The Evolution Deceit
Channels with a programming consisting mainly of documentaries like the National Geographic, Discovery Channel or the History Channel are known for their Darwinist approach. These channels tend to tuck in evolutionist terminology when the subject turns to life or the living beings. When talking about a species it goes like: “evolved over millions of years,” “the struggle for survival made its evolution necessary,” or “developed this camouflage by the gift of evolution;” everything is related in a manipulative manner to the viewer. These commentaries lack scientific substance and are a mass manipulation geared to keep the struggling theory of evolution going.
Looking at the period end of March / beginning of April, the Discovery Channel leads the pack as the channel using this type of commentary” most frequently. The evolution stories relayed in these documentaries by the Discovery Channel within this period indicate a noticeable increase in the channels power of imagination. In this article we will reveal the following three documentaries to be Darwinist propaganda:
March 25, 2003 – Electric Eels
March 28, 2003 – Ancient Sharks
April 1, 2003 – Serengeti Today: The Lions Lot
That the subject matter of these documentaries differs does not make much difference for the method of evolution propaganda in all three programs is storytelling.
The Electric Eel And The Shallowness Of Evolution Stories
This program deals with electric eels’ ability to produce electricity in their bodies and their life in the Amazon River. These animals use the produced electricity in hunting, defense against other predators and in communication between one another. The force of the electricity produced by these eels is in direct relation to their body size which can reach two meters in length. The electric eel can produce up to 300 volts for every meter of its body length. One surprising feature of this fish is that the section of the body getting severed in combat grows anew including the bone structure. The lower end of this fish can be reproduced liked the severed tail of a lizard. How this amazing system, in which even the bones are renewed, works is still a mystery for scientists. The inner tissue of their mouth works like lungs whereby oxygen is absorbed into the bloodstream in contrast to other gilled fish. Even though three different electrical current producing organs have been identified, how they actually work remains an unknown quantity.
Towards the end of the program the Discovery Channel claims that these organs are the product of evolution although it does not even know how they work. This is how they put it:
Science has not yet discovered how they have evolved to produce electricity. In the beginning they produced enough electricity to find their way around the murky waters of the Amazon but then gradually evolved to produce powerful enough currents for hunting as well as defense.
Never minds the TV channel explaining the evolutionary stages of the electricity producing organ with a sound thesis, it does not even know how this organ actually works but the station can nevertheless tell stories that it evolved as if it knows this. Could a fish, unconscious of the existence of electricity really develop organs to aid orientation in murky waters? And if did, could it become satisfied with the efficiency of this electrical system to increase the voltage produced to 300? Is it possible for coincidental mutations in the DNA of normal fish to cause the development of such highly specialized organs? The answer to all these questions is “no” because this system is dependent on knowledge and no blind coincidence can create such a complex system in the genes of a fish. Because the Discovery Channel knows this paradox it resorts to storytelling.
Origins Of Sharks And The Discovery Channel’s Attempts At Producing Evolution Tales From Evidence To The Contrary
In the shark documentary too evolution tales are told. As it was the case with the electric eels with the sharks the same style of “whatever way it might have been, it nevertheless evolved” is used. Without producing any scientific evidence, tales about the imaginary evolution of sharks are being told.
The Discovery Channel begins the manipulations with the asking of a suggestive question to the effect of an ongoing evolutionary process existing in the oceans: “What is life like in the oceans where there are no boundaries for evolution and sharks are sovereign?”
It is not true that there is an evolutionary process in the oceans. The explosion in the number of species in the Cambrian era shows that the invertebrates of the oceans, with their complex body designs, appear all of a sudden and that they are created. The approximately 100 different phyla appearing in this era have sophisticated physiological systems like bloodstream metabolisms and complex organs like the compound eye structure. All of this represents a serious blow to the theory of evolution because in the preceding era the only existing beings are single cell organisms. There are no life forms in the fossil record which could be produced as the ancestors of the creatures belonging to the Cambrian era. The same is true for fish, which appear also suddenly in the Cambrian era without any ancestors. Sea creatures belonging to the subsequent periods appear too in a sudden way. The fish species Latimera chalumnea appears on the fossil records 410 million years ago and it is in no way different to today’s species. With this the expression “no boundaries for evolution in the oceans” is exposed to be false, the Discovery Channel is telling untrue stories.
The TV channel tells this tale about the imaginary evolution of the sharks:
In this evolution drama a fresh water shark resembling reptiles is the main character. This creature called Orthachantus was the terror of the Permian mangroves... Mass extinctions altered the course of evolution in the oceans and sharks began to live in fresh water. Orthachantus lived for 200 million years in river deltas. It resembled eels with its elongated body form and had a strong jaw structure with two rows of teeth.
The claim that the Orthachantus is the ancestor of sharks is revealed by way of storytelling. Nothing that would amount to evidence in respect of how Orthachantus itself evolved or how sharks evolved from them is produced. Not even a fossil that could have been a transitory form is revealed by the Discovery Channel. The viewer is just expected to believe this tale without any sound evidence.
