Why the hell teach evolution at all

Interesting take on it!

SHELVED AS JUST ANOTHA RELIGION, INDEEDY! A FALSE RELIGION!

NOBODYS MAMA CAME CRAWLING OUT OF NO DAMNED RIVER! AND YOUR AUNT MARTHA, SHE CAME FROM NO DAMNED ZOO EITHER!

Maybe if you had learned evolution in school from a biologist instead of from a preacher you would appreciate it more. But maybe not. Some people just aren't bright enough to get it, no matter how hard you try to teach them.

"I would rather believe in fairy tales than in such wild speculation. I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable. God cannot be explained away by such naive thoughts."
--Sir Ernst B. Chain, Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1945), as quoted by Ronald W. Clark, The Life of Ernst Chain (London: Weidenfield & Nicolson, 1985), pp. 147-148.

"I must confess to a feeling of profound humility in the presence of a universe which transcends us at almost every point. I feel like a child who while playing by the seashore has found a few bright colored shells and a few pebbles while the whole vast ocean of truth stretches out almost untouched and unruffled before my eager fingers."
-Sir Isaac Newton, greatest scientist in history.

"Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school.'"
-Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, leading cladistic taxonomist), Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, November 5, 1981.

"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."
-Malcolm Muggeridge (world famous journalist and philosopher), Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

"Modern Apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked, tool-making big-brained humans - is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."
-Dr. Lyall Watson, "The Water People," Science Digest, Vol. 90, May 1982, p. 44.

"For example, no scientist could logically dispute the proposition that man, without having been involved in any act of divine creation, evolved from some ape-like creature in a very short space of time - speaking in geological terms - without leaving any fossil traces of the steps of the transformation. As I have already implied, students of fossil primates have not been distinguished for caution when working within the logical constraints of their subject. The record is so astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in this field at all."
-Lord Solly Zuckerman, M.D., D.Sc., Beyond the Ivory Tower (New York: Taplinger, 1970), p. 64.

"I wish I were younger. What inclines me now to think you may be right in regarding [evolution] as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders."
-Dr. C.S. Lewis, in letter to Capt. Bernard Acworth of the Evolution Protest Movement, 1951.

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
-Professor Louis Bounoure, past president of the Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research. (Quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.)

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?"
-Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, in letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979. Cited in: Sunderland, Luther D., Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1988), p. 89.

"...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils... You say I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."
-Dr. Colin Patterson, ibid.

"The fossil record of man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools... Clearly, some people refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated. If only they had the evidence... I have gone to some trouble to show that there are formidable objections to all the subhuman and near-human species that have been proposed as ancestors."
-Fix, William R., The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984), pp. 150-153. (Note: Fix is not a creationist.)

"Scientists of the highest standing would today accept many of [Bishop] Wilberforce's criticisms of Darwin just as they would also accept the criticisms raised by the geologist [and Christian clergyman] Adam Sedgwick, whose review was published in The Spectator in April 1860...
Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure that they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so. What we are to make of that fact is still open to debate, but today it is the conventional neo-Darwinians who appear as the conservative bigots and the unorthodox neo-Sedgwickians who rate as enlightened rationalists prepared to contemplate the evidence that is plain for all to see."
-Professor Sir Edmund Leach, addressing the 1981 Annual Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science.

"This does not mean that the profession is about to abandon Darwin forever or indorse [sic] my views publicly. The situation remains much as it was: the inner circles are full of doubt, but the public utterances are confident. The doubts may be greater now and the confidence less serene, but it will be a long time before the public is given the full dark picture. There is still need for a dissenting voice, a devil's advocate, a skeptical whistle-blower."
-Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason (Boston: Gambit Books, 1971), foreword. (Note: MacBeth, a lawyer, was an evolutionist.)

"Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants."
-Professor Whitten (Professor of Genetics), University of Melbourne, Australia, 1980 Assembly Week address.

