In its July, 2002 issue,
the magazine Scientific American published
an article titled "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense."
Yet that aggressive piece of writing actually contained
no scientific answers to creationism at all, and merely
demonstrated the fanaticism and bigotry of the Darwinist
establishment
An interesting article appeared in the July,
2002, issue of Scientific American, one of the prominent
scientific journals. Written by editor in chief John Rennie,
"15
Answers to Creationist Nonsense" contained important
examples of Darwinist dogmatism. Beginning with its very
title, the article and its aggressive style was a living
proof of something we have been stating for years: Darwinists
are tied to the theory of evolution in a totally dogmatic
manner. Their intolerant reactions to criticism are the
result of that philosophical rigidity.
In this essay, you will find the errors, misconceptions
and even the tricks in the Scientific American article
in question.
Avoiding Difficult
Questions
If you are going to reply to 15 questions regarding
a thesis you oppose, then you will be expected to deal with
each one in a tangible manner. If, on the other hand, you
come up with imaginary questions and waste time with the
answers to them, then your readers will naturally come to
doubt your credibility. Avoiding getting to grips with the
real questions is a sign that you are trying to deceive
yourself or your readers.
Scientific American's "15 Answers to
Creationist Nonsense" is just such an example of "avoiding
the truth." Right from the start, a number of those questions
reveal that this is what is going on:
"Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact
or a scientific law."
"Evolution is unscientific, because it is not
testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that
were not observed and can never be re-created."
"If humans descended from monkeys, why are
there still monkeys?"
None of the above are objections expressed
by critics of the theory of evolution. Everyone who offers
serious criticism knows what the concept of "theory" actually
means, and accepts that scientific research into events
in the past cannot be carried out by means of observation
and recreation. In the same way, no scientists who seriously
criticize the Darwinist thesis as regards the origin of
man would ever offer such a ridiculous objection as "If
humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"
John Rennie, the author of the article, should
no doubt be well aware of this. Yet the way that he puts
the above three statements forward as "creationist objections"
and imagines that he has given satisfactory replies to them
shows that he is "tilting at windmills." If he really wants
to "reply to the creationists" then he needs to reply to
such real questions as how it is that nearly all animal
phyla suddenly appeared in the Cambrian without any trace
of evolutionary ancestors; why not one example of a mutation
that developed the genetic information of living things
has ever been encountered; or why no trace has been found
of the billions of intermediate form fossils that Darwin
anticipated.
The truth about the questions that Rennie has
tried to reply to, most of which can again be seen as "easy
questions," is set out below.
Rennie's Misconception
About Natural Selection - I (Question 2)
Two of John Rennie's questions are to do with
the concept of natural selection. In the first of these,
(Question 2) he tries to respond to the objection that natural
selection is a tautology. In the second, (Question 11) he
tries to reply to the objection that natural selection can
bring about micro-evolution but not macro-evolution.
In the first case, the only reference Rennie
is able to provide is Peter P. Grant's well known observations
of finches in the Galapagos Islands. Rennie describes this
example as "population shifts in the wild," and counts it
as evidence for evolution with natural selection. However,
Grant's studies demonstrated only that the finch populations
in the Galapagos Islands "fluctuated" according to the changes
in natural conditions, in other words, that they did not
develop in any particular direction. Furthermore, they also
revealed that the 13 different species identified in the
finch population actually came under a far smaller number
of species, and that the different species in question were
tending to converge. That means that natural selection has
not brought about evolution (in other words development
in one particular direction and thus the emergence of a
new species) on the Galapagos Islands.
In his meticulous book Icons of Evolution,
biologist Jonathan Wells considered all the details of Grant's
work and came to the conclusions we have outlined above.
The fact that Rennie is nevertheless still doggedly putting
forward Grant's Galapagos observations is nothing less than
an admission of despair.
Rennie's Misconception
About Natural Selection - II (Question 11)
The sleight of hand in Rennie's second question
on natural selection is particularly noteworthy. The question
reads,
"Natural selection might explain microevolution,
but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher
orders of life."
Rennie's response to this rests on the concept
of "allopatric speciation" put forward by Ernst Mayr.
In order to clarify the error here, we need
to define the concept of "allopatric speciation" and its
basic concept, "geographic isolation." It is well
known that every living species has within it differences
stemming from genetic variation. If a geographic obstacle
arises between members of a species, in other words if they
are "isolated" from one another, then it is very probable
that different variations will begin to predominate in the
two groups that are now separated from each other. Despite
being from the same species, such variations with specific
morphological differences between them (name them as "variation
A" and "variation B") are called "sub-species."
The claim of speciation that Rennie talks about
enters the equation after that point. Sometimes, variations
A and B that have split from one another due to geographic
isolation are unable to reproduce when they are brought
back into contact again. According to contemporary biology's
definition of "species," since they are unable to reproduce,
they are no longer different "sub-species," but 'different
species.' This is called speciation.
Two important points arise here:
1) Variations A and B, isolated from one another,
may not be able to reproduce when brought together. Yet
this generally stems from "reproductive behavior."
For that reason, they are still, genetically speaking, members
of the same species. (In fact, for that reason, the concept
of "species" continues to be a matter of debate in the scientific
community)
2) The really important point is that the
"speciation" in question means a loss of genetic information
rather than an increase. The cause of speciation is
not that new genetic information has been acquired by one
or both variations. There is no such addition of genetic
information. On the contrary, instead of a population that
previously had a larger gene pool, there are now two different
populations with reduced gene pools.
That is why the "speciation" that Rennie refers
to as an example of evolution actually offers the theory
of evolution no support at all. The theory of evolution
claims that all living species developed by chance mutations
and natural selection from the simple to the complex. In
order for the theory to be taken seriously, therefore, it
needs to propose "mechanisms that create and increase genetic
information."
Having dealt with that matter, let us now turn
to Rennie's second error (or rather deception).
You will notice that Rennie expresses the "creationist
question" 11 in these terms, "Natural selection might
explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin
of new species and higher orders of life." In other
words, he is speaking about the origins of both species
and "higher orders of life."
Yet in his reply, he only mentions the origin
of species! (And that, as we saw above, is a totally inadequate
account) Rennie never mentions the origins of genera, families,
orders, classes or phyla, all of which are higher categories
than species, and offers no explanation at all.
This is in all probability intended to convince
less careful readers. People who read the "15 questions"
but cannot bring themselves to read the long (but empty)
answers that follow them will imagine that Rennie has actually
responded to them all.
The way that the proponents of Darwinism resort
to such methods once again reveals the terrible straits
the theory finds itself in.
Rennie's last account on the subject of natural
selection suggested that there could be evolutionary mechanisms
outside natural selection. The only example he gave consisted
of speculation on the origin of mitochondria that evolutionists
have long been engaged in. The fact that he resorts to speculation
and not evidence to support the theory of evolution, which
is itself speculation, is self-explanatory.
The Origin of
Man and the Evolutionary Impasse (Question 3)
In the third question, John Rennie touches
on the origin of man, and writes:
... evolution implies that between the earliest-known
ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and
the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000
years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures
with features progressively less apelike and more modern,
which is indeed what the fossil record shows.
However, the fact that evolutionists can place
creatures that lived in the past in an order to suit their
theory does not demonstrate that those living things actually
underwent such a process of evolution. That opinion is shared
by Nature magazine editor Henry Gee, one of John
Rennie's fellow evolutionists. In his book In Search
of Deep Time, (1999) Gee points out that all the evidence
for human evolution "between about 10 and 5 million years
ago-several thousand generations of living creatures-can
be fitted into a small box." He concludes that conventional
theories of the origin and development of human beings are
"a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped
to accord with human prejudices", and adds:
To take a line of fossils and
claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific
hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries
the same validity as a bedtime story-amusing, perhaps
even instructive, but not scientific. (1)
Recently, Gee also made a very
important comment on the new skull fossil found in Chad
(Sahelanthropus tchadensis) and its implications
for the theory of evolution. According to Gee, "Whatever
the outcome, the skull shows, once and for all, that
the old idea of a 'missing link' is bunk".(2)
He also explains that the there is no evidence for the idea
of human evolution in the fossil record; It is simply a
projection created according to evolutionist assumptions:
It is suspected that the last
common ancestor of humans and our closest living relatives,
the chimpanzees, lived around 7m years ago. We know
this not from direct fossil evidence, but from studying
the small differences in the otherwise similar genes of
humans and chimps, and estimating the time needed for
these differences to accrue. Looking at the fossil
evidence itself, we see a huge and frustrating gap.
(3)
The closer one examines John Rennie's words,
the more evolutionist frustrations become apparent.
Why Just A Few
Dare to Speak Out? (Question 4)
Another argument offered by Rennie as he tries
to defend Darwinism is that the theory of evolution is widely
accepted by the scientific world.
There are generally two different reasons for
an opinion's commanding widespread support. Either there
is a great deal of evidence for it, or else the system somehow
imposes it on people. It is the second of these that applies
in the "widespread scientific support" behind the theory
of evolution. The academic world is laboring under a heavy
misconception in believing that science is equivalent to
materialist philosophy. The leaders of the scientific establishment
impose that error on other scientists. In such an environment
that regards opposing evolution as opposing science, then
how are scientists to offer any free criticism of the theory?
Even John Rennie's own writing bears the traces
of this ideological dictatorship. The title of his article
refers to creation as "nonsense." When a scientific journal
employs a headline of that sort, can one really say that
the matter in question is being treated in a climate of
free debate? Rennie grows even more aggressive in the introduction,
and says that defending creation is as unscientific as defending
"flat earth cosmology." In the body of his article, he speaks
in terms of "dishonest creationists." (Page 65) In such
a climate of ideological pressure, how can scientists criticize
Darwinism when they have to publish their articles in scientific
magazines? How many people can take the risk to say "The
emperor has no clothes"?
Consequently, the graph in Rennie's article
which purports to show that belief in creation declines
with peoples' educational level (Page 65) is nothing more
than a statement of the dictatorship of Darwinist thought.
Nothing could be more natural than for an education system
dominated by Darwinists to produce Darwinist individuals.
Yet one good thing about science is that such
dogmatism never succeeds for long. The cracks in the foundations
of the Darwinist temple are a sign that free science will
soon tear that dogma down.
Why do Evolutionists
Confess? (Question 5)
As John Rennie tries to remove all doubts about
Darwinism from his readers' mind, he brings up the subject
of quotations taken from evolutionist authorities by creationists,
and claims that these are invariably distorted. In Rennie's
view, scientific authorities whose works are quoted are
always evolutionists, but that "dishonest creationists"
try to portray these people as being opponents of evolution.
Whereas the truth of the matter is very different.
Creationists do not try to portray the evolutionist authorities
from whom they take extracts as being opposed to evolution.
Stephen Jay Gould, Alan Feduccia or Henry Gee… Nobody claims
such scientists are opposed to evolution. Yet these and
many other similar supporters of evolution have seen and
spoken about the deficiencies in the theory of evolution.
Nothing could be more natural than for their comments on
such matters to be made use of.
The reason for the great number of such quotations
is that the theory of evolution is a mass of speculation.
Since there is no concrete evidence for the theory, evolutionists
engage in speculation on just about every aspect of it.
Since that speculation does not conform to the available
facts, gaps keep emerging, and various scientists report
on the fact. This is the reason of why we have so many quotes
doubting evolution in a committed Darwinist establishment.
The Origin of
Life and John Rennie's Wriggling (Question 7)
Following all the speculation in the first
six of his 15 questions, Rennie finally comes to an important
matter in Question 7; The Origin of Life. How did the first
living thing emerge?
All that Rennie does in the face of that question
is to sum up in a few sentences the scenario that evolutionists
have been putting forward ever since the time of Alexander
Oparin in the 1920s. After admitting that "The origin of
life remains very much a mystery," Rennie tries to make
the scenario credible by saying, "... but biochemists have
learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and
other building blocks of life could have formed and organized
themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units,
laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry."
Rennie is quite right to gloss over such an
important subject as the origin of life in this superficial
way, because he has no way of going into details. If we
analyze the above statement, we can see just how unrealistic
Rennie's claim actually is:
1) First of all, contrary to what Rennie claims,
the question of how "primitive nucleic acids, amino acids
and other building blocks of life" emerged in the primitive
atmosphere on earth is a terrible dilemma for evolutionists.
They used to think the problem had been resolved in the
primordial atmosphere experiments by Stanley Miller and
his successors. Yet in the 1970s it was realized that the
primordial atmosphere was not based on methane-ammonia and
that it contained large amounts of oxygen, for which reason
it emerged that it was impossible for even the simplest
organic molecules, such as amino acids, to be synthesized.
2) If we assume that simple building blocks
such as nucleic acids or amino acids did somehow synthesize
in the primitive atmosphere (or had come from outer space,
as Rennie claimed after the above lines), that hypothesis
still does not benefit the theory of evolution in any way.
The problem is one of how these simple organic compounds
came to turn into a living cell of incredible complexity
and containing genetic information? Contrary to Rennie's
claim, organic molecules have never been observed to "organize
themselves" and turn into self-reproducing, living organisms.
No observation, experiment or even theoretical study has
ever been performed that might suggest that could ever happen.
In short, Rennie's argument about the origin
of life is quite worthless. Moreover, the following lines
from the end of the topic are of great interest, both as
an admission of defeat and an indication of his prejudice
against creation:
"Creationists sometimes try to invalidate
all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability
to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth
turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance,
if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years
ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed
by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies."
Interesting truths begin to emerge when we
analyze these lines:
The Darwinist camp can not go further than Miller's
now refuted experiment. |
1) Rennie talks about a "current inability
to explain the origin of life". In other words, he hopes
that the problem is temporary and one day in the future,
facts in favor of evolution will be discovered. Giving such
a hostage to future confirms that belief in evolution stems
not from scientific discoveries but philosophical assumptions.
This attitude of Rennie's is no different to that of the
dogmatic Marxist who sees that Karl Marx's theories totally
fail to fit the current social and political facts, but
who nevertheless expects the awaited "proletarian revolution"
to happen one day in the future.
2) Rennie admits that intelligent design could
account for the origin of life and that science may well
reach that conclusion, but for some reason he chooses to
suggest aliens as the source of that design. The "aliens"
theory turns up again in Rennie's article (in his reply
to Question 3). The interesting thing is that Rennie is
quite happy to admit the possibility of the existence of
an intelligent design created by aliens, but totally rejects
the intervention of a metaphysical Creator. This once again
reveals that Rennie's devotion to Darwinism and his reaction
to the concept of creation actually stem from his philosophical
prejudices against Theism.
3) Rennie's acceptance that intelligent design
might be behind the origin of life but his rejection of
it during the subsequent course of natural history is a
thoroughly prejudiced and unscientific position. That is
because there is just as much evidence for intelligent design
in the origin of very many other complex organic systems
as there is for that of life itself. Rennie's use of such
expressions as "robustly confirmed" in order to gloss over
these facts but still to impress his readers, are no solution
at all.
Rennie's Dawkins-Style
Tricks (Question 8)
The theory of evolution's greatest error of
all is the idea that living things are the product of unconscious
natural mechanisms. Rennie attempts to deal with that objection
in Question 8, but merely ends up disappointing himself.
Rennie's response to the objection that the complexity in
living things cannot be explained by chance takes this form:
"Chance plays a part in evolution (for example,
in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits),
but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms,
proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural
selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution,
harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive)
features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones."
That is no answer at all, since it is something
known to everyone. According to the theory of evolution,
all living things were produced by "chance" (mutations)
and natural selection, which is presumed to select the most
beneficial of these.
The problem is this: Natural Selection is not
a conscious mechanism. If it is therefore to select a chance
change, this has to provide the organism with an effective
advantage. Yet many complex organs in living things provide
no advantage at all unless they are fully formed. It is
therefore impossible for natural selection to make a selection
in that direction. (It also remains to say that natural
selection played no part in the origin of life because there
was no life or competition around in the so-called "prebiotic
soup".)
Rennie tries to cover up this gaping hole in
the theory of evolution, and employs the same trick as those
of Richard Dawkins. The example he gives is that the phrase
'TOBEORNOTTOBE' was formed by a computer using the selection
method in 336 goes.
Do evolutionists really believe in such examples?
Or are they compelled to employ them in order to save face
in front of not well informed readers? One wonders ... The
above example is banal and based on an evident deception.
The computer that came up with 'TOBEORNOTTOBE' was programmed
to do so. The ultimate result was predetermined from the
start. The programme places letters into 13 blank spaces
at random, but it selects a letter when it moves into its
pre-ordained position. In other words, it knows that the
first letter is T before 'TOBEORNOTTOBE' comes into being,
selects T when one appears in that position, and leaves
it there.
In short, there is a predetermined plan and
a selection mechanism working consciously according to this
plan. However, the theory of evolution maintains that living
things emerged with no predetermined plan and by an unconscious
selection mechanism. Therefore, Rennie's argument is, at
least, ridiculous.
Rennie's Misconceptions
About The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Question 9)
Evolutionists' claims regarding thermodynamics
are based on a classic case of error and deception, and
John Rennie repeats them.
The first error consists of ignoring the difference
between ordered and organized systems. Rennie cites the
examples of mineral crystals and snowflakes, and says that
these "complex structures" emerge spontaneously through
natural processes. Yet these are not complex systems, but
organized ones.
We can make this clear with an example. Imagine
a completely flat beach on the seashore. When a strong wave
hits the beach, mounds of sand, large and small, form bumps
on the surface of the sand. This is a process of "ordering".
The seashore is an open system, and the energy flow (the
wave) that enters it can form simple patterns in the sand,
which may look regular. From the thermodynamic point of
view, the wave can set up order here where before there
was none. But we must make it clear that those same waves
cannot build a castle on the beach. If we see a castle there,
we are in no doubt that someone has constructed it, because
the castle is an "organized" system.
Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley and Roger
L. Olsen, in their book titled The Mystery of Life's
Origin, explain why analogies from self-ordering cases
(like the snow flake) does not account for the origin of
biological complexity:
... such analogies have scant
relevance to the origin-of-life question. A major reason
is that they fail to distinguish between order and complexity...
Regularity or order cannot serve to store the large amount
of information required by living systems. A highly irregular,
but specified, structure is required rather than an ordered
structure. This is a serious flaw in the analogy offered.
There is no apparent connection between the kind of spontaneous
ordering that occurs from energy flow through such systems
and the work required to build aperiodic information-intensive
macromolecules like DNA and protein. (4)
John Rennie's claim regarding open systems
is also a classic evolutionist error. Yes, entropy may decrease
in open systems that receive energy from the outside, but
specific mechanisms are needed to make the energy functional.
For instance, a car needs an engine, a transmission system,
and related control mechanisms to convert the energy in
oil to work. Without such an energy conversion system, the
car will not be able to use the energy stored in oil.
The same thing applies in the case of life
as well. It is true that life derives its energy from the
sun. However, solar energy can only be converted into chemical
energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion systems
in living things (such as photosynthesis in plants and the
digestive systems of humans and animals). Without an energy
conversion system, the sun is nothing but a source of destructive
energy that burns, parches, or melts.
The Ultimate Problem
About Mutations (Question 10)
In question 10, John Rennie tries to give the
appearance of having answered one of the most fundamental
questions facing the theory of evolution. The problem is
that mutations never increase living things' genetic information.
Rennie, naturally enough, maintains the opposite, and suggests
that mutations can bring about such an increase (and therefore
evolution itself). Of course he needs to find examples if
that is to be taken seriously, but the ones he comes up
with are not valid.
Rennie's first example is bacterial
resistance to antibiotics. That is in any case one of the
most popular themes in evolutionist propaganda. But it is
flawed. It is true that bacteria can sometimes develop a
resistance to antibiotics by means of mutations, but these
mutations do not add the bacteria any new genetic information.
On the contrary, they lead to morphological degeneration
in them. As with the case of immunity to streptomycin revealed
in great detail by the Israeli biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner:
Bacterial resistance to streptomycin stems from a mutation
that affects the ribozome and structurally damages it. Even
if this mutation benefits the bacteria in terms of antibiotic
immunity, it nevertheless represents a genetic reduction
that reduces the functioning of the ribosome. As Dr. Spetner
has made clear, mutations such as these are not what the
theory of evolution needs. (5)
The invalidity of Rennie's second example on
the subject of mutations can be seen from his own words:
"In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation
called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae
should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional,
but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes
can produce complex structures, which natural selection
can then test for possible uses."
Everybody is aware that mutations can bring
about major morphological changes in living things. The
question is this: Do the morphological changes brought about
by these mutations grant living things any increase in genetic
information and beneficial features? No! There are no such
examples. In fact, Rennie confesses that, and says that
the mutations in question produced non-functional (in other
words crippled) legs growing from where the antennae should
have been in flies. How can anyone believe that a process
that cripples creatures could have led them to evolve? And
how can Rennie suggest that as evidence for evolution?
In his last paragraph on mutations, Rennie
speaks of greater genetic changes going beyond point mutations.
Yet the question is still the same. Such changes have never
been observed to increase the genetic information in a living
thing. In this case, Rennie does not even try to offer an
example.
What he has to say about globin is nothing
but a reflection of evolutionist speculation. This speculation
begins with comparative analyses of the DNA in living things,
and comes up with an evolutionary connection in their globin
structures. On close inspection however, this turns out
to be circular reasoning. The evolutionary family relationships
built on these comparative DNA analyses rest on the assumption
that living things descended from a common ancestor. Portraying
these theoretical relationships, which are constructed on
the assumption that evolution is true, as evidence for evolution
is simply expressing the same claim in another way, a tautology
The Question
of Transitional Forms (Question 13)
In question 13, John Rennie attempts to deal
with the problem of transitional forms, one of the major
stumbling blocks facing the theory of evolution, and is
similarly unable to provide a satisfactory response. The
following shows the true position of the "intermediate forms"
he suggests:
Archaeopteryx: Rennie writes that Archaeopteryx,
a candidate for the title of the greatest transitional form
of all time, was an intermediate form between reptiles and
birds, but that "creationists" refuse to accept this, calling
it "just an extinct bird with reptilian features." The fact
is, however, that it is not only "creationists" who say
that, but also world-renowned ornithologists who have examined
the matter in great detail. Alan Feduccia, one of the foremost
names in ornithology, shares that view regarding Archaeopteryx.
"Feathered Dinos" were not feathered at all, like
the fossil forgery above, Archaeoraptor |
In fact, a considerable body
of evidence has emerged to demonstrate the invalidity of
the claim that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form.
As Feduccia has stated, "Most recent workers who have studied
various anatomical features of Archaeopteryx have
found the creature to be much more birdlike than previously
imagined," and "the resemblance of Archaeopteryx to theropod
dinosaurs has been grossly overestimated."(6)
Another problem regarding Archaeopteryx is that the
theropod dinosaurs, which many evolutionists regard as its
ancestors, emerge after Archaeopteryx in the fossil
record, and not before it.
On the other hand, the tale of
"feathered dinosaurs" that John Rennie refers to is nothing
more than evolutionist speculation. All of the fossils that
have been put forward as "feathered dinosaurs" in the last
10 years are debatable. Detailed studies have revealed that
the structures portrayed as "feathers" are actually collagen
fibers.(7)
Such speculation all stems from evolutionist
prejudice. As Feduccia has said, "Many dinosaurs have been
portrayed with a coating of aerodynamic contour feathers
with absolutely no documentation."(8)
(One of the so-called 'feathered dinosaurs'
in question, namely Archaeoraptor, turned out to be a fossil
forgery). Feduccia sums the position up in these terms,
"Finally, no feathered dinosaur has ever been found, although
many dinosaur mummies with well-preserved skin are known
from diverse localities." (9)
Horse Series: The horse
series that John Rennie portrayed as an important proof
of evolution is actually a terrible blunder on his part.
