EVOLUTIONARY TALL TALES FROM THE BBC-1-

EVOLUTIONARY TALL TALES FROM THE BBC-1-

The documentary The Human Body, prepared by the BBC is full of intense propaganda intended to impose the theory of evolution on viewers. Yet this propaganda served no other purpose than to prove that the theory of evolution is nothing but an unscientific myth.

The documentary introduces the human body, and describes the so-called evolution of man in a fairy tale manner, offering the viewer no evidence whatsoever. Intended as thoroughgoing propaganda, the documentary actually demonstrates how devoid of scientific support the theory of evolution really is. What follows is a scientific reply to the errors in the documentary:

BBC's Bacteria Myth

In this picture, magnified 15,000 times, can be seen the DNA molecule of a bacterium which has been exposed to special intervention. There are 4 million base pairs in this bacterium's DNA, and if this DNA were stretched out flat it would be 1.5 mm long, or 1,000 times longer than the cell itself. Just the way in which such a complex structure is squeezed into such a restricted space shows the fine detail in God's art of creation.

BBC's evolutionary tall tales begin with the sentence that there were first of all bacteria in the primitive world, and plants and animals later evolved from these bacteria. The fact is, of course, that the expression "there were bacteria in the primitive world" is meaningless because the problem is how those bacteria came into being. Those who prepared this documentary on BBC might have thought they could gloss over this crucial question on the assumption that their viewers would adopt a superficial view of the matter such as "those bacteria must probably have come into being by themselves." (Even worse, they themselves might hold just such a view.) In truth, however, even the origin of the very simplest bacterium represents a major difficulty for the theory of evolution, one that cannot be glossed over with the words just mentioned.

The origin of bacteria is a problem for the theory of evolution because the theory maintains that life on the primitive earth came about from random chemical reactions. Yet even the simplest bacterium contains such a complex organization and information that these can never be accounted for by any chemical reaction.

Let us examine this information: A bacterium has around 2,000 genes, each gene consisting of up to 1,000 letters (codes). This means that the information in its DNA must be at least 2-million letters long. That, in turn, means that the information contained in the DNA of just one bacterium is equivalent to 20 novels of 100,000 words each.1 That being the case, it is quite impossible for a single bacterium to come about by chance or to evolve as the result of chance effects. Any chance intervention to a structure containing information on such a scale would damage the functioning of the bacterium's entire system. A deficiency in a bacterium's genetic code would mean damage to the working system, and therefore death.

Below can be seen a single-celled protist, and to the side are shown nerve cells with their complex structure. These cells are all marvels of design.

Robert Shapiro, a professor of chemistry at New York University, calculated the probability that all 2,000 of the different types of proteins that it takes to make up even a simple bacterium could have come into being completely by chance. According to Shapiro, the probability is one in 10^40,000.2 (That number is "1" followed by forty thousand zeros and it has no equivalent in the universe.)

Chandra Wickramasinghe, a professor of applied mathematics and astronomy at the University of Cardiff, commented on Shapiro's result:

… One to a number with 10^40,000 noughts after it…It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.3

Sir Fred Hoyle, the British mathematician and astronomer, has this to say about these figures:

Indeed, such a theory [that life was assembled by an intelligence] is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.4

It is therefore impossible for even the simplest bacterium to have come about by chance, as evolutionists claim. In fact, the theory of evolution is even unable to account for the emergence of just one of the 2,000 kinds of protein that go to make up a simple bacterium. For that reason, saying "first there were bacteria, and plants and animals later developed from bacteria" is a huge deception, devoid of any scientific foundation. Those who prepared the BBC documentary must in any case be aware of this, since they avoided the subject of how the first bacterium came into being, simply beginning their tale with "bacteria that somehow came into being."

Furthermore, evolutionists have not one shred of evidence for their evolutionary fantasy; no intermediate form between bacteria and the first plants and animals exists, and they themselves admit the fact. One such evolutionist is Professor Ali Demirsoy, a prominent Turkish defender of evolution, who confesses:

One of the most difficult stages to be explained in evolution is to scientifically explain how organelles and complex cells developed from these primitive creatures. No transitional form has been found between these two forms. One- and multicelled creatures carry all this complicated structure, and no creature or group has yet been found with organelles of a simpler construction in any way, or which are more primitive. In other words, the organelles carried forward have developed just as they are. They have no simple and primitive forms.5

The Mistaken Idea that Bacteria Evolved as their Environment Changed

It was suggested in the BBC documentary in question that bacteria were gradually exposed to change, as a result of which more complex life forms emerged. This is nothing but a work of the imagination, without any scientific foundation. Bacteria have very short life spans, and a single scientist can therefore observe many generations of them. Evolutionists have thus subjected bacteria to countless mutations for many years, but no evolution has ever been observed in a single one. Pierre-Paul Grassé, one of France's best-known zoologists, the editor of the 35-volume Traité de Zoologie, and former president of the Académie des Sciences, writes the following about this bacterial immutability which invalidates evolution:

Bacteria... are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants. [B]acteria... exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago! What is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they do not [produce evolutionary] change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.6

In short, if mutations brought about evolution in bacteria, then examples of this should have been seen in the laboratory. Yet, in fact, quite the reverse is the case.

The Mistaken Idea that Small Changes Gradually Led to Evolution

In the documentary, space is devoted to evolutionists' traditional claims, and it is maintained that over billions of years small changes occurring in organisms combined and led to new species. There is no scientific foundation for such a claim.

The "one by one, small, imperceptible changes" in question are mutations, since mutations are the only mechanism of change the theory of evolution can offer.

Mutations are corruptions and changes in living things' genetic codes brought about by various external factors such as radiation and chemical effects. The genetic code of a healthy living thing possesses a flawless order and sequence. Ninety-nine percent of mutations damage DNA (the other 1 percent having no effect). Mutations tear apart, destroy, or confuse the DNA sequences in which a living thing's genetic code is recorded-that is, they eliminate existing information. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl are just a few contemporary examples of the damaging effect radiation has on genes. As a result of the genetic mutations caused by these tragedies, countless people and other living things lost their lives, many were crippled, and handicapped individuals were born in subsequent generations.

The American geneticist B.G. Ranganathan describes the damage mutations do to living organisms in these terms:

First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.7

That is why there is no mechanism in nature that might bestow minute, imperceptible beneficial changes on living things. The reason why BBC glosses over this subject with superficial accounts and avoids going into any detail on it stems from the fact that it is only too well aware how that change actually came about.

The Mistaken Idea that Species Evolved from One Another

According to evolutionists, all living things developed from one another. A previously existing species turned into another one over time, and all the species eventually emerged in this manner. According to the theory, this transition occupied a period of hundreds of millions of years, and happened in stages.

Yet if these evolutionists' claims were true-if, in other words, fish had evolved into reptiles, reptiles into birds, etc., as BBC claims-then countless "intermediary species" should also have emerged and lived during this transformation period.

For instance, some half-fish/half-reptiles should have lived in the past that had acquired reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile-birds with novel bird traits in addition to their pre-existing reptilian traits. If such creatures in a transitional process had existed, they would have been crippled, handicapped, and defective organisms.

Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms." If such animals had really existed, there should have been millions and even billions of them. More importantly, the remains of these strange creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than the present animal species and their remains should be found all over the world. This is a fact which Darwin also accepted.

Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. But he hoped that they would be found in the future. Despite his hopefulness, he realized that the biggest stumbling-block to his theory was the missing transitional forms. Therefore, in his book The Origin of Species he wrote the following in the chapter "Difficulties of the Theory":

…Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.8

Despite evolutionists' best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All scientific findings have shown that, contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed. A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact even though he is an evolutionist:

The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find-over and over again-not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.9

Another evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki comments as follows:

A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record... This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants-instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fuelled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.10

So, since the fact is that no intermediary forms have ever been found, and that this represents a serious problem for the theory of evolution, how is it that BBC and other like-minded evolutionist media are able to continue propagating the myth that "fish became reptiles and reptiles became birds?" The answer to this question is given in an article in the journal Science:

A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and palaeontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.11

As revealed in Science, behind BBC's unscientific claim lie such factors as "not being unbiased and imagining." BBC presented evolutionary fantasies to the viewer like a fairy tale, talking about "bacteria turning into human beings," and "reptiles that were birds and fish that walked on land," as if it were talking about "the prince who turned into a frog."

Why Does BBC Still Portray Haeckel's Deceptions as if they were Science?

The invalidity of Haeckel's fictitious claims emerged with scientific evidence. The development of the human embryo inside the mother's womb is one of the greatest miracles in the world.

Human and fish embryos are compared in the BBC documentary The Human Body, and the theory of "recapitulation," which ceased to be part of scientific literature years ago, is still portrayed as a scientific fact. The term "recapitulation" is a condensation of the dictum "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," put forward by the evolutionary biologist Ernst Haeckel at the end of the nineteenth century.

This theory of Haeckel's postulates that living embryos re-experience the evolutionary process that their pseudo-ancestors underwent. He theorized that during its development in its mother's womb, the human embryo first displayed the characteristics of a fish, and then those of a reptile, and finally those of a human.

It has since been proven that this theory is completely bogus. It is now known that the "gills" that supposedly appear in the early stages of the human embryo are in fact the initial phases of the middle-ear canal, parathyroid, and thymus. That part of the embryo that was likened to the "egg yolk pouch" turns out to be a pouch that produces blood for the infant. The part that was identified as a "tail" by Haeckel and his followers is in fact the backbone, which resembles a tail only because it takes shape before the legs do.

These are universally acknowledged facts in the scientific world, and are accepted even by evolutionists themselves. Two leading neo-Darwinists, George Gaylord Simpson and W. Beck, have admitted: "Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny."12 In an article published in American Scientist, we read:

Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail. It was finally exorcised from biology textbooks in the fifties. As a topic of serious theoretical inquiry it was extinct in the twenties…13

The following was written in an article in New Scientist, dated October 16, 1999:

Haeckel himself was forced to admit that his drawings from the end of the 19th century were fraudulent.

[Haeckel] called this the biogenetic law, and the idea became popularly known as recapitulation. In fact Haeckel's strict law was soon shown to be incorrect. For instance, the early human embryo never has functioning gills like a fish, and never passes through stages that look like an adult reptile or monkey.14

Another interesting aspect of "recapitulation" was Ernst Haeckel himself, a faker who falsified his drawings in order to support the theory he advanced. Haeckel's forgeries purported to show that fish and human embryos resembled one another. When he was caught out, the only defense he offered was that other evolutionists had committed similar offences:

After this compromising confession of 'forgery' I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner's dock hundreds of fellow-culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of 'forgery,' for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematised and constructed.15

In the September 5, 1997, edition of the well-known scientific journal Science, an article was published revealing that Haeckel's embryo drawings were the product of a deception. The article, called "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered," had this to say:

The impression they [Haeckel's drawings] give, that the embryos are exactly alike, is wrong, says Michael Richardson, an embryologist at St. George's Hospital Medical School in London… So he and his colleagues did their own comparative study, reexamining and photographing embryos roughly matched by species and age with those Haeckel drew. Lo and behold, the embryos "often looked surprisingly different," Richardson reports in the August issue of Anatomy and Embryology.

In short, despite its having emerged as early as 1901 that Haeckel's drawings were counterfeit, defenders of the theory of evolution such as BBC portray this theory as if it were scientific fact and attempt to keep the evolution deception alive.

Empty Words and Statements Intended to "Bewitch" the Viewer

It is He Who originated creation and regenerates it. That is very easy for Him. He is the most exalted designation in the heavens and the earth. He is the Almighty, the- All- Wise (Qur'an, 30:27)

"The miracle of evolution;" "evolution accomplished this extraordinary transformation;" "the human body shaped by evolution." Expressions such as these are frequently encountered in evolutionist sources. BBC often uses them, trying to inculcate the idea of "the miracle of evolution" alongside striking and colorful images. When these expressions of BBC's are examined closer, however, it can be seen that they are hollow, devoid of any scientific proof and actually state and explain nothing at all.

Using such expressions as these, BBC sets out a string of claims, although as one might expect, it fails to explain how any of these might have come about and which evolutionary mechanisms might have wrought such changes. These are some of the issues which BBC does not or cannot explain and which it glosses over with fancy words:

BBC says that "as the environment in which bacteria found themselves changed, more complex groups of cells began to emerge." Yet, it says not a word about one great enigma, the greatest stumbling block facing the theory of evolution: the question of how even a single cell could have come about by chance evolutionary mechanisms.

BBC says, "fish evolved into reptiles." Yet, it says not a word about how a creature which breathed in water by means of gills and had no lungs to allow it to breathe on land or feet to walk with, could have immediately adapted to life on land, nor about which organs evolved by means of which evolutionary mechanism. That is because this is a major dilemma for evolutionists, and one that cannot be accounted for by any so-called evolutionary mechanism.

BBC says, "reptiles became birds, and reptile scales turned into bird feathers." Once again, however, it fails to discuss how such an impossible evolution might have come about. That is because evolutionists are perfectly well aware that it is impossible for reptiles to have evolved into birds by means of chance mutations, that reptile scales and bird feathers have entirely different structures, and that it is impossible for one to turn into the other.

The ear is such a complex wonder of design that it alone nullifies the explanations of the theory of evolution based on "chance" occurrences. The hearing process in the ear is made possible by an irreducibly complex system.

BBC speaks of "an area shaped by evolution with unbelievable methods over thousands of years" when discussing the bones of the ear. Yet it never actually says what these methods were. That is because no such method is known to BBC or evolutionists.

BBC says, "The other parts of the ear, which provides balance and allows us to walk on two legs, as well as to hear, our hands, arms and our entire body took shape thanks to evolution." Yet it never says a word about how evolution shaped all these complex organs. That is because the theory of evolution cannot explain how organs possessed of irreducible complexity came about.

BBC says, "Decisions such as how we live, the shape of our bodies, were made billions of years before the appearance of the first human being." Yet it is unable to explain who decided what human beings' eyes, ears, hearts, and brains, which would emerge only billions of years later, would be like, nor who planned such conscious, intelligent, and organized systems in a world full of inanimate matter. Is BBC able to answer such questions? In other words, which unconscious, unaware, and unintelligent atoms in the primitive world could have planned the flawless design in the human body?

As we have seen, BBC's evolutionist propaganda is quite baseless. It puts before its viewers claims with no element of reason, logic, or science, under a scientific mask. BBC must be aware that the theory of evolution cannot actually support such claims, since before describing the myth of evolution it stresses that the story is "hard to believe," and continues: "The miracle that makes our bodies' daily lives possible also conceals another great secret from us. That secret, one which is harder to believe, is the story of how we assumed our present appearance."

The Mistaken Idea that Life Began by itself in an Environment of Volcanoes and Sulphurous Waters

In order to see how unreasonable and illogical the theory of evolution is, it will be sufficient to have a look at this claim made in the BBC documentary: The program shows an image of Yellowstone National Park in America, where thermal springs are found, and says, "If you had been here 3 billion years ago, you would have witnessed how the first living things came into being." If witnessing the emergence of living things is such an easy matter, as evolutionists claim, why is it that they do not carry out experiments to try and create the first living things in just such an environment?

Furthermore, evolutionists could impose whatever conditions they wished in these experiments, using whatever materials they wished. In fact, the uncontrolled, chance effects in the primitive earth could be done away with, and they could use consciously directed mutations instead of random ones. They could even be allowed to use ready-made amino acids and proteins, and all the different materials necessary for life, from phosphate to carbon. Then, in addition to all of this, if they said, "We need time," they could pass the area of the experiment on to one another as a legacy for millions of years. The world's most prominent evolutionary scientists could contribute to the experiment.

Evolutionists claim that amino acids came about by chance in what they call the "primeval soup" and that the first life emerged in this way. If it were really that easy to witness the emergence of living things, why do evolutionists not carry out an experiment by throwing such materials into a swimming pool? Moreover, they can establish such conditions as they wish by means of modern technology. Random effects could even be eliminated in the conditions of this primitive world; consciously directed mutations could be employed instead of random ones. They could even be permitted to use ready-made proteins and all the substances necessary for life, from nitrogen to carbon. In addition, if they say "We need time" they can pass the site of the experiment on to one another for billions of years as a legacy. Yet despite all these many facilities, evolutionists will never be able to form professors of biology who study the cells which comprise their own bodies, roses, tigers, tomatoes or brain surgeons in such a place. All that will emerge is a brown, muddy water.

Yet, despite all this flexibility given to them, evolutionists would still never be able to bring about roses, leopards, eagles, pigeons, butterflies, budgerigars, cats, fig trees, mulberry trees, orange trees, tomato plants, lemon trees, melons, violets, sunflowers, film producers, writers, nuclear engineers, brain surgeons, university students, professors of biology who study the cells which make up their own bodies, university rectors, heads of state, artists, and architects. They would not even be able to produce a single cell.

Despite being an evolutionist, Professor Hoyle admitted this fact:

If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes [proteins produced by living cells] have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You will find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals. How can I be so confident of this statement? Well, if it were otherwise, the experiment would long since have been done and would be well-known and famous throughout the world. The cost of it would be trivial compared to the cost of landing a man on the Moon . . . In short there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the Earth.16

Conclusion

With the documentary The Human Body, the BBC has entered upon a programme of evolutionary propaganda from which it can never obtain any results. Telling viewers things like "first there were bacteria, which later evolved and eventually became human beings, and this is a great miracle of evolution," without offering any scientific evidence, as if they were reading a bedtime story, is a fruitless attempt to get people to believe in evolution. Today, not even middle school children take evolution seriously; indeed, they find it rather comic. Our hope is that the BBC will realize that this documentary, which it perhaps decided to air solely because of its striking images, actually contains an account which is far removed from true science, and revise it accordingly.

1 - Mahlon B. Hoagland, The Roots of Life, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1978, p.18
2- Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Sceptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, New York, Summit Books, 1986. p.127
3- Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1984, p. 148
4- Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, p. 130.
5- Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Ankara, Meteksan Yayinlari, p.79
6- Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 87
7- B. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust, 1988
8- Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, pp. 172, 280
9- Derek A. Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record," Proceedings of the British Geological Association, Vol. 87, 1976, p. 133
10 - Mark Czarnecki, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade," MacLean's, 19 January 1981, p. 56
11 - Science, July 17, 1981, p. 289
12 - G. G. Simpson, W. Beck, An Introduction to Biology, New York, Harcourt Brace and World, 1965, p. 241
13 - Keith S. Thompson, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated," American Scientist, volume 76, May / June 1988, p. 273
14 - Ken McNamara, "Embryos and Evolution," New Scientist, 16 October 1999
15 - Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, New York: Ticknor and Fields 1982, p. 204
16 - Sir Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1983, pp. 20-21

PAUL DAVIES' DESPERATE CASE FOR A "MULTIVERSE"

PAUL DAVIES' DESPERATE CASE FOR A "MULTIVERSE"

In its April 12, 2003, edition, The New York Times carried an article by the famous astrophysicist Paul Davies entitled "A Brief History of the Multiverse." In this article, Prof. Davies attempts to defend the claim that there may be an infinite number of universes, and that our universe just happened to be suitable for life, which is the latest argument in which materialist thinkers have sought refuge in the face of the finely tuned design in the universe.