"Two opposing laws seem to me now in contest. The one, a law of blood and death, opening out each day new modes of destruction, forces nations always to be ready for battle. The other, a law of peace, work and health, whose only aim is to deliver man from the calamities which beset him. The one seeks violent contests, the other the relief of mankind. The one places a single life above all the ambition of a single individual.
The law of which we are the instruments strives even through the carnage to cure the wounds due to the law of war. Treatment by our antiseptic methods may preserve the lives of thousands of soldiers. Which of these two laws will prevail, God only knows. But of this we may be sure, that science, in obeying the law of humanity, will always labor to enlarge the frontiers of life."
-Dr. Louis Pasteur, at the inauguration of the Pasteur Institute, 1888.

"Nature is too thin a screen; the glory of the omnipresent God bursts through everywhere." -Ralph Waldo Emerson.

"...as I became exposed to the law and order of the universe, I was literally humbled by its unerring perfection. I became convinced that there must be a divine intent behind it all... My experiences with science led me to God. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?"
-Dr. Wernher von Braun.

"When confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. For me that means Protestant Christianity, to which I was introduced as a child and which has withstood the tests of a lifetime. But religion is a great backyard for doing science. In the words of Psalm 19, "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth His handiwork." Thus scientific research is a worshipful act in that it reveals the wonders of God's creation."
-Arthur L. Schawlow, Nobel Laureate (Physics, 1981).

"This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists."
-G. G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode of Evolution (N.Y.: Columbia Univ., 1944), p. 106.

"To improve a living organism by random mutation is like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and bending one of its wheels or axis. Improving life by random mutations has the probability of zero."
-Albert Szent-Gyorgi, Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1937).

"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."
-Sir Ernst B. Chain, Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1945).

"It's such a deeply ingrained faith, such a strong dogma on which we are all raised from an early age. Interestingly, I've read a number of biographies of scientists who are leaders in both creationist and evolutionary thought. The overwhelming trend is that the leaders of evolutionary thought all make their living purely from evolutionary theory. They are 'specialists in evolution' and there is no way that you could see how someone whose entire life and reputation and livelihood were bound up with the theory could turn against it. On the other hand, the leaders of the creationist movement usually have made a name for themselves in some area of fundamental and applied science -- real science -- before moving into creation science."
-Kouznetsov, in Dr. Carl Wieland, "Interview with Dr. Dmitri Kouznetsov," Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 14, No. 1, p. 36.

"These days William Murray has little in common with his mother. He is a Christian, an evangelist, and would greatly like to see creation science taught alongside evolution in public schools.
'I think it's imperative that it is, because kids are being taught some kind of theory that changes every 10 years. I was taught in school one type of evolution, now the children are being taught another type. Creation science has much more credibility.'"
-Pastor William J. Murray, son of famous atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair, in Doolan, Robert, "My Mother: The Most Hated Woman in America!" Creation Ex Nihilo, Volume 15, No. 2, p. 37.

"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species."
-Dr. Etheridge, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, cited in Dr. Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution.

What do our enemies say about us? An ACLU member says:
"For the past five years, I have closely followed creationist literature and have attended lectures and debates on related issues.... based solely on the scientific arguments pro and con, I have been forced to conclude that scientific creationism is not only a viable theory, but that it has achieved parity with (if not superiority over) the normative theory of biological evolution. That this should now be the case is somewhat surprising, particularly in view of what most of us were taught in primary and secondary school.
In practical terms, the past decade of intense activity by scientific creationists has left most evolutionist professors unwilling to debate the creationist professors. Too many of the evolutionists have been publicly humiliated in such debates by their own lack of erudition and by the weaknesses of their theory."
-Robert E. Smith, "Origins and Civil Liberties," in Creation Social Sciences and Humanities Quarterly, 3 (Winter 1980): 23-24.

"Let me be blunt on this matter. Evolutionists around the world have had to learn the hard way that evolution cannot stand up against creationism in any fair and impartial debate situation where the stakes are the hearts and minds of intelligent, undecided - but nevertheless objective and open-minded - audiences. Experience will prove that the same is true for the age issue as well. Evolutionist beliefs regarding the origin and development of life cannot withstand the scrutiny of an informed opposition, and neither can evolutionist claims to the effect that the universe has existed for 10 to 20 billion years. To delay the collapse of widespread public acceptance of such claims, it will be necessary for evolutionist scientists carefully to avoid debate."
-Dr. Paul D. Ackerman, It's a Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 13.