That is because the horse series that makes up a so-called
evolutionary process from Eohippus to the present-day
horse (Equus) has actually been accepted as erroneous
by a great many evolutionist authorities. For example, evolutionist
science writer Gordon R. Taylor acknowledged that "… the
line from Eohippus to Equus is very erratic. It is
alleged to show a continual increase in size, but the truth
is that some variants were smaller than Eohippus,
not larger. Specimens from different sources can be brought
together in a convincing-looking sequence, but there is
no evidence that these were actually ranged in this order
in time." (10)
The Origin of Whales: Rennie also includes
the scenario concerning the evolution of whales as an example
of proven evolution. Yet that, too, is nothing more than
evolutionist speculation. There are great morphological
differences between the land mammal Ambulocetus and
such archaic whales as Rodhocetus, the alleged descendant
of the former. The details of the matter were examined in
my article "A
Whale Fantasy from National Geographic"
The Origin of Molluscs:
This, also glossed over by Rennie as an example of evolution,
is actually another dilemma facing the theory. These shelled
creatures that make up the phylum Mollusca are divided
into eight separate classes, and all of these emerged suddenly
in the Cambrian Period, just like most living phyla and
classes. Even the determinedly evolutionist Encyclopedia
Britannica accepts that there is no fossil evidence
for the evolution of molluscs in the words: "The fossil
record gives little clue as to how the molluscs originated
and how the eight classes differentiated in Precambrian
times. The evolutionary pathway must thus be largely inferred
from comparative anatomy and development." (11)
The Origin of Man: Rennie claims that
20 or more hominids fill the gap between Lucy and modern
man. Yet the truth is that there is no line from Australopithecus
to man (Homo sapiens).
One indication of this is that
the categories between Australopithecus and Homo sapiens
(like Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis or Homo
erectus) are exceedingly speculative and debatable.
An article by the evolutionary paleoanthropologists Bernard
Wood and Mark Collard, published in Science in 1999, maintained
that the Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis
categories were imaginary, and that the fossils ascribed
to them needed to be transferred to the genus Australopithecus.(12) Milford Wolpoff of the University of
Michigan and Alan Thorne of the University of Canberra are
of the belief that Homo erectus is an imaginary category,
and that the fossils ascribed to it are actually variations
of Homo sapiens.(13)
This means that there are no other hominids between Australopithecus,
an extinct species of ape, and Homo sapiens, including
modern man and his racial variations. In other words, mankind
has no evolutionary origins.
Another fact that invalidates
the claim of a direct line between Australopithecus and
modern man (Homo sapiens), is that the categories alleged
to have followed one another actually lived at the same
time. The latest evidence to demonstrate that was the discovery
published in Science magazine that fossils named as Homo
habilis, Homo ergaster and Homo erectus
have lived at the same time. Reid Fleming, of the University
of North Texas, who led the research, sums up the significance
of that discovery in this way, "This was completely unexpected,
because until now, prevailing scientific views placed habilis,
ergaster and erectus into an evolutionary sequence." (14)
Molecular Biology and the Evolutionary Family
Tree: Rennie must have been aware of the feeble nature
of his claims on fossils, since he then sought to find support
from molecular biology in his search for evidence of evolution.
His argument was based on genetic similarities and he claimed
that, "structures of these genes and their products diverge
among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships."
Yes, that is indeed what evolutionists expect
from molecular biology - in other words that living things
closely related according to the theory of evolution will
have very similar molecules. Yet the facts demonstrate the
exact opposite. Recent molecular discoveries have produced
results totally at odds with the 150-year-old evolutionary
family tree.
According to a 1999 article
by French biologists Hervé Philippe and Patrick Forterre,
"with more and more sequences available, it turned out that
most protein phylogenies contradict each other as well
as the rRNA tree." (15)
Neither the comparisons that have been made
of proteins, nor those of rRNAs or of genes, confirm the
premises of the theory of evolution. Carl Woese, a biologist
from the University of Illinois, admits that;
No consistent organismal
phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein
phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities
can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its
root to the major branchings within and among the various
(groups) to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.
(16)
The fact that results of molecular
comparisons are not in favor of, but rather opposed to,
the theory of evolution is also admitted in an article called
"Is it Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?" published in Science
in 1999. This article by Elizabeth Pennisi states that the
genetic analyses and comparisons carried out by Darwinist
biologists in order to shed light on the "tree of life"
actually yielded directly opposite results, and goes on
to say that "new data are muddying the evolutionary picture"
(17)
In short, molecular comparisons between living
things all work against the theory of evolution, in total
contrast to what John Rennie claims.
The Origin of
the Eye and the Non-Evolution of the Evolutinary Theory
(Question 14)
In Question 14, Rennie enters the field of
irreducible complexity and mentions the origin of the eye,
which has always been an unsurpassable hurdle for evolutionists.
Rennie's account is nothing but a repetition of speculation
put forward by Charles Darwin 150 years ago: The claim that
"primitive" eyes with very poor vision existed in nature
and that more complex eyes might have evolved from these.
