Dogmatic Evolution

In my previous post I was talking about worldviews and how they affect how we interpret facts.  There are no brute facts, we always filter what we observe and learn through the presuppositions in our worldview.  This scientific discovery, and how it is interpreted, is a perfect example of how our presuppositions already decide for us what our conclusion will be.

T-Rex Soft Tissue

During a dig on a T- Rex in 2005, Montana State University’s Dr. Mary Schweitzer, in order to lift the leg of the T-Rex by helicopter, was forced to crack it open.  Inside was what is described as fibrous, soft tissue, complete with red blood cells that is “flexible and resilient and when stretched returns to its original shape” (  The leg bone was not filled with minerals as is usually the case and chemicals were used to dissolve the bony skeletal matrix that was hiding the soft tissue (24 March 2005, .

Dr. Schweitzer’s Dogma

Dr.  Schweitzer was quoted as saying, “The microstructures that look like cells are preserved in every way” and that “preservation of this extent, where you still have this flexibility and transparency, has never been seen in a dinosaur before.”  The general consensus is that this hasn’t really been looked for before in the bony matrix of the inside of dinosaur bones. 

T-Rex’s are “known” to be about 65 million years old, so the discovery of surviving soft tissue in their bones is . . . unexpected, to put it lightly.  Before this discovery it was “known” that soft tissue couldn’t survive for 65 million years either.  Dr. Schweitzer reveals her dogma when red blood cells in dinosaurs were first discovered 12 years ago:

“It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: “The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’” (Science 261:160, July 9, 1994)

Instead of questioning her presupposition (the bones are 65 million years old) she questions the evidence!   The paradigm is not questioned, the paradigm is just slightly modified.  If one listens close enough one can hear evolutionists every where saying, “We must rethink our previous conclusions on how long soft tissue can last”.  This ability that evolutionary theory possesses, to be slightly modified when “unexpected” facts come to light, means that evolution is impossible to prove wrong. 

The discovery of T-rex soft tissue makes it blatantly obvious that no matter what facts are discovered, evolution is “true” without a shadow of a doubt.  This is the definition of dogma.

The Creationist Response

Since we believe God’s Wisdom to be superior over man’s ever shifting “wisdom”, we know that the Earth is thousands of years old, just like His Word says it is.  So when we see that soft tissue has been found in “65 million year old” fossils, we know to question the paradigm that brought about the “old Earth” dogma.  When we begin to question the validity of the “old Earth” paradigm, we see just how many holes it has in it and how obvious it is that soft tissue could not survive for 65 million years.

Explore posts in the same categories: evolution

Tags: , , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

4 Comments on “Dogmatic Evolution”

  1. E.D. Jones Says:

    Fascinating post! I was not aware of the T-rex soft tissue find. I do remember someone telling me once that the carbon dating process used to determine the age of fossils, is based on theories, not facts. Sounds similar to the “theory” of evolution, so often taken as fact. I just Googled “carbon dating process flaws” and was surprised at the number of sites that came up. I think I’ll go read some of them now.
    Thanks a lot,
    E.D. Jones

  2. Eric Kemp Says:


    Thanks! Yea, radiometric dating is not even close to rock solid. As I hope you discovered in your research that radiometric dating is based on three different assumptions
    1. The rate of decay of isotopes has NEVER changed
    2. The amount of parent isotope is ALWAYS the same at the formation of the rock
    3. There is NO daughter isotope present at formation either

    Without assuming those three the science of radiometric dating is useless.

    I’m glad that this helped you and inspired you to learn more about the subject. Keep it up!

  3. Daniel Says:

    Without assuming the bible is true, creationism is useless.

    Without assuming the bible is gods word, christianity is useless.

    Oh look, PRESUPPOSITIONS! And circle logic…

    There is of course the possibilities that this bit of tissue was artificially reproduced, or just outright well-faked.

    You treat this as proof that the earth is just several thousand years old. It is proof of nothing.

    PS: You guys just love tossing the word “presupposition” around. Its a bit hypocritical with you guys assuming the bible is correct and all…

  4. Eric Kemp Says:


    If you had been listening at all, you would have heard that I have absolutely no problem admitting my own presuppositions. Yes, I presuppose the Bible to be God’s Word.

    However, you presuppose that only the material exists (materialism), that all phenomena are natural phenomena (naturalism), that the only way to knowledge is through scientific inquiry (empiricism) and that all natural laws stay the same for all time (uniformitarianism). The arguments regarding this presuppositions are explained more fully in this article about metaphysics and how the atheist fool themselves into believing that don’t have any. And a deeper discussion of uniformitarianism. I kind of sum up these arguments in explaining why I don’t want to focus on atheism anymore.

    Please review the linked articles in order to fully understand my position regarding the presuppositions that you hold to.

    “There is of course the possibilities that this bit of tissue was artificially reproduced, or just outright well-faked.”

    Wait, let me get this straight. You’re willing to question the evidence when it’s hard for you to explain from an evolutionary standpoint, but when it’s easy to explain, you accept the evidence with no questions asked. I love it. Oh, btw, I linked the articles, so you can find out for yourself wether it’s real or not.

    “You treat this as proof that the earth is just several thousand years old. It is proof of nothing.”

    This proves that you didn’t actually read the whole article. I explicitly and purposefully said the opposite. My point isn’t that evolution is disproved, but that evolution can’t be disproved because it shifts goalposts with every new piece of evidence, therefore evolution is unfalsifiable.

    “PS: You guys just love tossing the word “presupposition” around. Its a bit hypocritical with you guys assuming the bible is correct and all…”

    The only thing that is hypocritical is when you point out other peoples presuppositions but are completely and willfully oblivious to your own.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: