Posts Tagged ‘evolution’
Hickory-Dickery Dawkins
Written by Ron McClure Jr.
Monday, 09 June 2008 04:18
4 Comments

The Deconstruction
of an Urban Legend

Writer’s note: (Italics should be read like a parent to a child, with a lot of enthusiasm and dynamics.)

Once upon a time, there was a Great Zoologist from Great Britain. It is said that he could deflate an argument with a single syllable. In fact, he is said to be the smartest person ever to roam the earth…and several other “highly evolved” planets! One day, while skipping through the garden, he realized his academic achievements had far surpassed that of a simple college professor. In fact, he had climbed his way up to be Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford in England. Not only did he excel in his academic endeavors, he also assumed the role of ambassador of Charles Darwin’s “Theory of Evolution.” Meanwhile, one dark and spooky night, his study of animals and Darwin’s research led him to this conclusion, “There is no God!” In a state of fear and panic, he scrambled about, adding “U’s” to words like favor and color and changing “er’s” to “re’s.” Latre that night, while savouring his newfound revelation, The Great Zoologist from Great Britain ventured out to make a bundle of money by writing books and giving lectures about his conclusions… Who is this man? No one knows for sure, but some say that his name is, GASP! ………..

Dr. Richard Dawkins!

 

 

A few weeks ago, my close friend Chad and I attended a showing of the documentary, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." The film focuses on the “Big Science” movement to squelch scientific discussion of “Intelligent Design” (ID). ID is a “science-based” alternative to Darwinian Evolution as the origin of life on earth. Its conclusions are the result of high-tech advances in modern molecular biology, a science that post-dates the “Theory of Evolution.” Darwin had the same agenda as ID, the acquisition of truth. However, the main difference between the two methodologically is that Darwin had archaic scientific tools from which to derive his conclusions.

I have always equated Richard Dawkins with extreme intellect, regardless of disagreeing with many of his opinions. However, recently I discovered that Dawkins is just a man. He is a simple man, with great passion and a strong faith. In fact, I believe Dr. Richard Dawkins has turned his back on science and embraced religion.

I happened upon a blog post on one of Richard Dawkins’ websites a few days ago that challenged the movie, “Expelled.” I first started to read the commentary, because I believe in fully understanding both sides before I make judgments. I in no way wish to abandon my faith, but I believe that gathering as much information as possible will lead me to the best understanding of my existence. As a Christian, I concede that innumerable Christians before me have often rushed to judgment and come to erroneous conclusions. Expecting maturity and strong content, I began to read, hoping to glean a better perspective.

Instead, I found that the post was tainted with emotional sewage and continuous ad hominem degradation of the film, its producer, and its narrator. Assuming the author was a follower of Dawkins, I was nearly halfway through the piece before I realized that Dawkins himself had written it. In spite of the fact that Dawkins got off to a very disrespectful start by choosing to personally attack Ben Stein, the narrator of the film, I reluctantly read on:

"The narrator is somebody called Ben Stein,” wrote Dawkins. “I had not heard of him, but apparently he is well known to Americans, for it is hard to see why else he would have been chosen to front the film. He certainly can't have been chosen for his knowledge of science, nor his powers of logical reasoning, nor his box office appeal (heavens, no), and his speaking voice is an irritating, nasal drawl, innocent of charm and of consonants” (Dawkins’ blog site).

But, Dr. Dawkins is an intellectual, right? Why would he stoop to name-calling and childish rants? Dawkins had not heard of Ben Stein, but since Americans “apparently” are oblivious to “knowledge of science,” “logical reasoning,” “box office appeal” or even “public speaking ability,” the only “logical” explanation for “big dumb Ben Stein” to have been selected is…Americans are stupid. Man! Dawkins’ respect (or lack thereof ) for America is quite evident here. Dawkins actually tried to avoid the content of the film and also diminish its significance because “he didn’t like Ben Stein.” Very scientific, Doc! That just oozes with logical reasoning. Under the same logic, those who find YOU arrogant and obnoxious have good “reason” to deny the “validity” of Darwinism.