However, clear evidence to disprove that claim
has emerged since Darwin's day:
Evolutionists are still leaning on Darwin's primitive
arguments on the complexity of nature. |
1) Natural history reveals that
the first eye identified on earth was not primitive at all,
but actually had an extraordinarily complex structure. That
eye structure in question was the double-lens compound eyes
of the trilobites. The nuclear physicist and trilobite aficionado
Levi-Setti states that: "the refracting interface between
the two lens elements in a trilobite's eye was designed
in accordance with optical constructions worked out by Descartes
and Huygens in the mid-seventeenth century".(18)
The most striking feature of these eyes, described as a
marvel of optical design, is that they have no primitive
form behind them, but rather emerged suddenly.
2) Even light-sensitive cells
that Darwin referred to as "primitive eyes" actually possess
an extraordinarily complex structure. Even the most "primitive"
eye is an irreducibly complex system requiring a light-sensitive
cell, extraordinarily complex biochemical mechanisms within
that cell,(19)
nerves linking that cell to the brain, and a visual center
to interpret these. That cannot come about in stages. For
that reason, the theory of evolution is unable even to account
for the origin of the most "primitive" eye, let alone use
that as a basis to account for more complex ones.
Rennie writes that "Today's intelligent-design
advocates are more sophisticated than their predecessors."
Yet the sad fact is that the proponents of the theory of
evolution are still leaning on Darwin's invalid theses from
150 years ago. The fact that they still put forward the
myth that the origin of the eye lies in "evolution from
primitive eyes" shows that the theory of evolution has not
evolved at all in the last 150 years.
Helplessness
in the Face of Irreducible Complexity (Question 15)
In the final section of his article, John Rennie
attempts to criticize the evidence put forward by such proponents
of intelligent design as Michael J. Behe and William Dembski.
The first thing he does is to cite the objections of evolutionists
Kenneth R. Miller and Russell F. Doolittle, who are critical
of Behe. The fact is, however, that Dr. Behe has comprehensively
responded to and refuted these objections. (See Behe's
responses to critics)
The paragraph that really shows Rennie's total
helplessness in the face of irreducible complexity reads:
The key is that the flagellum's component
structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from
their role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions
that would have helped favor their evolution. The final
evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only
the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially
evolved for other purposes.
In short, Rennie is saying that the flagellum
might have come about "with the recombination of parts that
initially evolved for other purposes." Yet that is the whole
essence of the matter. What are those "other purposes"?
For what purposes could the molecules that make up the flagellum
have come about? Saying that "might have come about in other
stages we are unaware of" without clearly defining these
stages is simply a repetition of Darwinist dogma.
Rennie's effort to portray the organelle that
Yersinia pestis uses to inject toxins into cells, which
partly resembles the flagellum, or flagella with simpler
structures as evolutionary stages of the flagellum itself
is also hopeless. That is like using a car or a glider to
account for the alleged "evolutionary" origins of a jet
plane. There may be certain similarities, but that does
not show that the vehicles in question evolved from one
another as the result of blind coincidences. They are all
separately designed structures.
When we come to Rennie's objection
to Dembski's thesis, we see that it only consists of reference
to studies by the Santa Fe Institute. Yet just like those
of their precursors such as Ilya Prigogine, these theoretical
studies do not carry the concept of "self-organization"
any further than merely being a materialist belief. (The
invalidity of the idea of self-organization is set out in
detail in Dembski's 2002 book No Free Lunch: Why Specified
Complexity Cannot be Purchased Without Intelligence).
It must nevertheless be made clear that the evolutionists
from the Santa Fe Institute display more common sense than
John Rennie does. While Rennie tries to portray the concept
of intelligent design as an unscientific thesis, Stuart
Kauffman, the pre-eminent self-organizational theorist of
the Santa Fe Institute, publicly admitted that intelligent
design was a legitimate intellectual and scientific project.
(20)
Rennie's Dogmatic
Commitment to Materialism
Following his objections regarding intelligent
design, Rennie unwillingly admits that the complexity in
nature cannot be accounted for by evolutionary mechanisms,
and to resolve this he elects to give a hostage to future:
"Some of the complexity seen in organisms
may therefore emerge through natural phenomena that we
as yet barely understand. But that is far different from
saying that the complexity could not have arisen naturally."
Rennie's logic displays a blind dogmatism.
If he thinks that he can account for the biological complexity
in nature by means of evolution, then he needs to identify
these mechanisms. When he is unable to find any mechanism,
he suggests the existence of mechanisms that "we as yet
barely understand." Yet if these mechanisms are not understood,
then how can Rennie be sure they actually exist? What difference
is there between believing in the existence of such mysterious
evolutionary mechanisms and believing in an "alchemical
mechanism" that can turn base metals into gold?
What difference, therefore, is there between
believing in evolution and believing in alchemy?
