“We’re not saying that Darwin’s idea of evolution is wrong — that would be absurd, as we’re using his ideas on evolution to do this work, it’s just that Darwin simply didn’t have the information we have now.”

That is a very important quote from William Parker, a researcher at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, NC. It’s important for a couple of reasons; chief among them is that Dr. Parker is making sure his research and the results therein don’t cost him his job or Duke University their grant money. It is also important in that he is in fact saying Darwin’s idea of evolution is, if not unequivocally wrong, at least uninformed and outdated.

Never, allow me to repeat, NEVER EVER NEVER, in the history of scientific research has such a limited investigation based solely on the ideas of one non-impartial researcher taken on the scope and magnitude of Darwin’s Origin of Species.

Ben Stein recently released an excellent documentary movie titled “Expelled” which uncovers the seamier side of higher education and scientific research as it relates to evolution. In this fairly in-depth exposé Stein finds example after example of well trained, highly acclaimed and meticulous researchers who have lost their jobs and their good standing amongst their peers simply by suggesting, or even mentioning the possibility of, theories contrary to Darwin and the non-Darwinian Big Bang theory.

Many incorrectly believe that the data for Darwin’s book The Origin of Species was based on his lifelong quest to uncover mankind’s true genesis. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Darwin spent only five years on his famous voyage on the “Beagle” to Africa and South America before writing his book. That five-year period, which began in 1831, included the lengthy travel by ship from England to Africa, on to South America and then home. To suggest today, when it takes twice that length of time to simply get a new drug for hay fever onto the market, that this was in any way a closely controlled scientific study worthy of the credit it is given is nothing less than laughable.

Furthermore, Darwin was not looking to discover new ideas but was actually looking for concurring data for an assumption of natural selection that he already believed, having been taught that theory by his grandfather.

Darwin’s research was based solely on observation and then taking what he saw and manipulating it to fit the overall hypothesis. The vast majority of his observation was on plants and flowers and then taking that which he had observed and extrapolating it over to animals and humans. A perfect example of this is Darwin’s proposal that a hummingbird’s bill has evolved into the shape it is from drinking nectar of flowers that have evolved into the shape they are in to accept the bill, thus showing some sort of cross-evolution between plant and animal. As they are both relatively the same shape Darwin concluded they must have evolved concurrently. There need be no further evidence required to prove the theory than that. Darwin was called a “romantic materialist” and this example of unproven theory based solely on observation is why.

So why, in this day and age of unparalleled scientific study, do we still cling to the eminently flawed theory of Darwinism? Because it places science above God.

While it was not Darwin’s intent to eliminate an ultimate Creator in his studies, his limited and romanticized works have been twisted and remolded to just that end.

Dr. Parker and his research group at Duke have come up with scientific proof that the tiny appendix is not a “vestigial” or functionless organ as Darwin stated. Darwin was quick to conclude that the appendix had once served a purpose when our ancient ancestors were eating mostly leaves. He included it along with the tail bone, male nipples and other puzzling parts of human anatomy as proof that man had in fact evolved from some sort of androgynous herbivore that long ago had use for these now vestigial body parts. The Duke research team has disproven that by finding this little organ does in fact serve an important function in modern man. Darwin claimed the appendix was proof of recent evolutions and was found in only a small handful of creatures. The Duke team has discovered that the appendix has been around for over 80 million years and is found in nearly 70 percent of all primate and rodent groups, many of them still dependent on it for digestion.

Over the years countless other Darwinian tenets have been proven completely incorrect. But yet to mention the flaws in the Darwin’s theory is to risk being driven from grace, and probably your job, in the scientific community. How sad that the scientific study of ultimate possibilities would rather cling to a theory repeatedly proven imperfect than to accept at least the possibility of a prefect Creator.

I guess there’s just no research money in God. And besides, we would have to let Him back into school.

A law suit has been filed by a civic minded atheist named Michael Newdow to have the words “So help me God” removed from the oath of office for the upcoming presidential inauguration. He is being joined by several likeminded groups such as the American Humanist Association and the Freedom from Religion Foundation in insisting that these words be omitted and that no prayer or invocation be permitted during the swearing in ceremony.

Mr. Newdow and these other groups are preparing to go down the well trodden road of claiming that their rights as atheists are somehow being infringed upon by the inclusion of God’s name and the request for His assistance during the inauguration.

His lawsuit, an advance copy of which was conveniently posted online, claims that “There can be no purpose for placing ‘so help me God’ in an oath or sponsoring prayers to God, other than promoting a particular point of view that God exists.”

Mr. Newdow is a doctor and a lawyer and is evidently able to grasp the fairly obvious hypothesis that praying to God does indeed promote the concept that God exists. I concede councilor; I believe you broke the code on that one.

I won’t even bother debating the point that this country and its constitution are based on freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion. What I find most interesting is that these self-made men and women find that the mere mention of God’s name somehow infringes on their beliefs. To the best of my knowledge nobody is insisting that that anybody pray along, get on their knees, fold their hands or even bow their head. Nobody is even asking that you think differently much less act differently than your beliefs dictate. So where is the unconstitutional harm? They claim that the inclusion of God’s name forces them to make a decision of either not watching the ceremony or somehow being forced to endorse God simply through the act of viewing somebody that does. Wow, that’s a bigger stretch than debating what the definition of “is” is.

Mr. Newdow is adept enough to see that his lawsuit doesn’t have a chance in hell, if there was such a place, of succeeding. “I have no doubt I’ll lose” he was quoted as saying. And he is a man who speaks from experience having already lost this same lawsuit twice prior with the inaugurations in 2001 and 2005.

Now don’t get me wrong, I believe everybody has the right to seek protection from the courts if they feel they are being unconstitutionally injured. I even have a certain amount of envy in the level of faith an atheist has. To believe that something was created from nothing, that life came from a chance combination of inanimate elements and that every living thing that has ever lived, every DNA helix, every plant and animal mutated from a single nondescript water borne mother cell and that every organ, every sense, every ability and the very structure of every plant and animal was developed by some long since hidden ability for cells to determine independently how they would mutate is actually a far greater bit of faith than I am able to muster.

But I am civic minded myself and I find that a lawsuit that is filed for the sole purpose of getting your name in the paper and your face on CNN is a frivolous lawsuit. If you have filed the same suit twice before and been unsuccessful in prevailing than you should be responsible for paying the court costs of your repeated unsuccessful attempts. The constitution has not been rewritten or amended and the argument is the same. Claiming, as they do, that they deserve some special minority status is simply not legally credible. And I, as a taxpayer, don’t feel I should be expected to pay the costs of this folly.

Now, if you want to file lawsuits about politicians talking about things that are not constitutionally protected and that actually do not exist I may even join you.

Let’s start with manmade global warming and work our way from there.