Fossils, classified by scientists as sharks, belonging to much earlier periods than the Orthachantus disprove the Discovery Channel’s evolution claims. Shark teeth found in the Antarctica have been dated to be from 382 millions of years ago. A shark fossil exhibited in the New Brunswick museum in Canada is 430 million years old. It is the oldest known shark fossil preserving one third of the shark’s skeleton. (1) Discoveries of shark fossils preceding the creatures, portrayed as to be the ancestors of sharks, by hundreds of millions of years, disprove gradual evolution and prove instead creation.
Interestingly the Discovery Channel’s story’s inconsistencies are inherent in the program. The commentary of an expert in the documentary in relation to sharks reveals the TV channels’ claims to be based only on miere speculation:
I am often surprised by the sheer diversity I observe. Especially sharks belonging to the Paleozic period do not have even fossilized relatives never minds among the species living today.
There are many different species of sharks in the fossil records but there aren’t any fossils that could be termed to be related in terms of evolution, which then supports the creation theory of the life forms sudden appearance. That the Discovery Channel misconstrues evidence opposing evolution and then presents it to its viewers in an evolutionist fashion shows the extent of its astonishing bigotry.
Another noticeable feature of the program is the contradiction occurring between its name and content. What the documentary reveals about the imaginary evolution of sharks consists of brief information on the anatomy of Orthachantus and one or two reconstruction pictures adding up to two maybe three minutes. The hour long program titled “evolution of sharks” spares only a couple of minutes for its subject and is only storytelling anyhow. The Discovery Channel’s misleading act is obvious: It takes a fish from the fossil records, portrays it to be the “ancestor of sharks” and communicates it all to the viewer by storytelling.
Today’s Serengeti And The Mistake Of Explaining Complex Designs With Evolution
Today’s Serengeti And The Mistake Of Explaining Complex Designs With Evolution
Another Discovery Channel documentary full of evolution tales was the “Serengeti Today: The Lions Lot” aired at the beginning of April. In this documentary called in English “Wild, Weird Curiosities,” the disguise and defense mechanisms, impossibly coincidental, are portrayed to be the work of adaptation strategies within the game of evolution. Considering the complexity of the biological structures being studied, the Discovery Channel expressions trying to explain them with blind coincidences, expose themselves to be irrational.
The scorpion can squirt poison at its enemies with his weapon located at the tip of its snout, which is also an organ used to suck up the body fluids of other beetles it feeds off. When a snake approaches, it can squirt its poison up to a distance of 30 centimeters thus scaring off a snake many times its own size. How could a blind coincidence create such a fine long organ for the beetle just at the right place where and how it is needed? How can it determine and produce from among hundreds of thousands of possible compounds the chemical solution effective against the snake and do so without killing itself in the process? It is obvious that this cannot be by mutations reliant on blind coincidences.
It cannot be either by its own efforts and it can neither plan strategies in order to fit in with its environment and then device its own body accordingly. The claims of such complex systems developing as a consequence of adaptation mechanisms is nothing but a disinformation strategy. The theory of evolution relies in explaining new organs entirely on coincidental mutations which take place in the cells’ DNA of living organisms. It is clear that the DNA molecules cannot become aware of the external environmental conditions and accordingly adapt by the necessary mutations. But the Discovery Channel presenter Kurt Muendl tells stories to this effect in order to influence the viewer. No one though who is aware of the scientific realities will fall for this shallow propaganda. Another example for evolutionist storytelling is the attempted explanation of the Praying Mantis’ perfect disguise on the orchid. The mantis’ white color matches the orchid’s. Even better, it takes up position in the center of the flower in such a perfect way making it appear to be part thereof. Thus it can feed easily on the insects visiting the flower.
The Discovery Channel describes the orchid as one of the “marvels of nature” and says for the mantis’ camouflage: “When the survival of the species is at stake it is only normal for this kind of disguise to evolve.”
It is simply illogical to defend the view that the orchid’s esthetics is the product of blind coincidences. Esthetic designs bear witness to the existence of an artist and are not explicable by accidental developments. For instance when we regard the Rushmore rocks we realize straightaway that the carved images of past US presidents is the work of a sculptor. It is no different looking at the orchid’s leaf design and its vivid colors. Believing the orchid to be the result of blind coincidences is comparable to believing that the Mona Lisa painting came about by casually spilled paints. Considering the mantis’ exactly matching shade of color and a body design that enables it to imitate parts of the orchid, we would be required to acknowledge twice what blind coincidences couldn’t have created once and that is totally in contradiction with reason.
In spite of the word “evolution” being used extensively in all three documentaries by the Discovery Channel, there was not a word about the stages of the supposed evolution process. There was plenty of storytelling though attempting to explain everything from an evolutionist point of view by the presenters of the Discovery Channel. Actually, considering the overall programming policy of the Discovery Channel, it can be stated that it hardly ever presents any scientific evidence in any of its programs and there is nothing to suggest that it has the slightest concerns in this respect. This is so because it has an ideological affinity with Darwinism rather than a scientific one and abuses science only as a means for the dissemination of its ideology. The Discovery Channel should know though that its persistent propaganda will not be able to prevent the total collapse of Darwinism.