We first need to briefly set out why materialists developed such an argument. For thousands of years, the divine religions and philosophies that accept the existence of God have maintained that there is purpose and design in the universe, whereas materialists-those who claim that nothing exists apart from matter-have rejected the existence of purpose and design. A series of astronomical and physical discoveries in the twentieth century, however, revealed that the design in the universe was so clear as to be undeniable. These discoveries revealed that at the moment the universe began, all variables-from the speed of the Big Bang to the strength of the four fundamental forces, from the structure of the elements to that of the Solar System in which we live-were exactly what was required to support life. This tremendous discovery, which scientists in the 1970s announced and described as the Anthropic Principle, clearly invalidated the materialist argument for non-design.

Among His signs is that heaven and earth hold firm by His command. (Qur'an, 30:25)

In his article in The New York Times, Paul Davies summarizes this fact and admits the inevitable conclusion; the existence of God:

Why is nature so ingeniously, one might even say suspiciously, friendly to life? What do the laws of physics care about life and consciousness that they should conspire to make a hospitable universe? It's almost as if a Grand Designer had it all figured out.

However, although regarding the design in the universe as proof of the existence of God, Prof. Davies rejects this fact. In order to account for the origin of the design in the universe, he resorts to the multiverse theory, the last refuge, as we have already seen, of the materialists.

The Multiverse Theory

According to this theory, the universe we live in may be only one of an infinite number of universes comprising a very much larger "multiverse." In the materialists' view, it is quite normal for one or some of so many universes to be suited to life.

Yet is there any scientific evidence to support this theory?

No. None at all. It is nothing more than speculation, a scenario cast upon the waters.

The interesting aspect of Prof. Davies' article is that he attempts to give the impression that there is in fact a large quantity of important evidence in favor of the multiverse theory. The newspaper's spot caption summarizing the article is directed to just that end:

This idea of multiple universes, or multiple realities, has been around for centuries. The scientific justification for it, however, is new.

God created the heavens and the earth with truth. There is certainly a Sign in that for the believers (Qur'an 29:44)

Anyone seeing these introductory sentences without going on to read the whole text may well imagine that the multiverse theory is based on concrete scientific proof and that Prof. Davies' article goes on to mention it. However, quite the opposite is the case: There is no such evidence and in fact the author says not a word about this new scientific evidence, which he would happily speak of, if it existed.

On the contrary, there are admissions in Prof. Davies' article that the multiverse theory is only speculative. According to Prof. Davies, the multiverse theory has been arrived at "by imagining." Moreover, he says in reference to the theory that "credibility reaches a limit" and that it "more and more must be accepted on faith."

In short, Prof. Davies' and all other materialists' interest in the multiverse theory stems from personal preference rather than scientific proof. The starting point of that personal preference is their unwillingness to accept that the universe is the work of a Creator. Paul Davies states this fact in his article, claiming that any account based on saying "God made it that way" is not "satisfying" for a scientist.

The Aim of Materialistic Science

This question of "satisfaction" or the lack thereof is actually the starting point of materialistic science. This view of science takes as its aim the denial of the existence of God in accounting for nature and the universe. As Benjamin Wiker has set out in considerable detail in his important book, Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists, this intention has always lain behind the attempt to build a science that ignores the existence of God, which stretches from Epicurus to Charles Darwin and contemporary materialists. Materialists are desperately trying to develop and prove theories that deny the existence of God, not because science demands them, but because their worldviews and philosophies do.

Science itself, on the other hand, insistently and powerfully reveals the truth that materialists seek to ignore-that the universe is full of evidence of the Creator Who created it from nothing and so marvellously designed all its content.

Proofs of the Existence of God

It is God Who made the earth a stable home for you and the sky a dome, and formed you, giving you the best of forms, and provided you with good and wholesome things. That is God, your Lord. Blessed be God, the Lord of all the worlds. (Qur'an, 40:64)

The multiverse theory is one of the theories put forward in order to deny that truth, and is very definitely unfounded. The lack of any scientific evidence for the theory, as Prof. Davies himself admits, reduces it to the level of a belief-an unsubstantiated belief. Moreover, it is deceptive for materialists to put forward such objections as "you believe that God created the universe, we believe in many universes"-in other words, to suggest that there is a sort of "equivalence" here-because:

The rational explanation for the design in the universe is an intelligent designer. When you see a statue, you realize that there must also be a sculptor. An argument such as "Since there are infinitely many stones in the universe, this one just happened to take shape by chance," is of course quite irrational. In line with the logical rule known as Ockham's razor, which states that the simplest explanation of something is the one that ought to be accepted, the origin of the fine tuning in the universe is to be explained in terms of design rather than chance. (For details, see Harun Yahya's The Creation of the Universe, Al-Attique Publishers, Canada, 2001.)

There is a great deal of scientific evidence for the existence of God beyond just the fine-tuning in the universe. Like other materialists, Paul Davies believes that Darwinism has resolved the problem of the origin of living things, or else consoles himself with that assumption. The fact is, however, that Darwinism is now a discredited theory, and that it has been powerfully proven that there is intelligent design in the origin of living things. This is a scientific demonstration of the fact that, as well as creating the universe with flawless balances and design, God also intervenes in the universe which He has created. (For further details, see Harun Yahya's Darwinism Refuted.)

There is considerable evidence for the existence of God beyond the positive sciences. Discoveries in many areas such as human psychology, the evidence for the existence of the human soul, the divine texts, and the miraculous information in the Qur'an, the last divine text, demonstrate the existence of God and the fact that He created man and showed him the true path by way of religion. (See Harun Yahya's article "The Fall of Atheism," www.harunyahya.com /70the_fall_of_atheism_sci4.php.)

Materialists, on the other hand, are unable to find any other solution in the face of the increasingly powerful evidence mounting against them than to dream up new speculative theories-just like Paul Davies, who sets out by speaking of "new evidence for the multiverse theory," but who is unable to offer any evidence at all.

What Prof. Davies needs to do is to re-evaluate the scientific findings regarding the origin of the universe, not in the hope of finding a "satisfying" conclusion from the point of view of materialist prejudice, but in the hope of finding the ultimate truth. Then, he might see the truth of creation, which has been under his very nose all along, and finally grasp the existence of God, his own Creator and the Creator of all mankind.

NEW SCIENTIST'S "EVOLUTION WITH CLIMATE" ERROR

NEW SCIENTIST'S "EVOLUTION WITH CLIMATE" ERROR

The February 22, 2003, edition of New Scientist magazine carried an article called "Squirrels evolve as the world heats up." The story maintains that for the first time a mammal has been shown to be evolving in order to adapt to climate changes. It is described in New Scientist how some living things migrate to cold, polar regions in order to avoid the effects of global warming. The claim is then made that instead of migrating, squirrels have genetically adapted to climate changes. Yet, New Scientist is in error: there is no evolution in the changes of which it speaks.

The species of squirrel used in the study is the red squirrel, which lives in Canada. University of Alberta biologist Andrew McAdam and his colleagues spent 10 years studying the time of the year at which squirrels give birth and recording their findings. The researchers observed three to four squirrel generations during the 10-year period, and stated that present-day squirrels give birth on average 18 days earlier than their great, great-grandmothers. In this way, squirrels react to climatic warming by giving birth an average of six days earlier a year.

In your creation and all the creatures He has spread about, there are Signs for true believers. (Qur'an, 45:4)

Evolutionists regard this change as "evolution" and maintain that this can be seen not just in the squirrels' behavior, but also in their genetic material. Yet, this claim is not a valid one, because the researchers have not directly observed any genetic change. The basis of this claim is an analytical method based on statistics. The New Scientist article says:

The researchers used a statistical technique to work out how much of the change is down to evolution and how much is due to individual flexibility. They calculated the normal variation in birth dates for each generation and then identified squirrels that were giving birth much earlier than average. If the parents had the same trait, it was likely to have been inherited. The technique, which is commonly used in agriculture, attributes about 15 percent of the shift towards early birth to evolution.

These statistical analyses provide no evidence of evolution. The theory of evolution rests its claim that species evolve on mutations that take place in their genes. For this reason, if it is suggested that the change in squirrels' behavior is based on 15% percent genetic alteration, then it is essential to show which genes this genetic change came about in, and by means of which mutations. However, researchers have not identified any particular gene connected with time of birth. Demonstrating that an early-born female squirrel also gave birth to an early-born pup is not enough to demonstrate that this came about by mutation and that it is a change handed down from generation to generation. In short, these analyses do not demonstrate any "evolution," and merely prove that the people carrying out the research are trying to come up with an evolutionary result, even if only a forced and imaginary one.

The researchers also ascribe an imaginary propulsive force to this imaginary evolution. The article describes the so-called propulsive force of this so-called evolution in these terms:

The driving force for the squirrels' evolution is that climate change has led to a steady increase in the amount of food available in spring. So females that can give birth earlier than others are more likely to have babies that survive. These early-borns have a head start on their young peers, making them bigger and more independent when autumn comes and it is time to store food to survive the winter, says Stan Boutin, a member of the team.

Travel about the earth and see how He brought creation out of nothing. Then later God will bring about the next existence. God has power over all things. (Qur'an, 29:20)

A constant increase in food quantities may give rise to increasingly large squirrels as autumn approaches. Yet, this cannot be a propulsive force of evolution, because there have been no findings to show that the squirrels that this force is alleged to influence have undergone a mutation that has provided them with an advantage. There can be no talk of genetic change in the absence of mutation, and no talk of evolution without genetic change. If it is suggested that there is a propulsive force bringing about evolution in this example, then it must be shown which mutations apply. Yet, as we have made clear above, these mutations exist only in the minds of the researchers themselves.