Here is another short passage from Dr. Richard Dawkins’ post that pontificates on the link between Adolph Hitler, Nazism and Darwinism, purported in the film:

"We are supposed to believe that Hitler was influenced by Darwin. Hitler was ignorant and bonkers enough for his hideous mind to have imbibed some sort of garbled misunderstanding of Darwin (along with his very “ungarbled" understanding of the anti-semitism of Martin Luther, and of his own never-renounced Roman Catholic religion) but it is hardly Darwin's fault if he did.”
(Dawkins’ blog site).

Let us examine Dawkins’ use of logic, since it seemed to “rank high” in importance to him while attacking Ben Stein. “Just because Hitler subscribed to Darwin’s ideas of natural selection to extinguish millions of people, in no way could Darwin be held accountable…because after all, Hitler had a “garbled” understanding of Darwin.” However, in the same sentence Dawkins attacks Christianity with the same argument, but with an inverse conclusion. “Just because Martin Luther subscribed to the ideas and teachings of Christ, Christianity “IS” held accountable for Martin Luther’s “garbled” understanding of Christ.” Wow! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. To illustrate the absurdity of this tack let’s take the same prose and exchange some names to better understand Dawkins’ logic in practice. We all have heard of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) (the cult in Texas with all of the charges of polygamy and child abuse). Let’s see how this looks when I substitute the “FLDS” in place of “Hitler” in Dawkins’ quote.

"We are supposed to believe that [the FLDS] was influenced by [Jesus]. [The FLDS] was ignorant and bonkers enough for [their] hideous mind[s] to have imbibed some sort of garbled misunderstanding of [Jesus] (along with [their] very “ungarbled” understanding of the [young polygamy] of [Joseph Smith], and of [their] own never-renounced [Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints] religion) but it is hardly [Jesus’] fault if [they] did.”

Would Dr. Dawkins make this statement? Would he defend Christianity this fervently? I highly doubt it. He blames Christianity for every mistake, or “garbled” manifestation produced by Christians, but when it comes to Darwin…he’s standing high on the stump to defend him, “but it is hardly Darwin's fault if he did.” (Dawkins’ blog site).

Though not a fan of Dawkins, at the very least I was geared up for an intellectual “chess match,” not the infantile game of “Chutes and Ladders” that I encountered on his site. I was devastated… This world must be going to hell…or “de-evolving”…depending on where your faith lies. Don’t be misguided folks, Dawkins has faith, and he defends his faith more passionately and apparently more successfully than most Christians. Isn’t it comical how closely Dawkins’ representation of Darwin is to that of an “omniscient deity.” He says, “who would dare question (you have to say this part really slow and in a deep voice) ‘The All-Powerful Charles Darwin?’” echo…echo…echo…echo.

Dawkins clearly is a hypocrite. His chastisement of “Believers” is one of a sanctimonious liar, because he himself has faith. Dawkins just chooses to put his “faith” in Darwin, and he hides it under the cover of “science.” Darwin’s “Theory of Evolution” is nothing more than an antiquated philosophy that does not address the problem of “something formed from nothing.” No matter how you dress it up, evolution does not explain the initial origin of the first organism. The only “origin” Darwin could find was on the cover of his book, “The ‘Origin’ of Species.” Now that’s faith folks—faith, like that of the masses which insisted the earth was flat, even after science had advanced and found it to be round. Darwin himself admitted that some of his postulations were “highly speculative,” and that “some no doubt would prove erroneous.” (Darwin, “The Descent of Man” p 315).

But what happened to “The Great Zoologist from Great Britain” that I have heard of in legends?

…and so the “Great Zoologist from Great Britain” clung and clung to his atheistic identity. But, after Toto had revealed the man behind the curtain and thwarted all of his illusions, the little children GASPED! First Santa Claus! Then, the Easter Bunny! SHRIEK!!…now, “The Great Zoologist from Great Britain!” They wept and wept, and it was nearly two and a half days before they were able to drink Kool-Aid again.

THE END.

 
More tilting at mammoths
Written by Chris
Wednesday, 16 April 2008 16:27
No Comments

Recent find shows more assumptions than certitude

MSNBC via Reuters reveals that the remains of yet another baby mammoth are being studied in Russia. So far they have done the typical medical scans that scientists do for ancient creatures/humans in order to better understand the inner organs of the animal. They are also decoding its genome.