"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science."
-Dr. Soren Lovtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), p. 422. (Note: Lovtrup is an evolutionist, albeit not an "orthodox" one.)

"...contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach."
-Dr. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985), p. 353, 354. (Note: Dr. Denton is neither a creationist nor a Christian.)

"It is a religion of science that Darwinism held, and holds men's minds... The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith."
-Marjorie Grene, Encounter, November 1959, p. 48.

"You will be greatly disappointed (by the forthcoming book); it will be grievously too hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service than collating some facts; though I myself think I see my way approximately on the origin of species. But, alas, how frequent, how almost universal it is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas."
-Charles Darwin, 1858, in a letter, regarding the concluding chapters of his The Origin of the Species. Quoted in "John Lofton's Journal," The Washington Times, February 8, 1984.

"If the word 'God' were written upon every blowing leaf, embossed on every passing cloud, engraved on every granite rock, the inductive evidence of God in the world would be no stronger than it is."
-Dr. E.A. Maness.

"It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence - an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered - 'In the beginning, God.'"
-Dr. Arthur H. Compton, Nobel Laureate (Physics).

"I cannot admit that, with regard to the origin of life, science neither affirms nor denies Creative Power. Science positively affirms Creative Power. It is not in dead matter that we live and move and have our being, but in the creating and directing Power which science compels us to accept as an article of belief."
-Lord Kelvin, Father of Thermodynamics and modern Physics.

"Do not be afraid of being free thinkers! If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all religion. You will find science not antagonistic but helpful to religion."
-Lord Kelvin.

"So many essential conditions are necessary for life to exist on our earth that it is mathematically impossible that all of them could exist in proper relationship by chance on any one earth at one time."
-Dr. A. Cressy Morrison, past president of the New York Academy of Sciences.

As a child, in kindergarten they tried to sell us the 'monkey' theory...the whole ape BS, and as a 5 year old I said the the teacher 'Baloney' (out of the mouths of babes comes praise and wisdom'.

Evolution just isnt plain common sense, like you try and convince me that the complexity of the brain, our tears, our smile, that all things have a signature similarity that we need to see, hear, eat, smell etc to function properly/survive.

Have a look at nature, the artwork of someone who is brilliant in design -- the author of the most beautiful landscape and colours.

We have intelligence, so don't tell me it just 'appeared' out of a blob from a big bang.

Someone with unmatchable intelligence made us, His name is God.

www.khouse.org -- have a peek there for Evolution understanding -- you'll soon find out its all a croc from a Scientific mind that needs proof before belief.

Faith is believing in something without seeing it, thats a heart revelation, not a head understanding.

SPOT ON! Keep speaking out.

I agree with you 100%......where they "get" us is they call it science....which it is not. Look up the definition of science and you will see that evolution fails the definition of science. Nothing in evolution theory is based on scientific principles.

Failure of the Evolution Theory as science:

1) They use circular reasoning often....especially in dating things
2) No lab demostrations that even the building blocks of life can ever be made of basic chemicals.
3) There are no transitional species observed so since the theory requires such and have never been found...it's falty logic to assume it's got to be true and we'll eventually find them.
4) All evidence to transitional species have been proven false as hoaxes

It is a theory and a religion.....bad ones at that

"Fundies" know so little about evolution, it's truly astonishing!

1) Information regarding the form and function of an organism is contained in and controlled by DNA.

2) DNA is subject to mutation by a variety of causes.

3) Some mutations of DNA can be passed from parent to child

4) An organism's likelihood of survival will depend on how well adapted it is to its environment.



If you disagree with any of these statements, please explain why. If you agree with all of them, then you are a Darwinist.

Thats the funniest thing Ive seen here on GLP, the last para!!!!

4) All evidence to transitional species have been proven false as hoaxes
--------------------

What is archaeopteryx? A bird or a reptile?