Conclusion

This change seen in squirrels is not an example of evolution. Living things possess the ability to adapt to climatic conditions. This is well known, and it has been proven many times that it cannot bring about evolution. The statistical analyses put forward for the claim that climatic changes led to genetic change in squirrels have no evolutionary significance. Until the gene which controls this behavioral alteration and the mutations that took place in it during this 10-year period are identified, the claim can go no further than being a fairy tale.

It remains to say that even if there were a mutation that altered the time squirrels give birth, that would still not constitute proof of evolution. The theory requires mutations to produce new genetic information, new organs, and new biochemical structures. In other words, mutations must bring about "vertical development." Even if it had to do with a mutation, a change in the time at which squirrels give birth would not mean the emergence of a new organ, a new system, or a new biochemical structure. It would only be a "horizontal variation," for which reason it could not be described as "evolution."

NEW SCIENTIST'S LATEST MYTH:"HICCUPS ARE A LEGACY FROM EVOLUTION

NEW SCIENTIST'S LATEST MYTH:"HICCUPS ARE A LEGACY FROM EVOLUTION"

An article in the February 8, 2003, edition of the British magazine New Scientist carried speculation by an evolutionist researcher called Christian Straus, who suggested that hiccupping in human beings was a feature left over from evolution. He claimed there was a similarity between respiration in frogs and hiccupping, and suggested that this might be a feature stretching from 370 million years ago to modern man. However, Strauss offered not one piece of evidence to back this claim up, and merely engaged in speculation along the lines of "it might possibly be." In fact, Allan Pack, an expert in respiratory neurobiology at the University of Pennsylvania, stated that the claim was "very tough to prove."1

This claim is therefore no evidence for the theory of evolution. It merely consists of mental gymnastics, in other words speculation, in a manner compatible with the theory of evolution by a number of people who have unreservedly accepted the theory beforehand. Such speculation is valueless, since their starting point-the theory of evolution-is itself invalid.

The article in New Scientist includes many misleading expressions and Darwinist claims. Yet it lacks any substantial evidence to support these claims.

The way that some media organizations have unquestioningly reported such speculation, and even portrayed it as proven fact, is nothing but an indication of their superficiality, ignorance, and prejudice. The sensationalist style used in these media outlets is immediately evident upon examining the reports. The blatant use of descriptions such as "souvenir of our ancestors" or "legacy" in their headlines is a sign of this.

The reception given the story in the newspapers is thus rather exaggerated. Despite the fact that Straus offered no evidence at all for his claim, and the fact that the claim has not been accepted by other scientists, nevertheless, it was carried on the dailies' front pages as if it were a fact definitively proving evolution.

This story about "hiccupping" is just one example among many. Daily newspapers all over the world are quite capable of carrying stories, including ones about evolution, on their front pages without ever enquiring into their scientific background. Other recent newspaper headlines, such as "Our ancestors were microbes," "We came from Mars," "The dinosaur flew," and "Man's ancestors were anteaters," are all products of the same sensationalist journalism. These dailies and New Scientist magazine ignore the fact that science has undermined the theory of evolution, and portray evolutionist gaffes which lack any scientific value whatsoever as if they were proven fact.

Praise be to God, to Whom everything in the heavens and everything in the earth belongs. Praise will be His in the Hereafter. He is the Wise. The Informed. He knows what penetrates the earth and what issues from it, and what falls down from the sky and what soars up into it. He is the Most Merciful, the Ever-Forgiving. (Qur'an, 34;1-2)

1 -New Scientist, vol 177 issue 2381 - 08 February 2003, p. 16.

THE HISTORY CHANNEL'S DARWINIST AND ATHEIST PROPAGANDA

THE HISTORY CHANNEL'S DARWINIST AND ATHEIST PROPAGANDA

The History Channel is broadcasting a film in its Biography series, which deals with the life and views of Charles Darwin. In this film, Charles Darwin's unscientific views are defended on the basis of no evidence at all, as if they were proven fact, and there is at the same time open atheistic propaganda. The fact that a channel such as The History Channel, which claims to give viewers the historical and scientific truth, should devote space to Darwinist views, which are in no way compatible with the scientific facts, casts a shadow over its credibility.

Why are They Trying to Keep the Theory of Evolution Alive with Propaganda?

In recent weeks, a number of channels such as The History Channel, The National Geographic Channel, and The Discovery Channel have initiated an intense campaign of evolutionary propaganda. Documentaries that discuss the theory of evolution and praise Charles Darwin have been dusted off the shelves and screened, as if a common decision to that end had been taken. What is the reason for this? In our view, there is an attempt to repair the damage that scientific discoveries have done to the theory of evolution in recent years, and especially in recent months. As followers of the www.darwinism-watch.com website will know, discoveries in the fields of paleontology, molecular biology, and genetics have revealed a grave contradiction with the claims of the theory of evolution. Even evolutionists accept this. (You can find many instances of this in the archives of www.darwinism-watch.com.)

It is actually quite natural that the theory of evolution should have come to such an end. The real architect of the theory, Charles Darwin, lived in the 19th century and was unaware of most of the fields of science that exist in our time. For instance, since he was unaware of genetics, he believed that living species could be improved, in the way that stockbreeders do, and new species could be obtained. Thanks to the science of genetics, however, it emerged that stock improvement could not lead to the appearance of new species. He was similarly unaware of cell biology, and since he worked with the crude microscopes of his own time he assumed that the cell was a very simple structure, for which reason it might have emerged by chance. In our day, however, microbiologists regard the cell as a structure of incredibly flawless organization and complexity, on the order of the city of New York or a space ship, and consider it as totally impossible for the cell to have come about by chance. It was natural that Darwin, ignorant of all these branches of science and lacking technological facilities, should be influenced by certain similarities he observed between living things to form a theory, and for that theory later to collapse under the weight of scientific findings. The history of science is full of similar examples.

In his book The Origin of Species, Darwin never mentioned the origin of life. The primitive understanding of science in his time rested on the assumption that living things had very simple structures. Detailed studies of the cell that revealed its highly complicated structure were only possible after the discovery of the electron microscope.

However, there is another point here, one which is by no means normal and for which there is no parallel in history: Despite the fact that Darwin's theory has been belied by scientific discoveries, it has not been annulled like so many other theories. Rather, some scientists have tried and are still trying to defend the theory. That is the point which needs to be concentrated on. Even though science has clearly rejected the claim that living things evolved by chance, why is the theory of evolution still receiving such support?

It is no secret that the theory of evolution denies the fact that living things were created according to intelligent design as it seeks to find a so-called account for the origin of life. For that reason, the theory acts as the defender of atheism in the scientific arena. That is why those who deny intelligent creation and the existence of a Creator possessed of superior power are so fiercely devoted to the theory of evolution. Since the collapse of the theory of evolution means the collapse of their own atheist and materialist beliefs, they engage in evolutionist propaganda with all their might. Some of the major and indispensable elements of this propaganda are organizations like The History Channel, The National Geographic Channel, and The Discovery Channel in broadcasting, and publications such as Science, Nature, Scientific American, and New Scientist.

The main starting point for this propaganda was set out in the slogan "Rejecting the theory of evolution means rejecting science." That is why these channels and publications, which claim to be among the world's most eminent and trustworthy scientific bodies, are never able to bring up scientific discoveries that disprove the theory of evolution. It is as if they had been programmed, literally by a hidden hand, to defend the theory of evolution under all circumstances and never allow the mention of a single word against it.

Not Avoiding Innovations and Shocks, and Being able to Lead The Way Toward Novelties, is a Sign of Superiority

History has always placed innovations in man's way. Those who are open to these innovations, who are able to think freely without being tied down to dogmatic, conservative ideas, and who do not shrink from the criticisms and attacks of those around them, have gone down in history as the vanguard of innovation, as makers of history itself. Dogmatic, conservative types, however, have remained trapped in their own superstitions. These organizations need to see that we are at a turning point in history, and exhibit a courageous and progressive character, without worrying about loss of prestige in evolutionist circles.

The fact that we are now at a most important turning point is so obvious that it cannot be ignored. The materialist thought that has dominated all fields over the last few hundred years, from science to art, and from philosophy to literature, is falling apart. The collapse of the theory of evolution, materialism's so-called scientific basis, is just accelerating the end of the dominion of materialist thought. Today, the entire scientific world is witnessing the rapid rise of the thesis of "Intelligent Design." It is now completely clear that every living thing, and indeed every one of the trillions of cells that go to make up every living thing, possesses such a flawless, extraordinary design that this could never have come about by chance. The mind that accepts that a single letter "B" written on a piece of paper could never have come about by chance, must also accept the existence of "Intelligent Design" in living things. Accepting that fact means accepting the truths revealed by science, not rejecting them.

In any case, The History Channel and similar channels describe every day the flawless design in living things and show examples of marvelous creation. To claim that the living things which possess all these magnificent features are a miracle of evolution, in other words of blind coincidence, is both unscientific and irrational. Coincidence cannot create a miracle. In the same way that a camera, a television, or a picture cannot come about by chance, and cannot emerge of its own accord, neither can living things be the result of chance. It is evident that the theory of evolution conflicts with science and reason.

Evolutionists themselves are aware that chance is unable to account for life. The French zoologist Pierre Grassé admits:

Any living being possesses an enormous amount of "intelligence," very much more than is necessary to build the most magnificent of cathedrals. Today, this "intelligence" is called information, but it is still the same thing. It is not programmed as in a computer, but rather it is condensed on a molecular scale in the chromosomal DNA or in that of every other organelle in each cell. This "intelligence" is the sine qua non of life. Where does it come from?... This is a problem that concerns both biologists and philosophers, and, at present, science seems incapable of solving it.1

The reason why Grassé regards this as an unanswerable question is that he seeks the answer within the context of materialist prejudices. The truth, however, is very clear, and lies entirely outside materialist thought.

