The Evolution Deceit
Why does engaging in evolutionary fantasies about a living thing not constitute evidence of the theory of evolution?
One of the defining features of evolutionary propaganda is the way it is based on telling tall tales. TV channels and newspapers that relate such stories and interpret debateable findings in the light of their own preconceptions impose the theory of evolution on people as if it were a thesis rooted in sound scientific fact. However, evolutionists who tell such tales, the scope of which can range over periods of millions of years, often have no more than a skull fragment to hand, and sometimes only a single tooth. Despite the insufficient nature of the data available, however, evolutionists add a number of imaginary elements to their tales, elements which the fossils fail to confirm. The fact is that this is an unscientific propaganda method, based entirely on prejudice, which even well-known evolutionists criticise.
In his book In Search of Deep Time, Henry Gee, editor of the world-famous scientific magazine Nature, criticises this unscientific approach, citing examples of human evolution scenarios:
“For example, the evolution of Man is said to have been driven by improvements in posture, brain size, and the coordination between hand and eye, which led to technological achievements such as fire, the manufacture of tools, and the use of language. But such scenarios are subjective. They can never be tested by experiment, and so they are unscientific. They rely for their currency not on scientific test, but on assertion and the authority of their presentation.” (i)
TV channels such as National Geographic and The Discovery Channel, or journals such as Scientific American and Focus, are like factories churning out such tales in order to further the spread of evolution. In such organisations’ publications, evolutionary scenarios are set up between bone findings whose ages can differ up to millions of years, and these are then described as if they were historical fact. This is an approach based on nothing more than prejudice. Gee, who is also a palaeontologist, makes the following comments:
“New fossil discoveries are fitted into this pre-existing story. We call these new discoveries ‘missing links’, as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices.” “From our vantage point in the present, we arrange fossils in an order that reflects gradual acquisition of what we see in ourselves. We do not seek the truth; we create it after the fact, to suit our own prejudices.” (ii)
Another well-known evolutionist who criticises such prejudiced scenarios is Collin Patterson, head of palaeontology at Britain’s Natural History Museum. In an interview for the BBC on March 4, 1982, Patterson said:
‘By ‘their stories’ I am referring to their tales of change over time: how the dinosaurs disappeared, how mammals evolved, where man came from. These represent nothing more than fairy tales … We may have reached the top of an (evolutionary) tree, but the tree itself is only a theory. People who appear knowledgeable about this tree, who appear to explain what went on in it and how thick and thin branches disappeared are, in my views, merely telling stories.’
It is not only evolutionist palaeontologists who resort to evolutionary tall tales. Evolutionary biologists do so no less frequently. These people invent such scenarios by looking at the benefits the structures they have offer to them. The great majority of the evolutionary myths broadcast all day long by popular evolutionist TV channels fall into this category. Such myths as elephants having grown trunks in order to pick food up from the ground; insects having produced poison for defence purposes; bats having developed sonar to perceive their surroundings; electric eels having one day developed organs capable of producing electrical currents of up to 300 volts for use against their enemies; and spiders one day evolving silk in order to catch flies in the air and starting to spin webs on trees, are all relentlessly ground out in these documentaries. Yet none of these tales answers the real question, that of how such exceptionally complex systems could have begun to evolve by blind chance and how this information could have been added to DNA with random mutations. The validity of evolution is taken for granted and every living thing is considered within the framework of that general preconception:
“ ‘Our noses were made to carry spectacles, so we have spectacles.’ Yet evolutionary biologists do much the same thing when they interpret any structure in terms of adaptation to current utility while failing to acknowledge that current utility need tell us nothing about how a structure evolved, or indeed how the evolutionary history of a structure might itself have influenced the shape and properties of that structure.” (iii)
The most frequently resorted to of these tales concern adaptive needs. Their common feature is the way that after setting out the needs living things felt because of their surroundings they then describe how they ‘developed’ this or that organ in the light of those needs. The truth of the matter is, however, that needs cannot bring about new organs or new systems. Neither can the random mutations which evolutionists suggest as the mechanism for changes in physical structures, but which are inevitably harmful in experiments, emerge in the light of ‘needs.’ As the famous evolutionist Douglas Futuyama has said on this subject,
“A species’ need to adapt does not raise the possibility of a mutation in that species. Mutations are not aimed at the adaptation needs of that moment. There are certain reasons why mutations take place, but a species’ need to adapt is not one of them.” (iv)
Futuyama’s words demolish the evolutionary tall tales so insistently put forward in documentaries on such popular Darwinist channels as the Discovery Channel or National Geographic TV. These channels’ are all nonsense. No eel can evolve an organ to produce electricity for its needs; no insect can evolve an organ to produce poison according to the correct chemical formula because it needs one; and neither can an elephant evolve a trunk because it needs to feed from the ground. To make such claims is as nonsensical as to say, "Cars developed air-cooled engines because of the lack of water in the desert." The fact that a car has an air-cooled engine is an indication of the existence of an engineer who considered the desert conditions, a Creator who furnished the systems in living things with features compatible with their lives in nature. Blind chance can account neither for the air-cooling system in a car nor for the complex systems in living things.
Despite all being evolutionists, Gee, Patterson and Futuyama, whose words we have seen above, agree that spinning evolutionary myths is unscientific. The popular evolutionist media on the other hand continue to ignore this and to use such tales as a means of ‘brainwashing’ in order to impose their illogical claims, which they are unable to back up with any scientific proof, on society. We now remind all these organisations that the public are now aware of the insoluble dilemmas facing the theory of evolution, and call on them to abandon these methods. Otherwise, in the very near future, they will be unable to avoid terrible humiliation in the face of all these tall tales of theirs.
(i) “IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME, Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, Henry Gee, The Free Press, A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc. , 1999, p. 5
(ii) Ibid., p. 32
(iii) Ibid., p. 103
(iv) Futuyma, Douglas J. (1983), Science on Trial , New York: Pantheon, 1983, pp. 137,138.