream scientists” who are evolutionary are “solidly based”. More scientists have changing views about evolution. If TRUTH matters then the BBC should communicate the truth. Surely the BBC purses TRUTH in other matters, WHY NOT regarding evolution? The BBC should run a series on the problems of evolution because the compelling evidence I see leaves it in a shambles. You write -

>>“6) If broadcasting programmes about mainstream scientfic opinion means that 'The BBC World Service has proven itself incompetent' or 'fast becoming a joke', then I sincerely wish that those wishing us to adopt any other philosophy could base their approach on facts and logic that are at least as clear and universal”. With very best wishes,<<

Since we do not have one iota of fact, evolution is one of the greatest hoaxes ever. And to extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. If you provide a postal address I will arrange a free subscription to an excellent publication covering these topics. This would be of tremendous value and interest to you. Let me know if you want this. And let me know if I can be of further assistance.

Kind Regards,
Mark Purchase

Auckland
New Zealand


His Reply
Index
Home