Our advice to the authorities at The History Channel is to have the courage to accept innovations and abandon their dogmas. They should put an end to showing the theory of evolution, which has cast a sort of magical spell over men's minds for the last 150 years, on our screens. That of course will represent an enormous shock, both for the channel and for evolutionists, but "shocks must not be avoided." Professor Michael Behe, an opponent of the theory of evolution and one of those who have not tried to avoid that shock, likewise advises his colleagues to do the same:

The resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth century who have gotten used to thinking of life as the result of simple natural laws. But other centuries have had their shocks, and there is no reason to suppose that we should escape them.2

Mankind managed to free itself from such dogmas as the idea that the earth was flat or at the center of the universe. It is also ridding itself of the materialist and evolutionist dogma that life emerged of its own accord, without being designed. The duty of true men of science and scientific bodies is to look at life and the origin of living things in an objective manner, compatible with the nature of science, by giving up their materialist preconceptions. The History Channel and the rest must not "avoid shocks," and must not support impossible scenarios by remaining attached to the outdated nineteenth-century materialist dogma.

Dangerous Atheist Propaganda Accompanies Evolutionist Propaganda

The program about the biography of Charles Darwin broadcast on The History Channel contains frequent elements of atheist propaganda, tries to portray science and religion as total opposites, and maintains the so-called superiority of Darwinism. The program presents Darwin as an atheist scientist and seeks to give the impression that the more he became interested in science, the further he moved from religion. The expressions employed in the documentary are particularly striking as they maintain according to the theory of evolution that man is also an animal, and that there is no such thing as an immortal spirit. This idea was against Christianity because if spirit did not exist, then the motivation for a better spiritual life would be abandoned. It is said in the documentary that after his daughter Emmy's death, Charles Darwin was sure that there was no final judgment after death.

Darwinism claims that living beings have evolved as a result of coincidences and by means of a struggle for life. This evil morality advises people to be egoistical, self-seeking, cruel and oppressive. The only possible solution that can save humanity from this benighted way of thinking is the widespread acceptance of the values of religion.

Since the theory of evolution is portrayed as fact in the documentary, such baseless claims as "man is an animal, he has no spirit, spiritual matters are unimportant, and there is no such thing as final judgment, the hereafter, or life after death" are thus suggested. Claims of this kind not only represent a threat to the society in which they are propagated, but are also unacceptable in a society largely consisting of believers. The History Channel's representatives must bear this fact in mind and reconsider their broadcasting policies in the knowledge that they are addressing communities most of whose members believe in God and religion.

The menace of atheist propaganda is evident. One of the main reasons behind the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union, and the reason why it was unable to survive, is that it spent many years utterly devoid of religious and spiritual values. Realizing, however, that those who sought salvation in the capitalist system would merely find themselves in another intolerable situation, Russia began to find its feet again after beginning to understand the importance of religion and spiritual matters. Atheism ruins a society's unity, harmony, peace, and social fabric. People who regard themselves as animals and believe that they cease to exist after death have a tendency to turn towards all forms of wickedness, immorality, violence, and crime. It is a simple matter for such people to be convinced to kill, torture, and harm others, because they regard those others not as beings with spirits, but as animals. Forms of immorality such as falsehood, corruption, and theft increase rapidly in irreligious societies, and it becomes impossible to prevent them until the moral and religious structure of society is reinforced. Feelings of love, compassion, affection, and devotion entirely disappear in atheist societies, to be replaced by anger, violence, selfishness, neglect, and cruelty.

These are just a few of the tragedies which atheism inflicts on a society. If we consider one by one all the tragedies that every family that will go to make up irreligious generations will experience, we can clearly see what a grave menace atheism represents. That is why those who engage in atheist propaganda are playing with fire, and why the Darwinism-watch.com website contains frequent advice for those who "engage in atheist propaganda with their eyes closed." Such people are unable to see the evidence against the theory of evolution, and are also unable to calculate the serious damage they are causing society by their defense of the theory.

Conclusion

Like those who hundreds of years ago maintained that the earth was flat, The History Channel and the other bodies in question are also making totally irrational claims, and they must stop doing this under a false scientific mask. It is they who will emerge the winners if they sincerely defend the truths that science now reveals.

1 -Pierre Grassé, The Evolution of Living Organisms, 1977, p. 168.
2- Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, New York, The Free Press, 1996, pp. 252-253.

EVOLUTIONST PROPAGANDA ON THE HISTORY CHANNEL

EVOLUTIONST PROPAGANDA ON THE HISTORY CHANNEL

Towards the end of January, The History Channel television company embarked on evolutionist propaganda consisting of four programs. Interestingly enough, this propaganda was not limited to The History Channel, since other channels such as National Geographic and The Discovery Channel stepped up their own evolutionist propaganda at exactly that same time.

Behind these broadcasts, initiated from three different directions, lie developments that have recently taken place in the scientific world and which prove the invalidity of the theory of evolution. These pro-evolution channels intend their propaganda campaign to cover up the damage these discoveries have done to the theory.

The series which The History Channel has begun to broadcast comes under the title Ape Man. However, since The History Channel first broadcast these programs there have been new developments that have further undermined the scenario of human evolution. The History Channel has deliberately ignored these developments and has not hesitated to broadcast the old stories that are no longer of any value at all in the face of new findings. We present below the developments in question for The History Channel's attention and call on it not to broadcast material that flies in the face of the scientific facts for the sake of Darwinist propaganda.

The Collapse of the Human Evolution Scenario; April 2002- January 2003

Fossils from Georgia Deal a Mortal Blow to the Human Evolution Scenario

July 4 - Skull fossils unearthed during an archaeological excavation in Dmanisi in the Republic of Georgia in 1999 caused a widespread reaction in the scientific world. The age and features of these fossilized bones were of a kind to challenge the evolutionist chronologies. Based on these fossils, a number of eminent paleontologists stressed the invalidity of certain classical evolutionary scenarios at the Seckenberg Conference in Germany.1 The latest skull fossils found at Dmanisi deepen still further the damage done to evolutionary scenarios by the first discoveries. The fossils caused great excitement in the media, and were reported by MSNBC under the headline "Fossil Discovery Upsets Theory on Human Origins."2 Paleontologists seeking the imaginary "missing link" were no longer able to defend their old claims in the face of the picture now emerging with the increasing number of fossils that failed to fit in with the evolutionist chronology. No concrete proof to show that there had been evolution from ape to man had been found anywhere in the fossil record.

The Fossil That Made Them Confess: Sahelanthropus tchadensis

July 7 - The fairy story of evolution that has been recounted for the last 150 years was dealt another blow by a fossil skull found in Chad and named as Sahelanthropus. Daniel Lieberman, an anthropologist from Harvard University, described the seven-million-year-old fossil as the discovery of the century and said, "This [discovery] will have the impact of a small nuclear bomb."3 The fossil definitively overturned the evolutionist myth of a gradation beginning with apes and ending in modern man. It was understood that the idea of the "ape-man" acquiring a gradually more modern appearance, as maintained in newspapers and magazines, was untrue. Moreover, it was also realized that the so-called missing link (between man and ape), widely used as a propaganda tool and which evolutionists claimed would inevitably be discovered one day, was actually missing because it did not exist. The paleontologist Henry Gee, the editor of the famous journal Nature which announced the fossil discovery to the world, described it as "the most important discovery in the search for human origins in living memory" and wrote the following in an article in the Guardian newspaper:

Whatever the outcome, the skull shows, once and for all, that the old idea of a "missing link" is bunk... It should now be quite plain that the very idea of the missing link, always shaky, is now completely untenable. 4

Forced Speculation in Time Magazine

On the cover of Time magazine's July, 23, 2001, issue was a painting of an ape-man called Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba. The painting was based on some fragmentary bones recently found in Ethiopia. Time assured its readers that the creature walked upright, giving as evidence for this nothing but a single toe bone which was actually found some sixteen kilometers (ten miles) from the other bones. However, Time's claim that this creature was a human ancestor was discredited by later studies on the toe bone.

August 27 - Detailed analyses by Joseph Mastropaolo, a world-famous scientist and member of the American Physiological Society, invalidated Time's evolutionist propaganda. Time magazine had announced to the world that the fossils of the species Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba discovered by the University of California at Berkeley anthropologist Yohannes Haile-Selassie in Ethiopia represented the "missing link." In its cover story dated July 23, 2001, and entitled "Meet your newfound ancestor, a chimplike forest creature," Time discussed the fossil in question in terms of a bipedal evolutionary ancestor. Evolutionists who studied the fossil had claimed the creature was 5.5-5.8 million years old and capable of bipedal walking. However, the bone they based all these claims on was just a single toe. Some 95% of the skeleton was missing, yet evolutionists still made the totally unrealistic claim that this toe supposedly showed that this creature was capable of walking on two legs, which showed in turn that man and apes evolved from a common ancestor. The evolutionist magazine Time felt no need to question whether its claims rested on any scientific foundation, and portrayed to the world these evolutionary tales, embellished with pictures of ape-men, as scientific fact.

Mastropaolo, regarded as one of the most respected authorities in the world of paleontology, wanted to be sure of the facts by examining the toe himself. He compared the Kaddaba toe bone to those of man, chimpanzees, and baboons. Comparing the anatomic criteria from a mathematical perspective, Mastropaolo arrived at very different results. The toe did not resemble those of chimpanzees or baboons at all. The resemblance between it and the human toe was also insufficient.

