Matthew Ehret joins the Discovery Institute’s Dr. Gunter Bechly and talk show host Zain Khan for a lively discussion on the Darwin hoax, it’s political origins and why any honest scientist who cares about truth must recognize its invalidity in the face of empirical data.

One thought

  1. For some time I have questioned Darwin’s theory. My position starts with Pasteur’s statement reportedly made on his deathbed: “The microbe is nothing. The terrain is everything.” Whether or not the statement was made, I agree with it.
    The late soil scientist, William Albrecht, PhD, stated that many people believe that forests create forest soils and prairie plants create prairie soils. He stated, however, the opposite it the case with forest soils creating forests and prairie soils creating prairies. Thus the forests and prairie plants are nothing. The terrain is everything.
    The natural succession is considered to be the encroachment of meadows by woody plants causing the loss of proteinaceous plants. Albrecht reported that an experiment lasting over 50 years demonstrated that maintaining the soil fertility in one of two adjacent plots prevented the “invasion” of a woody plant while in the other plot the woody plant “invaded”. Seeds produced by this woody plant are carried by the wind and fell on both plots. Again, the plants are nothing. The terrain is everything.
    Since the mid 1990’s, I have been modifying soil based on an energy approach in order to change what I consider to be the fundamental terrain for all life on this planet. Currently, I have a five year demonstration of growing a legume proteinaeous plant in clay soil in Willowdale. It is said that this plant does not grow in clay soil. When you talk about a clay soil or a sandy soil or soil somewhere in between, you are talking about the soil structure. Soil structure can not be the fundamental terrain. The main amendment I use does not change the clay nature of the soil. It does, however, change the nature of the life in the soil and the plants growing in the soil. This plant is now the most numerous plant in the yard and it continues to “invade” and take over the rest of the yard. The woody plants are declining in numbers.
    When the plant flowers in June, bumblebees come into the yard for the pollen only from this plant, a legume. Non-legume flowering plants in the yard are ignored by the bumblebees as they gather only the high nutrition pollen produced by a large healthy legume growing in high soil fertility. When the plants finish flowering, the bumblebees stop coming into the yard in large numbers. They go back to being infrequent visitors.
    For the microbes, the plants and the bumblebees, modifying the terrain has changed things that have nothing to do with the survival of the fittest.
    So too, the woolly mammoth would have been a product of the terrain and its “extinction” would have been as a result of a change in the terrain. Thus, I consider that the woolly mammoth is not “extinct” but rather that it is no longer here because the terrain does not suit it.

Leave a Reply to Gary Wilson Cancel reply