This really is a fascinating study, with scientists invoking visions of “Jurassic Park.” While they do not specifically reference the movie, they are discussing the idea of resurrecting some now extinct gigantic ancient birds from New Zealand or Madagascar (such as the Moa, and a species of enormous “Lord of the Rings” size eagles).

For the purposes of comparing homologous features, I have included a link to the MSNBC article on the mammoth, as well as a link to a news story about an African elephant that was born just last year at the Louisville zoo. Each article has photographs enabling you to compare the specimens for yourself.

In examining the photos, I’d like to call your attention to some features that can be seen in the prehistoric mammoth.

First of all, it must be pointed out that the mammoth has been damaged. Predators or onsite conditions seem to have destroyed the ear and the tail which are both mostly missing.

Essentially the mammoth (because it was of the woolly variety) would have had hair. But conditions apparently rendered the hair so fragile that it had simply fallen out, decomposed, etc.

Scientists have concluded that the cause of death was drowning. However, there is still some debate as to whether this is true or not. It is my understanding, that in studies of mammoths discovered all over Russia and even in Alaska, most have died with a single common denominator; they had silt in their systems. Silt is certainly different from “wind-blown” material, but it is questionable whether silt would appear different from wind-blown material in a find like this.

In addition to the linked African elephant photos in this post, I have also seen newspaper photos of the same elephant. When you compare these photos with the photos of the prehistoric mammoth, you find that they appear to be nearly identical. Granted, it seems that the prehistoric elephant’s ears were probably smaller (judging from point of attachment), making it similar to the Asian variety of elephant. This makes total sense, since Asian elephants are closer geographically to where this latest find was discovered.

Of course, missing from the modern elephant is the woolly hair. The point of the matter, is that these creatures sans the hair in the modern version and aside from the probable Asian/African difference show that forms even over thousands of years do not necessarily change that much. This is not an indication of a “higher form of life” as evolutionary theory predicts. When we witness the progression from an ancient “elephant” type to the modern one, there is a loss of genetic information, indicating “DE-EVOLUTION,” degradation.

In the meantime, we may not be able to bring back the dinosaur (we just don’t have enough genetic material or a modern host “mother” to artificially do so) but please, scientists, do try to bring back those “Lord of the Rings” size eagles and the moa!

By: Chris of themuseandthescribe.com

Sources:

1.. “Baby Mammoth Reveals Ancient Secrets,” Reuters, April 10, 2008, by Dmitry Solovyov.

2. “ Louisville Zoo Makes History with Successful Elephant Birth,” Wave 3 TV News, March 26, 2007.

 
The Case for a Creator: Part II
Written by Lance Ponder
Wednesday, 19 March 2008 16:12
3 Comments

Editor’s Note: Lance Ponder continues his series summarizing Lee Strobel’s book, The Case for a Creator.

Refuting homologous embryos from different species

First Problem: In the 1860’s Ernst Haeckel’s studied the embryos of various species in the animal kingdom. After observing these embryos, Haeckel rendered drawings, which depicted embryos of a fish, a salamander, a tortoise, a chicken, a hog, a calf, a rabbit, and a human as remarkably similar at three different stages of development. The similarities are promoted as supporting evidence of Darwin’s tree of life sketches and the idea of common ancestry. However, Haeckel’s drawings were proven false. The actual photographs of these embryos do not match Haeckel’s drawings. His drawings were deliberately doctored to misrepresent the appearance of the embryos, so they would fit Darwin’s evolutionary synthesis. Yet, evolutionists persist in using Haeckel’s sketches as proof of the validity of the Darwinian synthesis.

Second Problem: The embryo selections were “cherry picked” to give the closest appearance of similarity. There are several classes of vertebrates, yet Haeckel only used examples from a few that came closer to providing the desired result. He then multiplied those similarities by “editing” the pictures.

Third Problem: Haeckel claimed the images were from the earliest stages of embryonic development. That was also untrue. His drawings were loosely based on mid-term development when the cells have begun to develop and grow, after the first several rounds of cell reproduction and before they begin to take on a truly unique appearance. During this period there is greater similarity than either early cell division or the later obvious development of body structure. For example, cell division at the first stages of development in mammals is radically different from other vertebrate classes.