Mastropaolo's findings were unveiled at the San Diego Conference held by the American Physiological Society on August 27, 2002. It was made clear in the concluding part of the paper that the idea of an evolutionary ancestor walking upright was a work of pure imagination:

Accordingly, the objective ancestry analyses for fossil bones assert that the conclusions of Haile-Selassie and Robinson were farfetched speculations.5

"Chimps on Two Legs Run Through Darwin's Theory"

A news report in the Scottish newspaper The Scotsman revealed that scientists studying chimpanzees in Uganda have discovered groups of chimpanzees walking around on two legs. This discovery destroyed the false evolutionist claims holding that man evolved from quadrupedal apes and that an evolutionary progression took place from primitive to more developed species.

September 13 - The report of a discovery in the well-known Scottish newspaper, The Scotsman, tore down another of the classical myths of evolution. We have all seen the ape-man diagrams in evolutionist newspapers and magazines, which begin with an ape walking on four legs and then take on increasingly human characteristics, finally arriving at modern man. According to the theory this progression is based on, human beings evolved from so-called apes that walked on four legs. However, one group of chimpanzees discovered by Liverpool University anthropologist Dr. Robin Crompton belied that tale. The researcher encountered chimpanzees in Uganda's Bwindi jungle area that were able to walk on two legs. The Scotsman covered the story under the headline "Chimps On Two Legs Run Through Darwin's Theory." Dr. Crompton commented, "This is contrary to the accepted idea that we evolved from chimpanzees which were knuckle-walking - or walking around on all fours."6

The Genetic Difference Between Man and Chimpanzee Trebled

September 23 - There was one story that evolutionists created with false information and one-sided interpretations that was used to make the headlines for decades: The idea that man and chimpanzees were related, based on genetic analyses. One piece of research revealed that the genetic difference between man and chimpanzees was three times greater than had been believed.7 The way this piece of research widened that difference showed the invalidity of the evolutionists' claims about genetic relationships.

Conclusion

As we have seen, there have been a large number of scientific developments in a period of just six months that have clearly demonstrated the invalidity of the theory of evolution with regard to the origin of man. The History Channel must no longer hesitate to confront the scientific facts it has sought to conceal. Instead of blindly engaging in Darwinist propaganda, it must explain, clearly and in full as a history channel, how the scientific discoveries of the last 150 years have actually demolished Darwinism.

1 - Pat Shipman, "Doubting Dmanisi," The American Scientist, November-December 2000, p.491
2- MSNBC.com: "Fossil Discovery Upsets Theories on Human Origins," 4 July 2002.
3- D. L. Parsell, "Skull Fossil FromChad Forces Rethinking of Human Origins," National Geographic News, July 10, 2002.
4- Henry Gee, "Face of Yesterday," The Guardian, 11 July 2002
5- Eurekalert.com: "Oldest Human Ancestor is (Again) Called into Question," August 27, 2002
6- Richard Sadler, "Chimps on Two Legs Run Through Darwin's Theory," The Scotsman, September 13, 2002
7- Newscientist.com: "Human-chimp DNA difference trebled," September 23, 2002, http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992833

THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL'S SPIDER DILEMMA

THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL'S SPIDER DILEMMA

The Discovery Channel recently broadcast a documentary called Discovery Journal: The Spider. The documentary gives examples of the hunting techniques employed by various species of spider and stresses what a superior substance spider thread is. It describes how spider thread is much stronger than steel, and mentions the technological and industrial fields in which this material could be used once it has been artificially replicated. The channel produced a most entertaining programme with its close-ups of spiders and their webs. Yet, when it came to the origin of spiders, The Discovery Channel made a comment that at once cast a shadow over its scientific credentials, saying, "It is by no means easy to imitate this material, which is the product of 380 million years of evolution."

Spider fossil in amber

The evidence put forward on the channel for this claim consisted solely of statements by a scientist who discovered 380-million-year-old fossilized spinneret (the organ at the rear of the spider from which it produces its thread). This scientist claimed that he had found the distant ancestors of spiders, and said that when he dissolved 380-million-year-old rocks and examined them under the microscope he had identified the spinneret inside them. Yet, there was absolutely no proof that these spinnerets belonged to "spiders' distant ancestors," and not a real spider. The spinnerets display absolutely no intermediate form characteristics, and no difference has been found between them and those of modern spiders.

The Discovery Channel's portrayal of this fossil as spiders' distant ancestor is nothing more than a deception. That is because the scientific world has known for some 20 years that there is no difference between 380-million-year-old spiders and present-day ones. At its annual conference in 1983, the American Association for the Advancement of Science put forward important fossil discoveries regarding these creatures. The interesting thing about these 380-million-year-old fossils of spiders, ticks, and centipedes is that they are no different from their modern counterparts. One of the scientists who examined the fossils remarked that "they looked like they might have died yesterday."1 It is stated on the Australian Museum website that 380-million-year-old examples of the spider Attercopus fimbriungus possessed silk-producing organs even then.2 These fossils reflect the origin of spiders in the most realistic manner and invalidate The Discovery Channel's claims: Spiders emerged not by evolution, but suddenly and perfectly formed, and have undergone no change in the millions of years that have followed.

On the other hand, it also shows that the evolutionist interpretations of spider silk and the complex features of their webs are utterly forced. For instance, spider thread is so light that one kilogram of it could stretch around the earth three times. Despite being so light, spider thread is five times stronger than steel of the same weight. Thanks to its elasticity, it can stretch up to four times its own length. All of this is made possible by the special structure and arrangement of the atoms which make up spider thread. Moreover, although spider silk is solid in web form, it is a liquid in the spider's body. As soon it makes contact with the air, it solidifies as the result of a rapid reaction. Yet, spider thread, which is "the envy of chemists and materials scientists everywhere," as one American newspaper put it, can also revert to its original form.3 By eating its own web, the spider can turn it back into liquid form for re-use later.

Alongside this web-production, web-weaving is also a complex behavior. Although the spider's brain is no larger than a grain of salt, an architectural plan can be seen in the web it spins. The spider drops its thread down from where it sits and waits for the wind to carry it somewhere it can stick to. It then sticks the other end of the thread to another suitable point. After having drawn a few diagonal struts in this way, it starts to fill in the gaps between them with circular links. Anything coming into contact with the web is swiftly immobilised. Yet, the spider itself is unaffected by the adhesive nature of its web.

In other words, for the spider to have come about by evolution, both the web with its exceedingly complex biochemical structure, and the complex behavior allowing the spider to make use of the web, would have to have come about by means of chance mutations. It is clear that this is impossible. Moreover, there is absolutely no experimental, observational, or fossil evidence to support this evolutionist claim.

On the contrary, the evidence deals a mortal blow to evolution: the fact that 380-million-year-old spider fossils are no different from modern spiders, and the complex structure of the web, pose insuperable difficulties for evolutionists. Given these difficulties, The Discovery Channel declines to touch on the subject of how an organ that produces a substance with such superior properties, which scientists are trying to imitate, could have evolved by chance mutations. It therefore resorts to familiar old stories. The channel starts off with the shape of the nest, which spiders erected between plants on the ground and which contained a downward-pointing funnel: "These nests in the shape of funnels turned into a silken layer as the spiders climbed up on the trees. The gradually developing layer turned sideways, took shape and the circular web formed."

The Discovery Channel may imagine that with this story it has overcome the problem of the origin of spiders. If so, it is mistaken, because the web it places at the beginning of its story must have been made of spider thread with a flawless structure. Since it offers no proof that webs close to the ground are ancient in evolutionary terms, whereas those high up are more recent, it places spider webs in an imaginary chronological framework.

Conclusion

The Discovery Channel's ideas regarding the origin of spiders are nothing more than an expression of its terrible quandary on the subject. The true origin of the spider and its web, which place the channel in such difficulties, is creation. It is God, the Lord of the Worlds, the Lord of Infinite Knowledge and Might, Who creates the spider and its web-producing system, and Who inspires it to spin its webs. No matter how hard they may try, evolutionists can no longer conceal this evident truth.

1 - San Diego Union, New York Times Press Service, 29 May 1983; W. A. Shear, Science, vol. 224, 1984, p. 494
2- Australian Museum Online, 2002 http://www.amonline.net.au/spiders/diversity/what/origins.htm.
3- Stephen Reucroft and John Swain, "Spider silk mystery solved," Boston Globe, 10/22/2002.

THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL'S SPIDER DILEMMA

THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL'S SPIDER DILEMMA

The Discovery Channel recently broadcast a documentary called Discovery Journal: The Spider. The documentary gives examples of the hunting techniques employed by various species of spider and stresses what a superior substance spider thread is. It describes how spider thread is much stronger than steel, and mentions the technological and industrial fields in which this material could be used once it has been artificially replicated. The channel produced a most entertaining programme with its close-ups of spiders and their webs. Yet, when it came to the origin of spiders, The Discovery Channel made a comment that at once cast a shadow over its scientific credentials, saying, "It is by no means easy to imitate this material, which is the product of 380 million years of evolution."

Spider fossil in amber

The evidence put forward on the channel for this claim consisted solely of statements by a scientist who discovered 380-million-year-old fossilized spinneret (the organ at the rear of the spider from which it produces its thread). This scientist claimed that he had found the distant ancestors of spiders, and said that when he dissolved 380-million-year-old rocks and examined them under the microscope he had identified the spinneret inside them. Yet, there was absolutely no proof that these spinnerets belonged to "spiders' distant ancestors," and not a real spider. The spinnerets display absolutely no intermediate form characteristics, and no difference has been found between them and those of modern spiders.