All these questions demonstrate
that Rennie's and other determined Darwinists' belief in
the theory of evolution is the result of their dogmatic
belief in materialism. Even Darwin behaved in a less biased
manner when he said, "If it could be demonstrated that any
complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been
formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my
theory would absolutely break down."(21)
John Rennie and other contemporary Darwinists choose to
give hostages to future rather than accept the collapse
of the theory when faced with just the kind of irreducibly
complex organs described by Darwin.
When one examines Rennie's article, one sees
that one fundamental idea underlies all this dogmatism.
The following lines are particularly enlightening:
"...science welcomes the possibility of evolution
resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those
forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the
actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence,
in scientific terms, is unproved."
In the first sentence here, Rennie says that
certain forces, the existence of which is quite unproven,
may contribute to evolution. Yet he imposes a condition
in the sentence that follows: These forces must be natural.
Therefore, he rejects the existence of a conscious Creator,
because the existence of a conscious Creator is, in scientific
terms, "unproven." Yet in the previous sentence, Rennie
admits the possibility of unproven forces. Elsewhere in
his article, as we have seen above, he also speaks of evolutionary
mechanisms that have not yet been discovered, but which
he hopes will be in the future. This means that Rennie's
problem is not one of whether the existence of intelligent
design has been proven or not, but that such design conflicts
with the materialist philosophy he holds.
Rennie is of course free to believe as he wishes.
Some people believe in materialist philosophy. Others believe
in astrology, and others in alchemy. The problem is that
Rennie and materialists like him are trying to portray their
dogma as actual science. That is a hypocritical deception.
But one whose days are numbered.
Conclusion: Congratulations
to John Rennie
John Rennie deserves appreciation for displaying
Darwinist dogmatism. |
Actually, we should be congratulating Scientific
American editor John Rennie on his article. By failing
to provide any response to the proofs of creation, by ignoring
a great deal of that important evidence as he flounders,
and by exhibiting nothing but rage and fanaticism, he has
only served to highlight the collapse that Darwinism is
currently undergoing.
In the collapse of Lamarckism, as well as the
successes of such great scientists as Mendel, the terrible
fiascoes of such Lamarckists as Lysenko also played a major
role. In the same way today, alongside the successful work
of scientists who support the idea of intelligent design,
the logical and scientific rout of dogmatic Darwinists will
also play a major role in the collapse of Darwinism.
Those who read about these debates in
a few decades' time will see the truth of this much clearer,
and will be amazed that so many people from the scientific
community could have been taken in by such a myth as Darwinism.
(1)
Henry Gee, In Search of Time: Beyond the Fossil Record
to a New History of Life, New York, The Free Press, 1999,
p. 126-127.
(2)
"Face of yesterday : Henry Gee on the dramatic discovery
of a seven-million-year-old hominid", The Guardian,
July 11, 2002
(3)
Ibid.
(4)
Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley & Roger L. Olsen,
The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories,
4th edition, Dallas, 1992, chapter 9, p. 134.
(5)
Lee Spetner, Not By Chance, Judaica Press, 1997.
Also see, Dr. Lee Spetner, "Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue:
Continuing an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max," 2001, http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp
(6)
Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds,
Yale University Press, 1999, p. 81
(7)
Ann Gibbons, "Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur", Science,
volume 278, Number 5341 Issue of 14 Nov 1997, pp. 1229 -
1230
(8)
Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds,
Yale University Press, 1999, p. 130
(9)
Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds,
Yale University Press, 1999, p. 132
(10)
Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery,
Abacus, Sphere Books, London, 1984, p. 230.
(11)
"Mollusk", Evolution and Paleontology, Encyclopedia
Britannica, 2002
(12)
Bernard Wood, Mark Collard, "The Human Genus", Science,
vol. 284, No 5411, 2 April 1999, pp. 65-71
(13)
Pat Shipman, "Doubting Dmanisi", American Scientist,
November- December 2000, p. 491
(14)
"Fossil Discovery Upsets Theories On Human Origins", Associated
Press, http://www.msnbc.com/news/776334.asp?cp1=1
(15)
Hervé Philippe and Patrick Forterre, "The Rooting of the
Universal Tree of Life is Not Reliable", Journal of
Molecular Evolution, vol 49, 1999, p. 510
(16)
Carl Woese, "The Universel Ancestor", Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 95, (1998) p.
6854
(17)
Elizabeth Pennisi, "Is It Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?"
Science, vol. 284, no. 5418, 21 May 1999, p. 1305
(18)
Levi-Setti, R. Trilobites. 1993. (University of Chicago
Press, Chicago). p.54.
(19)
The extraordinarily complex structure of these mechanisms
is illustrated in Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box.
As Behe maintains, even the chemical make-up in the retinal
cell alone is enough to disprove Darwin
(20)
"Dembski and Kauffman Square Off in New Mexico", Philip
Johnson's Weekly Wedge Update, November 19, 2001; www.arn.org
(21)
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of
the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964,
p. 189.
