If you enjoy The Design of Life, we are sure you will enjoy the blog too. And, if you enjoy the blog, the book will help you get up to speed on the reasons we have started this blog. Here you will read the news about evolution that does NOT support the propaganda that is - increasingly - legislated as the only information you or your kids or grandkids are allowed to learn in tax-supported schools. Why do we call it propaganda? Well, let's start with the fact that the history of life has - so far - proceeded entirely differently from what Darwin's theory of evolution would reasonably suggest. It was not a long, slow orderly progress. It has mostly been long periods where nothing much is happening, punctuated by moments of huge panic and great invention. Did you know, for example, that almost all the great divisions of life came into existence rather suddenly about 525 million years ago? Apart from some extinctions, further developments have always been within those categories, not outside them. That's the opposite of what Darwin thought would happen. Why are so many people so frantic about ensuring that you know and utterly believe Darwin's theory of evolution and no other? That you practically worship the man? Might it have smething to do with their basic beliefs? Darwin intended his theory to explain how evolution could proceed without any intelligence whatever behind it. And did you know that 78% of evolutionary biologists are pure naturalists (no God):

In "Evolution, Religion and Free Will" (American Scientist, Volume 95, 294ff) , Gregory W. Graffin and William B. Provine found that, of 149 eminent evolutionists polled, 78% were pure naturalists (no God) and only two were clearly theists (traditional idea of God). Some were in between these poles. The authors describe most of these in-betweens as deists (some sort of divinity might have got things rolling but it is not God in any sense that Christians understand). The authors note that the level of advocacy of any degree of theism among evolutionary biologists is the lowest measured so far in any poll of biologists' beliefs. They described the vast majority of their respondents as "metaphysical naturalists", "materialists", and "monists". In other words, these are people who are serious about their materialism and atheism. These evolutionary biologists generally view religion as a product or byproduct of human evolution so that "... evolution is the means to understanding religion, whereas religion as a 'way of knowing' has nothing to teach us about evolution." The authors make quite clear that "Seeing religion as a sociobiological feature of human evolution, while a plausible hypothesis, denies all worth to religious truths."

Do you think that their view affects their understanding of the evidence? Of course it does. It is a filter through which everything is run. We all have our filters. Here at this blog you will see the evidence run through a filter that accepts the possibility of purpose and design. That means that sometimes you will see the same evidence but without the just-so stories that rescue Darwinism. You will see lots of evidence you wouldn't otherwise know about. In no case will you see the kind of thing you hear increasingly from popular (and sometimes tax-supported) media. For example, here are some things we WON'T tell you:

1. What Pleistocene man "would have done". For example, he "would have had several mates in order to spread his selfish genes." Actually, I don't know what Pleistocene man would have done. Do you? Did he? When we don't know that something actually happened, we won't tell you that it did. We certainly won't tell you that it "would have happened" in order to promote some otherwise useless or failed Darwinist theory. So far as we are concerned, the Darwinist theory can just be useless and fail. That wouldn't be any new event, let me tell you.

2. How "evolution" did something, whether the eye of the squid or the ear of the bat or whatever. Evolution doesn't do things, it is simply what happens over time. It may represent a pattern, maybe not, but we'll see. Contra the views of the late, great origin of life researcher Leslie Orgel, evolution is NOT cleverer than you. Unless, of course, there is Someone or Something clever behind it who is be definition cleverer than you ... but that is a discussion for another day. Here we just want to look at the evidence.

3. Why you should join in the caterwauling about "Visigoths at the gates" or some similar freakout threat. Actually, you shouldn't. Many materialists seem desperate to enshrine Darwin's theory of evolution in the law of the land, deny tenure to any prof suspected of doubting it, and such. They have to behave this way because Darwin's theory is of so little use in understanding the history of life that they must morph it into government-subsidized and court-legislated propaganda in order to help it survive. We are not going to get into the question of why they are allowed to do that because this is not a blog about politics. Here we are mainly concerned with understanding what the evidence really suggests. Actually, we do not even view the Darwinists as a threat (which is how they view us), because we are not afraid of the evidence. Over this blog's life, you will get a chance to see the evidence we learn about and discover what the history of life really looks like. Prepare for some surprises. -

Denyse O'Leary, lead blogger

Also! See also the two posts below:

Why is plant evolution an abominable mystery?

The Copernican myth - and other science myths - the undead still walk!