Posts Tagged ‘faith’
The Case for a Creator: Part II

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.

 
The Case For A Creator

Book Overview: Part I

The following is an overview of The Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel. I call it an overview rather than a review because I’m not so much stating what I think of it as I am putting it into my own words. Before continuing further I want the reader to be aware that while I am condensing and paraphrasing the key points raised by Mr. Strobel, I do not share all of his views. For example, although Mr. Strobel does not come right out and say it, when reading his book it becomes obvious he does not take the Genesis account of 6-days as literal and he does not accept the biblical plain text interpretation of a “young earth” with human history extending back a mere 6000 years. In spite of this and other less significant differences of opinion, the book made numerous excellent points which should aide anyone in defending faith in the Divine Creator.

How has Evolution come to be assumed as fact?

There are several simple forms of evidence offered as proof of evolution. The evidence can be very compelling. Evolution, once taught as theory, is today taught as fact in most public schools in the United States and much of the rest of the Western world. Once these proofs are properly presented to confirm the assumed fact of evolution, the student is then led to trust evolution to be at the basis of all other areas of science. In a society where children are taught evolution as a fact, it should not be surprising most higher education and professional organizations dismiss dissenters out of hand. With most of today’s adult population accepting evolution, there are too few people with the conviction to stand against it. Also, the scientific community is highly prejudiced and tries to mute any from within their own ranks who would oppose the naturalist culture.

What is the most popular evidence for Evolution?

Proof 1: We can create life from non-life in a lab. In 1953 Stanley Miller, with the help of Harold Urey, reproduced an artificial atmosphere to simulate early earth conditions, put the right soup components into that atmosphere, then applied electricity. The result was the spontaneous organization of organic molecules.

Proof 2: Darwin’s sketch of the “tree of life” proves a similarity of kinds. From common ancestry animal life sprung up and branched out in many directions resulting in a multitude of kinds. The tree idea is reinforced with associated sketches showing similarity of kinds along any given branch. This is done by showing various kinds of primates, for example, arranged by size and body structure. It can likewise be shown with similar fish, frogs, or even snakes.

Proof 3: Embryos look alike. German biologist Ernst Haeckel produced drawings of embryos of various dissimilar animals appearing very similar at their earliest stage of development. Since life forms start out looking very similar, they must in fact be very similar.

Proof 4: The missing links have been and are being found. To evolutionary paleontologists, perhaps the most important find appearing to fill the missing gap between bird and reptile is archaeopteryx, first discovered in a German quarry. The fossils of this creature show wings, feathers, and the wishbone of a bird, but with a lizard-like tail and claws on its wings. Along the same lines are other missing links such as Java Man, archeoraptor, and bambiraptor.

Refuting the Miller experiment

Since this experiment was of a scientific nature, it is perhaps the easiest to refute. The experiment was based on bad science and the results were presented as bad science. The basis of the experiment was the premise that the atmosphere of the early earth was somewhat different. The atmosphere assumed for the experiment was made up of methane and ammonia. Scientists almost universally agree that earth’s atmosphere, no matter how far back in time, could never have been primarily methane and ammonia. Even if it were, the resulting spontaneous molecules generated by passing an electric charge through the atmosphere were not the building blocks of life. To say the molecules were organic does not imply life or even the building blocks of life. Rather, it implies carbon-based chemicals. The organic chemicals created were actually cyanide and formaldehyde. These chemicals not only are not building blocks of life, they are deadly to life, as is the atmosphere they come from. Miller literally created embalming fluid.

Refuting the tree of life sketch

There are many ways to tear apart this evidence, but to use evolutionary science against itself, there are a handful of important considerations. Darwin’s theory presupposes the slow increase of organic order. Paleontologists have determined that rather than a slow increase in diversity of complex creatures, the Cambrian explosion requires a nearly simultaneous appearance of huge numbers of diverse animals about 540 million years ago. To compensate, the tree must instead become more of a bunch of bushes. The distinct gaps between kinds present a huge problem requiring links which are missing.

The science of taxonomy is branch of biological science which codifies the distinctions between kinds. It’s the branch that explains differences between species, kingdoms, genus, and so forth. The very ability to distinguish distinct gaps between kinds, both in living animals and in the fossil record, in itself, refutes the premise of evolution. Dating methods present a form of circular logic. Rocks are dated based primarily on fossil content. Certain types of fossils, called index fossils, are the primary instruments used for dating. Fossil layers, which is to say rock placement, in turn establishes relative fossil age.

Finally, look at Darwin’s own book, Origin of Species, and consider the very requirements Darwin himself puts forward for his theory to be validated. In 1859 the minutia within a living cell was unimagined. We know today there are thousands of amino acids, DNA, RNA, and all sorts of very specialized molecular structures, which are, in and of themselves, more complex than many complicated man-made machines.

Editor's Note: View Part II 

 
Tom Cruise, Scientologist

This video, available through YouTube, offers us a chilling snapshot of Scientologist, Tom Cruise waxing philosophical about his faith.

In fairness to Cruise, the "interview" is a bit hard to follow, because, in it, there are no questions shown being asked of him. It appears that if any questions were asked, they were edited out of the original. So, in the final cut, what you see are a concatenation of his answers. Thus, you really have no context for Cruise's meanderings other than the stigma of Scientology.

However, even with that background, Cruise still says some things which are disturbing to all but the "initiated." He apparently divides the world into two groups: those who belong on the playing field and those who don't. He also talks a lot about creating new realities and "doing something" to fix the world. We never really know just what Cruise means when he makes these references. The whole "interview" is as ambiguous as it is disturbing.

You can also find interesting commentary on this spot at Slate and Gawker. Both sites have been bold enough to feature either commentary, and/or actual footage of Cruise, speaking to the subject of Scientology.