Migration and other Disproofs

The overwhelming interest in balancing the “evolution-only” indoctrination of the Ohio Board of Education required it to move its hearing today to a much larger auditorium. But whether the Board will end its censorship of criticism of evolution remains unclear.

Homing Skills of Birds.

Biology textbooks devote great attention to evolution, but say virtually nothing about the remarkable homing skills of birds. Why? These skills completely confound material attempts to explain nature, such as evolution.

The Encyclopedia Britannica uses tens of thousands of words to repeat claims about evolution, but only 4 sentences to describe homing ability.

It tries to say that homing can be explained by birds’ use of the sun’s angle or stars’ patterns. But it then admits that “homing may occur in any compass direction and at any season.”

It notes that racing or homing pigeons famously have this skill, but other birds are even better at it. Swallows, for example, can exhibit homing abilities that are even superior to pigeons’.

The Encyclopedia concludes its section with its description of this experiment: “A Manx shearwater (Puffinus puffinus), transported in a closed container to a point about 5,500 km (3,400 miles) from its nest, returned to the nest in 12½ days.” Even more remarkable, although omitted from the Encyclopedia’s account, is the fact that most of that distance was across the Atlantic Ocean.

For decades, evolutionists who claim that everything has a material explanation have unsuccessfully confronted homing abilities. Desperate for an explanation, some materialists now claim that birds sense gravity waves and engage in homing based on them. But not even our most sophisticated laboratory equipment can sense gravity waves, so it’s implausible that simple pigeons are guided by them.

The bottom line is that homing disproves materialism, and its progeny of evolution. Materialism is utterly helpless to explain how homing works. This is analogous to the double-slit experiment of quantum mechanics disproving purely classical physics.

All evolutionists can do is to omit detailed discussion of homing phenomena from grade and high school textbooks, and hope no one asks about this confounding behavior.


Each year, a few towns in California are greeted by the arrival of tens of thousands of monarch butterflies. Pacific Grove, California, is the peculiar destination of a huge quantity of such butterflies each year.

PBS provides a description of the phenomenon, without any possible explanation. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/alienempire/voyagers.html. It notes that one butterfly was tracked along a 1,870 mile route, from Ontario to Mexico. Its actual flight distance could easily have been two or even three times greater, because butterflies do not fly in straight lines.

How do the butterflies navigate themselves? This, again, defies purely materialistic explanation.

In evolutionary terms, butterflies are merely insects far less developed than humans. But humans themselves could not possibly navigate, unaided, 1870 miles to a certain destination. Nor is there any plausible material explanation of how any species could migrate in such a manner.

Simply recounting migration illustrates its wonder: “There are 12 known pockets of forests in Mexico where Monarchs gather for the winter. They have been seen in the Sierra Madre Mountains of Mexico by the tens of millions, and estimated at 4 million butterflies per acre. All wintering sites are about 9,000 feet in elevation, generally cold with frosts at times. … The majority of Monarchs from the east side of the Rocky Mountains overwinter in Mexico, but those from west of the Rockies overwinter in groves of Monterey pines or eucalyptus trees at sites along the California coast, from San Francisco to Los Angeles.”

Even more remarkable is how many butterflies die during the migration, and their offspring continue on the same journey nevertheless.

Predator Befriending Prey.

The British magazine the Economist, which is markedly pro-evolution like England itself, was baffled by the following recent discovery. A lion befriended its prey, a calf.

“ANY relationship between a lioness and an oryx calf might be expected to be both brief, and terminal for the latter,” the Economist observed in an article on January 17th of this year. So true — but only under the purely materialistic view that matter, and matter alone, is the cause of all natural phenomena.

One disproof is enough to debunk a theory, and the observation of the lioness befriending its prey in Kenya does the job. “[T]he [researchers] observed that it was the lioness who followed the calf (for example when it went back to its mother to suckle), rather than the other way round. Why she wanted to adopt something that ought to have pressed the button labelled ‘lunch’ is a mystery,” the Economist article concluded.

Human Examples.

What about man himself? The evolutionists claim that more guns must mean more violence, as though the material of the gun itself causes the violence. After all, nothing unseen like evil really exists in the view of an evolutionist.

Research then demonstrated “more guns, less crime,” and the materialists were dumbfounded. It cannot be true, they thought. But it is, as shown by a book bearing that title.

In fact, much of politics is a debate between emphasizing the tangible, such as food stamps, as opposed to emphasizing intangible concepts like freedom. The uniqueness of constitutional government is the replacement of a king or dictator, whom we could see, with a set of unseen principles.

History shows that human progress is directly dependent on accepting the existence of the unseen. Clinging to only what can be seen serves to obstruct progress, and miss the better part of life.

Lecture 3 Quiz