The Discovery Channel's portrayal of this fossil as spiders' distant ancestor is nothing more than a deception. That is because the scientific world has known for some 20 years that there is no difference between 380-million-year-old spiders and present-day ones. At its annual conference in 1983, the American Association for the Advancement of Science put forward important fossil discoveries regarding these creatures. The interesting thing about these 380-million-year-old fossils of spiders, ticks, and centipedes is that they are no different from their modern counterparts. One of the scientists who examined the fossils remarked that "they looked like they might have died yesterday."1 It is stated on the Australian Museum website that 380-million-year-old examples of the spider Attercopus fimbriungus possessed silk-producing organs even then.2 These fossils reflect the origin of spiders in the most realistic manner and invalidate The Discovery Channel's claims: Spiders emerged not by evolution, but suddenly and perfectly formed, and have undergone no change in the millions of years that have followed.

On the other hand, it also shows that the evolutionist interpretations of spider silk and the complex features of their webs are utterly forced. For instance, spider thread is so light that one kilogram of it could stretch around the earth three times. Despite being so light, spider thread is five times stronger than steel of the same weight. Thanks to its elasticity, it can stretch up to four times its own length. All of this is made possible by the special structure and arrangement of the atoms which make up spider thread. Moreover, although spider silk is solid in web form, it is a liquid in the spider's body. As soon it makes contact with the air, it solidifies as the result of a rapid reaction. Yet, spider thread, which is "the envy of chemists and materials scientists everywhere," as one American newspaper put it, can also revert to its original form.3 By eating its own web, the spider can turn it back into liquid form for re-use later.

Alongside this web-production, web-weaving is also a complex behavior. Although the spider's brain is no larger than a grain of salt, an architectural plan can be seen in the web it spins. The spider drops its thread down from where it sits and waits for the wind to carry it somewhere it can stick to. It then sticks the other end of the thread to another suitable point. After having drawn a few diagonal struts in this way, it starts to fill in the gaps between them with circular links. Anything coming into contact with the web is swiftly immobilised. Yet, the spider itself is unaffected by the adhesive nature of its web.

In other words, for the spider to have come about by evolution, both the web with its exceedingly complex biochemical structure, and the complex behavior allowing the spider to make use of the web, would have to have come about by means of chance mutations. It is clear that this is impossible. Moreover, there is absolutely no experimental, observational, or fossil evidence to support this evolutionist claim.

On the contrary, the evidence deals a mortal blow to evolution: the fact that 380-million-year-old spider fossils are no different from modern spiders, and the complex structure of the web, pose insuperable difficulties for evolutionists. Given these difficulties, The Discovery Channel declines to touch on the subject of how an organ that produces a substance with such superior properties, which scientists are trying to imitate, could have evolved by chance mutations. It therefore resorts to familiar old stories. The channel starts off with the shape of the nest, which spiders erected between plants on the ground and which contained a downward-pointing funnel: "These nests in the shape of funnels turned into a silken layer as the spiders climbed up on the trees. The gradually developing layer turned sideways, took shape and the circular web formed."

The Discovery Channel may imagine that with this story it has overcome the problem of the origin of spiders. If so, it is mistaken, because the web it places at the beginning of its story must have been made of spider thread with a flawless structure. Since it offers no proof that webs close to the ground are ancient in evolutionary terms, whereas those high up are more recent, it places spider webs in an imaginary chronological framework.

Conclusion

The Discovery Channel's ideas regarding the origin of spiders are nothing more than an expression of its terrible quandary on the subject. The true origin of the spider and its web, which place the channel in such difficulties, is creation. It is God, the Lord of the Worlds, the Lord of Infinite Knowledge and Might, Who creates the spider and its web-producing system, and Who inspires it to spin its webs. No matter how hard they may try, evolutionists can no longer conceal this evident truth.

1 - San Diego Union, New York Times Press Service, 29 May 1983; W. A. Shear, Science, vol. 224, 1984, p. 494
2- Australian Museum Online, 2002 http://www.amonline.net.au/spiders/diversity/what/origins.htm.
3- Stephen Reucroft and John Swain, "Spider silk mystery solved," Boston Globe, 10/22/2002.

ERRORS CONCERNING HUMAN INTELLIGENCE FROM THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL

ERRORS CONCERNING HUMAN INTELLIGENCE FROM THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL

The documentary, Evolution: The Mind's Big Bang, broadcast on The Discovery Channel, set out a number of Darwinist claims on the subject of human intelligence and culture. Considerable space was devoted to the views of such unrepentant Darwinist scientists as Steven Pinker and Richard Dawkins. This paper examines these Darwinist views and sets out the distortions behind them.

Mankind's Social Identity Did Not Emerge By Means of Evolution

At the beginning of the documentary there is talk of discoveries of ornaments and necklaces going back some 50,000 years. It is then suggested that there was a so-called evolutionary explosion in cultural terms at that time, and various adornments are put forward as evidence of this. These belong to the ancient human race called Cro Magnon. It is stated on The Discovery Channel that these adornments are guessed to have belonged to a pregnant Cro Magnon woman and to have been used to send a message to other people. After explaining that such behavior is an indication of social identity, it is then suggested that these people established social relationships that did not exist in nature.

The claims regarding these ornaments are not consistent, since such adornments are not "indispensable" indications of social identity. The social identity put forward by means of these ornaments could have been expressed by even earlier people in terms of other objects, or even in other ways making not use of objects at all (by gestures, for instance). So, there is no foundation to the idea that one can simply look at an ornament and infer that previously non-existent social identities had been established at the time of that adornment.

Neanderthal Man is a True Human Being

WHICH ONE IS THE REAL NEANDERTHAL? Some drawings show Neanderthal man as a family father; others present him as a savage animal or a transitional form between ape and man. However, in truth, Neanderthals were human beings. Their only difference from modern man is that their skeletons are more robust and their cranial capacity slightly bigger. Although fossil discoveries show that Neanderthals had no "primitive" features as compared to us and were a human race, the evolutionist prejudices regarding them continue unabated. Neanderthal man is still sometimes described as an "ape-man" in some publications. This is an indication of the extent to which Darwinism rests on prejudice and propaganda, not on scientific discoveries.

A number of anatomical and cultural features of Neanderthal man are distorted on The Discovery Channel. This distortion can even be seen in the interpretation of the very word Neanderthal. Neanderthal man is spoken of in the documentary as "primitive Stone-Age man." Yet the fact is that Neanderthal means nothing of the sort. The name of this human race comes from the Neander valley near the German city of Dusseldorf (The first discoveries of this man were made by miners working in a cave in the valley in 1856.)

In the documentary, Neanderthal man is described as having a strong body, with a sloping, narrow forehead, following which there is speculation about his artistic levels. We are told that he left behind him no cave drawings in the habitat he lived in, and it is suggested that he thus left "no clues as to his symbolic life." The programme then says that modern man, on the other hand, attaches great importance to art and takes great care over it.

What emerges from this anatomical and artistic comparison of modern and Neanderthal man is not an evolutionary superiority. The fact that Neanderthals had powerful bodies or narrow foreheads is insufficient to demonstrate that they were a primitive species. For instance, we do not conclude that the large inhabitants of Northern Europe are cruder and more primitive than the smaller Chinese or pygmies. That is because bone and skeletal structure is not a criterion for judging behavior and intelligence.

On the other hand, if anatomical features are to be regarded as such criteria, then according to evolutionist logic, Neanderthals must be regarded as more intelligent than modern man, since evolutionists base human intelligence upon brain size. The brain volume of Neanderthal man is some 13% greater than that of his modern counterpart.

Neanderthal flute

The fact that no Neanderthal drawings have come down to the present day is also no indication of primitiveness. There are modern societies which take little interest in art or painting. Looking at their lack of representational art, all one can say about the Neanderthals is that they were "backward in art." Portraying them as a primitive intermediate species solely because they did not make pictures is nothing more than prejudice.

The fact that they did not make pictures is insufficient to show that they had little interest in art. A flute unearthed from a Neanderthal cave in Slovenia demonstrates that these people did have a musical culture. This flute is the oldest known musical instrument. Made from bear bone, it is able to produce notes thanks to four holes specially made in it. There is no doubt that it is only possible to make a flute and produce tunes by means of abstract conception. There is no reason not to assume that these people who interpreted music and produced tunes also entertained themselves by dancing.

Moreover, it has also been demonstrated that the Neanderthals nursed their sick and injured, and buried their dead with flowers. This indicates that they were social beings, possessed of the concepts of love and affection. To maintain that Neanderthals were primitive and on a lower evolutionary level than modern man is nothing than The Discovery Channel's own prejudice.

The Dilemma of Materialism Concealed by Steven Pinker

The Discovery Channel also reported errors regarding the origin of human behavior committed by Steven Pinker, a psychologist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as though they were true. Pinker makes the following claims:

The actual organization of behavior goes on [at] the level of the individual nerve cells and their connections, and we have a hundred billion nerve cells, probably a hundred trillion connections. It's just mind-boggling to think of all the different ways in which they're arranged in a baby's head. And a lot of our evolution consisted not just in getting more of this stuff, but in wiring it in precise ways to support intelligence.1

As Pinker makes clear, the human brain is a most complex structure. It is even described as "the most complex thing in the universe" in scientific magazines. Furthermore, the design and processing capacity in the human brain is even used as a model by computer engineers. Dr. Kerry Bernstein, a senior technologist from the well-known company IBM, states in an interview-report called "Brain Teaches Computers a Lesson" published on MSNBC.com, that he holds regular annual conferences attended by neurologists at the IBM headquarters to inform his engineers about the design of the human brain. Bernstein says that the operations of the brain cannot be exactly copied. It operates at roughly 12 kilohertz-the equivalent of 12,000 cycles per second-and burns a fraction of the power computers do, Bernstein says. That makes it exponentially more efficient than the fastest computer, he says. "The reason is because of something that we can't do in electronics." Bernstein says. "It's this notion of massive parallelism." Meaning one bit of data can spread to 100,000 other neurons, he said.2

As well as this superior design, the brain also functions most productively. Martin S. Banks, a professor of optometry and psychology at the University of California Berkeley, says, "The brain is efficient in that it doesn't waste energy maintaining information that it will not likely need in real life."3

As we have seen, there is a phenomenal design in the arrangement and functioning of the brain. Pinker and other Darwinists, however, suggest that this order within the brain came about by chance mutations. They claim that atoms bereft of all capacity for thought established the magnificent design in the human brain solely as the result of a long "evolutionary process" based on nothing more than chance. This claim has no scientific foundation and is a violation of reason. Genetic research has shown that there is no question of mutations' adding any information to the genes, and that if they do have any effect, they are always damaging to the organism. Not one artificial mutation carried out in laboratories has ever brought any benefit to a single living thing. Embryos subjected to mutation have been seen to be born dead or crippled. It is clear that mutation could never bring about the "order" within the brain. Such a thing is as impossible as turning an electronic calculator into the most complex computer in the world by smashing it with a hammer.