Archaeopteryx is an extinct bird.

Get the facts:

[link to www.livingwaters.com]

How come it has teeth?

You SERIOUSLY need to learn about DNA.

You also are misinformed about evolution.

Here are some great videos I would love to get your opinion on:

[link to www.leestrobel.com]

Now that I've got your attention:

1) Information regarding the form and function of an organism is contained in and controlled by DNA.

2) DNA is subject to mutation by a variety of causes.

3) Some mutations of DNA can be passed from parent to child

4) An organism's likelihood of survival will depend on how well adapted it is to its environment.



If you disagree with any of these statements, please explain why. If you agree with all of them, then you are a Darwinist.

Hey, Dr_Kynes, do you believe in gravity??? --- Just wondering.

So which of the 4 statements do you disagree with, and why?

Archaeopteryx (unlike Archaeoraptor) is NOT a hoax—it is a true bird, not a “missing link”

by Jonathan Sarfati, AiG–Australia

24 March 2000


Artist’s impression of Archaeopteryx, by Steve Cardno

With all the publicity about the Archaeoraptor fiasco (see Archaeoraptor Hoax Update—National Geographic Recants!), some have recalled the 1986 claim by Sir Fred Hoyle and Dr Chandra Wickramasinghe that Archaeopteryx is a forgery.1 Archaeopteryx is one of the most famous of the alleged transitional forms promoted by evolutionists. This is probably why some anti-Darwinians are keen to dismiss it as a forgery.

However, in the article, Bird evolution flies out the window, the creationist anatomist Dr David Menton shows that Archaeopteryx is a true bird with flight feathers, not a transitional form—and certainly not a feathered dinosaur. And Dr Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself (see Feduccia v Creationists), says:

“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”2

Both these expert scientists totally reject the charge of forgery. Dr Menton points out that the Archaeopteryx bones have tiny bumps where the feathers were attached to the bones by ligaments. This was unexpected, so impossible to attribute to a forgery. So it is simply wrong to say that the feathers are just imprints added to a dino skeleton.

Also, Alan Fedducia, in his encyclopedic The Origin and Evolution of Birds,3 cites a number of reasons why Fred Hoyle is completely wrong. For example, limestone often contains dendritic (tree-like) patterns formed by precipitating manganese dioxide, and they are unique as are snowflakes. Some of them are on both the slab and counterslab containing the Solnhofen Archaeopteryx fossil, including some on top of the feather imprints. Alan Charig et al. found that when he backwardly printed a negative photograph of the counterslab dendrite patterns, they match perfectly with the corresponding dendrites of the main slab. Therefore the dendrites must have formed on the bedding plane before the slab was split.

Since that book, more recent evidence has even further devastated the hoax theory:

The skeletons had pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis. This indicates the presence of both a cervical and abdominal air sac, i.e. at least two of the five sacs present in modern birds. This in turn indicates that the unique avian lung design was already present in what most evolutionists claim is the earliest bird.4 An evolutionist trying to forge a dinosaur with feathers would not have thought to pneumatize allegedly reptilian bones. Rather, the evidence supports the creationist view that birds have always been birds.

Analysis of the skull with computer tomography (CT) scanning shows that Archaeopteryx had a brain like a modern bird’s, three times the size of that of a dinosaur of equivalent size (although smaller than that of living birds). Archaeopteryx even had large optic lobes to process the visual input needed for flying. Furthermore, even the inner ear had a cochlea length and semicircular canal propoprtions were in the range of a modern flying bird’s. This implies that Archaeopteryx could hear in a similar way, and also had the sense of balance required for coordinating flight.5 Pterosaurs likewise had similar brain structures for flight—the large optic lobes, semicircular canals for balance, and huge floccular lobes, probably for coordination of the head, eye and neck allowing gaze-stabilization while flying.6 Once more, a forger adding feathers to a dino would not have thought to make an avian braincase, while it is yet another problem for evolutionists.

Hey I have a question for you:

You have enough blind faith to believe that life just popped into existence from nonlife, and that such life just happened to have the ability to take in the nourishment it needed, to expel waste, and to reproduce itself, all the while having everything it needed to survive in the environment in which it found itself?

