FAQS

Q: Why is the topic of evolution so important to you?

A: Science is the best means of producing empirical data in regard to the observable Universe.  The scientific community has a standard of what science is and in order to make sure our society keeps moving toward innovation and breakthrough, science must be the central focus.  Unfortunately for future generations, science is being degraded by the teaching of ideas that cannot fulfill the strict criteria of what science has been clearly outlined to be.  Evolution has been left without a definition, is based on assumption not empirical data, and defies the basis of science by being hostile to questions.  The future of science is at stake and I wrote about this important issue in my blog post entitled Are Questions Part of Science?

 

Q: How do you define evolution?

A: Evolution is a word used by many to describe various ideas.  In my work, I use the word in regard to Darwinian biological evolution.  Yet, Darwin never defined evolution in his book On the Origin of Species, by Means of Natural selection.   Most biologists have created their own unique definition, meaning that a concise and consistent definition is still needed.  In the first chapter of my book, I describe the detailed process of how to create a single and precise definition… of which a suggestion for what that definition could be is offered.  Download the first three chapters of my book for free. CLICK HERE

 

Q: What is your stance on how life became so diverse; evolution, creation, or theistic evolution?

A: I consider myself an “Empirical Agnostic,” which means that when it comes to how life became so diverse, we lack scientific gnosis which is Greek for knowledge.  To claim Empirical Agnosticism means we do not have the ability to scientifically know how we got here.  For more information on this stance, please read my blog entry entitled: Evolution, Creation, or Theistic Evolution?

 

Q: What do you say to 99.9% of biologists that accept evolution as a scientific fact?

A: No other field of “science” has consensus numbers as high as evolution.  If 99.9% of any group claims anything to be an absolute fact, it is a major red flag.  No group of humans, scientists included, has such astronomical consensus numbers on anything other than evolution.  Scientists are divided on so many topics, for example the health of certain foods.  68% of scientists say that pesticides on our food is safe for consumption while 32% say organic foods should be eaten.  When it comes to genetically modified foods (GMO), 22% of scientists say to not eat them while 88% say GMO foods are safe.

In the case of food science, for example, we know what GMO foods are, we know what Organically grown foods are, and we know what Conventionally grown foods are.  Yet, in the case of biological evolution we do not know what it is.  The Next Generation Science Standards require evolution to be taught, yet leaves it undefined.

Strangely enough, 99.9% of biologists subscribe to evolution and 99.9% of biologist have created their own unique and inconsistent description of what they believe biological evolution to be.  I have written extensively about this issue in my book WHAT IS EVOLUTION? and on my blog.  Start learning more with this post: Why Leave it Undefined?

 

Q: Do you accept the idea of a young Earth or an old Earth?

A: Evolution cannot meet the criteria for science that is clearly laid out by both the National Academy of Sciences and US Judicial precedent.  With that noted, and being an Empirical Agnostic, I do not see how any age of the Earth, young or old, can be validated by data that fulfills the same mentioned scientific criteria.