Evolutionists have carefully manicured a grand pretense that most Americans rarely question: that the materialists in white lab coats are dedicated to neutrally observing the evidence and the facts without any ideological or religious prejudices to cloud their clear judgment. Ancillary to this pretense is the lie that Christian scientists, blinded by religious bias, cannot account for the facts and refuse to accept them. According to this grand lie, evolutionists are the true scientists, and creationists are science-deniers.
This self-congratulatory fable could not be further from the truth. Evolutionists routinely suppress, ignore, deny, and distort evidence in order to reaffirm their religious bias. They are so dedicated to Darwinism and its foundations in atheist materialism that they absolutely refuse to accept evidence to the contrary. No matter how ubiquitous or compelling it may be.
And it is compelling and ubiquitous. Example? Soft tissue in dinosaur bones. Because of their ideological assumptions, scientists hadn’t even bothered looking for soft tissue in fossilized dinosaur bones until very recently. Because, after millions and millions of years, it would be impossible for soft tissue to have survived. It should have already broken down completely. But then, in an unhappy accident for evolutionists, one of their own, Mary Schweitzer, found some soft tissue in a T. Rex bone. And evolutionists have been scrambling to explain it away ever since.
Evolutionists regularly attempt to discredit anyone who publishes findings on dinosaur soft tissue—especially those who don’t agree already with their evolutionary paradigm. Most recently, scientist Mark Armitage was fired from California State University for publishing his findings on soft tissue found in a triceratops horn. Allegedly, one of his colleagues told him, “We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!” Indeed. That department already has religious affiliations. And a diversity of religion is just too much to ask for.
But evolutionists can’t suppress the existence of soft tissue forever, and there are other ways of dealing with the soft tissue dilemma. They are equally dishonest of course. First, evolutionists said the soft tissue wasn’t what it looked like. This was just biological residue from a much more recent bacterial infection in the bones. Nope! Okay, okay. Then the soft tissue had to be preserved. Mary Schweitzer herself, perhaps in a last ditch effort to re-ingratiate herself with evolutionists (who I’m sure are upset with her for even opening this can of worms), has proposed a theory for how soft tissue could be preserved for millions of years. Apparently the iron in dinosaur blood could act like formaldehyde, basically embalming the soft tissue. According to Live Science:
Iron is an element present in abundance in the body, particularly in the blood, where it is part of the protein that carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues. Iron is also highly reactive with other molecules, so the body keeps it locked up tight, bound to molecules that prevent it from wreaking havoc on the tissues.
After death, though, iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging.
“The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots,” Schweitzer said. “They basically act like formaldehyde.”
Formaldehyde, of course, preserves tissue. It works by linking up, or cross-linking, the amino acids that make up proteins, which makes those proteins more resistant to decay.
Yes. But iron isn’t formaldehyde, is it? And the experiments Schweitzer did are less than convincing and highly speculative. She soaked one bowl of ostrich blood vessels in concentrated hemoglobin at room temperature. Another bowl of ostrich vessels soaked in water in otherwise identical conditions. After three days, the soft tissue soaking in water was “a disgusting mess”—totally broken down. After two years, soft tissue in the other bowl—though decayed—was still intact. Two years!? That’s supposed to prove something?
Schweitzer’s experiment does prove that pure hemoglobin can act as a powerful preservative, though not quite as effective as formaldehyde. But it doesn’t prove that soft tissue could survive for a hundred million years. And, beyond this, we’re not talking about concentrated hemoglobin. We’re talking about blood with a normal (rather low) concentrations of hemoglobin. And the dinosaur bone wasn’t sitting covered up in some lab. It was sitting in the dirt in the middle of Montana. Even given the most ideal conditions, the largest number of years that could be granted is at the very, very most less than seven million years—more than ten times less than is necessary for the evolutionary paradigm:
Even under the best preservation conditions at –5°C, our model predicts that no intact bonds (average length = 1 bp [base pair]) will remain in the DNA “strand” after 6.8 Myr [million years]. This displays the extreme improbability of being able to amplify a 174 bp DNA fragment from an 80–85 Myr old Cretaceous bone.1
No matter how you slice it, a hundred million years of preservation is so unlikely, it reaches absolutely faith-destroying levels of incredibility.
Well, unless your faith is absolute. And the evolutionists have proven time and again, that their faith is absolute. They refuse to take this evidence for what it actually means. Because it turns out that soft-tissue preservation in dinosaur fossils is very common. Schweitzer and her crew found it in about half of their fossil samples. The only reason the prevalent existence of soft tissue in fossils hasn’t been widely published until now is because evolutionists haven’t been testing for it. They didn’t believe it would be there, so they didn’t even look for it. And once you have preserved a fossil after a dig, it can’t be tested for soft tissue:
To preserve the chemistry of potential soft tissue, the specimens must not be treated with preservatives or glue, as most fossil bones are, [Schweitzer] said. And they need to be tested quickly, as soft tissue could degrade once exposed to modern air and humidity.
The most likely explanation for soft tissue in fossils is an explanation evolutionists, by their own admission, will never accept—no matter the evidence. It is that the majority of fossils were created in a very short time during the Flood when enormous volcanic heat and hydraulic pressure were available to bury animals together under layers of sedimentary rock. Even under these conditions, the soft tissue trapped inside the fossil would not survive for a hundred million years. But four thousand years? That’s plausible. In fact, the creationist model fits the evidence nigh perfectly. From a scientific standpoint. But this isn’t about science. Evolutionists don’t reject creationism for scientific reasons—they reject it for religious reasons.
Every year, evidence keeps on rolling in. Whether it’s from microbiologists who talk about irreducible complexity, or astronomers puzzling over the extraordinary geological activity of what should be dead planets, or paleontologists finding soft tissue in fossils. Anomalies continue to attach themselves to Darwin’s dubious deception, but evolutionists won’t let go of their paradigm. Eventually they will have no choice. But in the meantime, I want my readers to place it firmly in their minds that evolutionists are not acting like scientists here. Philosophers of science have a word for this unwillingness to change a flawed scientific theory in spite of mountains of opposing evidence—it’s called dogma. And it turns out that evolutionists have more dogma than Hell Creek has dinosaur bones. They are acting like true believers. And to be fair, that might be fine if only it were honest. But it’s not.
- Allentoft, M.E. et al., The half-life of DNA in bone: measuring decay kinetics in 158 dated fossils, Proc. Royal Society B 279(1748):4724–4733, 7 December 2012 | doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.1745. [↩]