Do birds have teeth?

Hmm...now just why would I appreciate something which has no scientific value or practical use and has been used by people like Hitler and Stalin to exterminate people based on one of the evolution mantra clauses "survival of the fittest"

I took biology in grade school (8th grade) I learned alot of practical things in that class which serve me to this day. Not one of the things I learned in that class was about evolution and it was taught by a secular teacher.

Their is one lesson I did learn from the theory of evolution

AND THAT IS THIS:

It never amazes me the lengths at which sinful man will go to try to run away from the Creator.....this is the only thing evolution theory has ever taught me.

Seminar Part 4: "Lies in the Textbooks"
[link to www.youtube.com]

1) Information regarding the form and function of an organism is contained in and controlled by DNA.

2) DNA is subject to mutation by a variety of causes.

3) Some mutations of DNA can be passed from parent to child

4) An organism's likelihood of survival will depend on how well adapted it is to its environment.



If you disagree with any of these statements, please explain why. If you agree with all of them, then you are a Darwinist.

The reason I keep asking this is that you say you don't believe in evolution, yet you apparently agree with these 4 statements, which are all that you need to believe to agree with evolution being true.

1) Information regarding the form and function of an organism is contained in and controlled by DNA.

2) DNA is subject to mutation by a variety of causes.

3) Some mutations of DNA can be passed from parent to child

4) An organism's likelihood of survival will depend on how well adapted it is to its environment.



If you disagree with any of these statements, please explain why. If you agree with all of them, then you are a Darwinist.

Why do evolutionists have one fossil (Archaeopteryx) of an extinct bird that they always try to trot out whenever we ask for transitional forms?

First of all, Archaeopteryx has been debunked so many times it's not even funny. Here is an example:

[link to www.icr.org]

Secondly, if evolution was TRUE, then there are MILLIONS of transitional fossils. Darwin said that his theory would only be true IF the fossil record showed it?

Where are they?

Instead, evolutionists pull out Archaeopteryx and a couple other tired examples and try to persuade us.

But where are the millions of fossils that should be there?

Oh......that's right......THEY DON'T EXIST.

And I have been asking for weeks for some evolutionist to please give me their explanation for the "Cambrian explosion" problem.

Maybe if I ask pretty please?

The reality is that a lot of evolution believers will feel that sinking feeling in their stomach when they start doing the research.......that sinking feeling that tells them that they have believed a fraud.

So you still believe evolution? You still believe that life instantly appeared out of nonlife, and that life was instantly able to take in sustenance, eliminate waste, reproduce itself and be able to thrive in whatever environment it suddenly found itself?

Wow.....that sounds like it takes a lot of blind faith. Too much blind faith for me to buy into it.

Learn About DNA?? THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST DNA? THE DNA THAT DID NOT PROVE O.J. SIMPSON CASE? THIS SAME DNA YOU ALL WAITIN' FOR WHO THE FATHER OF ANNA NICOLE SMITH'S BABY?
OH, FOR HEAVEN'S SAKES SHIP THOSE MEN TO MAURY PROVICH SHOW, MAYBE THE GREAT DNA MAY FORETELL WHO'S THAT BABY'S DADDY REALLY IS!

There are lots of transitional fossils. All I have to do is name one to disprove the claim that there are none. And as of yet, nobody has explained to me why something with feathers and teeth isn't transitional.

And all the anti-evolutionists keep dodging this:

1) Information regarding the form and function of an organism is contained in and controlled by DNA.

2) DNA is subject to mutation by a variety of causes.

3) Some mutations of DNA can be passed from parent to child

4) An organism's likelihood of survival will depend on how well adapted it is to its environment.



If you disagree with any of these statements, please explain why. If you agree with all of them, then you are a Darwinist.

We are not descendants of monkeys.

No evolutionist claims that we are.

If Lucy is are ancestor, why are their fossilized bones of 10 to 20 foot tall human beings older than Lucy popping up all over the world and the government is keeping this quiet?