Stinking Fossils and Smelly Science

In the past few decades, there has been an increasing number of paleontological discoveries that challenge the evolutionary paradigm. But we haven’t heard about them. In fact, years of excuses and denials is starting to expose the ideological and metaphysical prejudice of the so-called empiricists who continue to cheer for the reigning dogma of macro-evolution in spite of mounting evidence against it.

In 1993, Mary Schweitzer discovered blood cells in dinosaur fossils. That’s right—blood cells. Though her paleontological discovery was monumental, she couldn’t get a scientific journal to publish her findings. They all thought her sample must have been tainted. She fought back with heaps of other evidences, all of which were also rejected. In the past twenty years, technological advances have allowed paleontologists to find even more interesting things in dinosaur bones—proteins, hemoglobin, collagen, and radiocarbon. But still, the scientific community insists that this evidence is part of a vast and “unscientific” religious conspiracy.

Mary Schweitzer’s struggle to get published is extremely informative. An article in tells a little more of her story:

“If you take a blood sample, and you stick it on a shelf, you have nothing recognizable in about a week. So why would there be anything left in dinosaurs?”

Why indeed? Unless of course they haven’t been extinct for millions of years, and their remains were preserved quickly under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago, or even more recently. But so entrenched is the evolutionary paradigm in the scientific community, that it soon became known that Dr. Schweitzer was having trouble getting her results published. “I had one reviewer tell me that he didn’t care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible,” says Schweitzer. “I wrote back and said, ‘Well, what data would convince you?’ And he said, ‘None.’”

One could argue that is not the most neutral voice in this argument. I agree. But that doesn’t mean the evolutionary opposition is more neutral. The problem is that no voice on this topic is neutral. Every person in this argument has a vested philosophical interest in interpreting the evidence in a way favorable to his paradigm. But, historically, creationists are not the ones who have been doctoring the evidence. From Piltdown Man to Archeoraptor, evolutionary scientists have been desperate to find evidence of macro-evolution in fossils—and just as desperate to suppress evidence to the contrary.

Long before Schweitzer’s findings, paleontologists noted that many fossil beds stank like death. Stinking fossils were all over the world. So the truth was literally under and in their noses, but they couldn’t figure it out. Fossils aren’t supposed to smell rotten if the evolutionary paradigm is right. But evolutionists, blind to all evidence but what supports their hypothesis, have swept an increasing number of anomalies under the rug.

The so-called uniform solidarity of evolutionary “science” is actually a misleading pastiche of carefully selected evidential snapshots. Ironically, the most open-minded and free perspective on the available evidence is actually being accumulated by the people “scientists” call “close-minded.” Beyond profuse denials, evolutionists have not been able to explain stinking fossils and dinosaur blood cells in purportedly millions-of-years-old bones. But eventually, the anomalies will outweigh the consensus and the evolutionary paradigm will fall. I hope I’m alive to see it.