Forth Problem: In 1996 Life published pictures of a human embryo at a stage which made it look as if the embryo had something resembling gills. Many modern biology books promote similar ideas about the appearance of the human embryo. Of course the folds of skin at a certain stage when the embryo is still doubled over itself may look a bit like gills, but it is a very normal stage of embryonic development. Most of us have folds in our adult skin, but no one suggests those folds could be used for breathing under water.

Fifth Problem: Our knowledge of genetics today was completely unknown in the mid-19th century. Darwin couldn’t peer inside a cell as we can today. Had he known about the thousands of amino acids used to construct genetic material inside a living cell he might very well have come to a different conclusion. Cells are too complex to be explained by random organization into hundreds of tiny organic machines, each with dozens to hundreds of molecular components.

Summary: In spite of all this, many modern text books still use Haeckel’s drawings as proof of evolution. Evolutionists who are aware of these problems still claim that while the details contain errors, the concept is still true. Most text books used in high schools and college biology classes still support Haeckel’s concept if not the artwork itself. Any similarities between kinds of creatures can be argued to come from similarity of design just as easily of similarity of evolutionary development. Where evolution fails, the common elements of design seem to be the only logical explanation left.

Refuting the so-called missing links?

Darwin said the most obvious objection to his theory was that the fossil record failed to support it. This was attributed to glaring systematic gaps in the fossil record. But two years after Darwin’s book was published a fossil dubbed “archaeopteryx” was unearthed from a German quarry. Because of some of its unusual features including a tail which resembles a lizard and unusual claws, it was at first thought this animal was half-bird and half-reptile. Birds have a number of very distinct characteristics from reptiles including wings, feathers, wishbone, weight distribution, and so forth. Archaeopteryx might have some interesting and beautiful features, but as a specimen, it is entirely avian. Using index fossil dating, this particular bird is supposed to have lived later than its alleged progeny, not before. Studies have since proven this animal is a member of a now extinct group of birds.

Archaeoraptor was presented in 1999 as part bird and part dinosaur. It was touted as clear evidence of a missing link. Later, it was proven to be a fake. A Chinese paleontologist showed a dinosaur tail had literally been glued onto the fossil of a now extinct bird. Unfortunately a lot of fake fossils are presented as new finds because they are very profitable. China is a particularly big source of fake fossils. In Florida a fossil was dubbed “bambiraptor.” It was a chicken sized dinosaur with what was purported to be turkey DNA. A reconstruction used certain bird elements, such as eagle eyes, to make it appear more birdlike. The DNA evidence, it turns out, was actually contamination from a technician’s lunch.

Another iconic “missing link” was Java Man. Discovered in Indonesia in 1891/92 by Dutch scientist Eugene Dubois, Java consisted of a skull fragment found among some bones by a river bank. Many people believe Java Man to have included a complete skull, smaller than modern man’s, thereby “proving” earlier man had lower intelligence. Java Man actually included only a skull cap along with a few teeth and a femur. Analysis of the skull cap shows that while the bones were from a relatively small human, the brain capacity was well within modern norms.

A better find for evolutionists was Peking Man who was discovered in China early in the 20th century. But we’ll probably never know for sure what Peking Man’s orientation was because his remains disappeared not long after they were discovered.

Based on these and other specimens in different regions, taxonomists have attempted to classify the skeletal remains into the following three groupings: Neanderthal, homo erectus, and homo sapien. Modern humans are classified homo sapien. The group homo erectus is supposedly an erect man-like group. Neanderthal has an even more pronounced brow and slightly different head shape. There are a few dozen samples of these various skulls and other bones.

The homo erectus and Neanderthal are supposed to have died out about 340 million years ago. Finds and dating methods employed in the last two decades have shown at least some of these samples to be much more recent.

Another problem for evolutionists is that these samples have all yielded brain sizes well within the normal range of modern humans. Other bones from these skeletal remains have shown little if any other differences from modern man. The “speciation” of homo erectus and especially Neanderthal compared to homo sapien have been wildly exaggerated in artistic renderings to promote the concept of Darwin’s tree. Examination of physical evidence shows the differences between these species are superficial. Were the scientific community to promote the photographs, the public would be far more skeptical of evolutionist claims. Today, more than a few scientists believe these are all variations within the family of homo sapiens and thus are not unique classes at all.