Although neuron activity related to behavior has been detected in the brain, no explanation has yet been offered which might reduce consciousness, the source of all behavior, to the brain.

The claim that behavior is to do with nerve cells and the connections between them is also a dogma. Neuron activity concerning behavior has been detected in the brain, yet no explanation has been offered which might reduce consciousness, the source of all behavior, to the brain.

Behavior consists of the choices of action taken by man to adapt to his environment or to adapt that environment to himself. The possibility of such behavior is dependent upon his having knowledge, in other words consciousness, of his environment. Consciousness, however, is one of the major dilemmas facing materialism, since it has never proven possible to reduce consciousness to matter: no clues have ever been found as to where consciousness resides in the brain and how it emerges. The question of how consciousness comes about in man, a collection of cells, is still a mystery to materialists. Brain scan studies in the experimental field and theories put forward in the theoretical field have all failed to account for consciousness. Colin McGinn, author of the book The Problem of Consciousness, admits this failure in these words:

We have been trying for a long time to solve the mind-body problem. It has stubbornly resisted our best efforts. The mystery persists. I think the time has come to admit candidly that we cannot solve the mystery.4

All this reveals that behavior is not limited to the brain cells. Steven Pinker is actually perfectly well aware of the quandary that consciousness represents for materialism. In basing behavior on the connections between brain cells, he is attempting to cover up this dilemma facing materialism, rather than offering a consistent explanation.

Behavior Aimed at Defending Social Position Is No Proof of Evolution

Taking certain aspects of chimpanzee behavior as a model, The Discovery Channel attempts to establish a relationship between them and man. The documentary explains how when a chimpanzee seeks to influence another chimpanzee whose friendship it hopes to win, it attacks another animal when it begins to annoy the community, thus sending the message that "my friend's enemy is my enemy." However, this example is a comparison based on sheer prejudice; what we have in common with chimpanzees is that we understand the meaning of communications and that this can threaten our social position.

The fact that man and chimpanzees display such common behavior cannot be put forward as proof of any evolutionary relationship between them. Such shows of strength can also be seen among other animals. Elephants, for example, do not allow other elephants to enter regions belonging to their herd. Moreover, the elephant that wins the struggle for leadership of the herd is approved as the new leader by the other members of the community. In other words, just like chimpanzees, many other living things are capable of sending messages to other members of the group in order to defend their own social positions. Yet, the fact that elephants, like man, attach importance to their social position does not of course mean that there is any evolutionary relationship between the two.

The Discovery Channel also engages in Darwinist propaganda by suggesting, in the narration accompanying images of a group of chimpanzees, that human beings split away from chimpanzees some 6 million years ago and evolved as a separate primate branch. The truth is, however, that just like other different species in nature, man and chimpanzees are totally different creatures. The claim that they separated from one another 6 million years ago through an evolutionary process has no scientific basis, and is merely a Darwinist assumption. The scientific evidence has revealed that the significance of the fossils put forward as evidence for these scenarios has been distorted. These fossils are not so-called intermediate species, but either the remains of extinct human races or else species of ape. (For the collapse of the scenario of human evolution, see Harun Yahya, The Evolution Deceit, Taha Publishers, London, 2003.)

The Discovery Channel's Darwinist Preconceptions About Language

God brought you out of your mothers wombs knowing nothing at all, and gave you hearing, sight and hearts so that perhaps you would show thanks. (Qur'an, 16:78)

The documentary also contains speculation about the origin of language that are based entirely on fantasy and prejudice. The social benefits conferred on man by language are described as the benefits conferred on individuals in the so-called process of evolution. The claim is then made that the socially most powerful might have been selected during the alleged evolutionary process.

The Discovery Channel is unable to offer any scientific proof for this claim, and deals with it in a fairy-tale manner. It takes man's ability to speak, and artificially pastes it onto natural selection, the classical idea at the heart of the theory of evolution. Needless to say, one-sidedly portraying a series of imaginary claims lacking in any scientific foundation as though they were scientific fact is not a scientific approach.

Language, which allows man to think and establish communication with others in a most perfect manner, is a miraculous ability unique to man. All human beings possess language-learning ability from the moment of their birth. A baby anywhere in the world can learn any language spoken anywhere in the world.

Structurally, language rests on complex grammatical and syntactical rules. An utterance consisting of two or three words might appear to be something really rather simple. However, in order for a person to produce it, a great many very complicated processes must be carried out within a very short space of time. Abstract concepts regarding the issue in question are brought to mind, appropriate words are chosen, and then the words are arranged in the right order. All of this must happen for the original thought to be communicated to someone else.

Frank Guenther of Boston University says, "Speech is easily the most complicated motor act humans carry out."5 Guenther states that during speech the brain controls more than 100 muscles in the face, throat, chest, and abdomen, and emphasizes that all of this happens spontaneously without our needing to think about it. Guenther describes how a five-syllable word, including eleven discrete phonemes, takes most people less than a second to say. Furthermore, we do not have to worry about which muscles to tighten or loosen as we speak. Speech is literally a miracle.

Seeking to offer a Darwinist explanation of the origin of language, The Discovery Channel also deals with gossip in terms of natural selection. After stating that gossip comprises two-thirds of human conversation, the channel says that gossip is actually capital, and that the first person to learn how to do it acquired information that could be negotiated with others, for which reason gossip is an evolutionary benefit.

This claim about gossip is actually nothing more than fantasy, of course. Moreover, it is not even consistent, because gossip is not capital. If it were, then those who gossip most would today be the most respected individuals in society.

Richard Dawkins' Distortions

Human beings have intelligence, awareness, and will;are able to form abstract thoughts and produce works of art such as the architectural masterpieces seen in this picture. It is impossible to account for abstract thought by adopting a materialist approach and saying that it has come to be through an evolutionary process based on uncontrolled chance happenings such as mutations.

The Discovery Channel also devotes space to the claims of Richard Dawkins, an unrepentant Darwinist, atheist, and Oxford University zoologist. Dawkins considers all forms of cultural behavior (ideas, gestures, etc.) under the heading of "meme." Dawkins describes memes as ideas passed on by one human being imitating another, and suggests that in the same way that the genes copy DNA and pass it on from person to person, the memes that constitute the mind and shape behavior are similarly copied and handed on from one person to another. The idea is that, just as the so-called competition between genes shaped biological evolution, so too the competition between memes shaped the brain and culture. Dawkins later suggests that memes-i.e., mimicry or assimilation-are the propulsive force behind human evolution.

The ideas Dawkins describes with the concept of memes can of course change and develop. For instance, ideas can be discussed and other ideas added as a result. Cultural progress can thus take place. In addition to this, human behavior and the behavior of other human beings may be imitated. There is nothing wrong with Dawkins' account up to this point. The error lies in suggesting that this is evidence for so-called human evolution. Mimicry is concerned with abstract thought. Man is the only being possessed of reason and capable of transmitting, copying, and developing ideas. No relationship based on mimicry can possibly be established between man-who creates works of art, develops scientific theories, and designs and debates political regimes-and animals, bereft of all capacity for abstract thought. Instead of considering and defining a property that is unique to man, Dawkins should first of all explain how abstract thought might have emerged during the so-called transition from animal to man. What evolutionists are unable to explain is this: How is it that an animal that is unable to think or speak and unable to establish detailed connections between itself and its surroundings, could possibly turn into a human being able to speak and think and possessed of reason and high intelligence? By what evolutionary mechanism could this mental gulf have been bridged?

Naturally, neither Dawkins nor other evolutionists have a consistent reply to these questions. That is because it is impossible to account for abstract thought by adopting a materialist approach, as Colin McGinn has admitted.

Dawkins has no evidence at all of how so-called evolution might have bridged this gulf, and his claim is a totally imaginary one.

"If cultural heritage replicates itself, like DNA molecules, then a new theory of Darwinism might emerge."

No further comment is made after The Discovery Channel puts this suggestion forward. Yet, an explanation of what a cultural accumulation is and how human culture might emerge from the replication of such an accumulation needs to be made. For that reason, these superficial statements have no meaning at all on the scientific level.

Finally, the claim that there is competition between genes and that this competition shaped biological evolution is invalidated by the effect of chance mutation. Like all evolutionists, Dawkins has adopted the dogmatic idea that the vast amount of information concealed in DNA emerged by chance. Genetic research has demonstrated that it is impossible for chance mutations to add information to species' DNA and thus turn them into other species. You can read about the scientific evidence for how mutations-the genetic stronghold of evolution-actually put the theory into a quandary in www.darwinismrefuted.com based on the works of Harun Yahya.

Conclusion: The Origin of Human Reason is Creation, not an Evolutionary Big Bang

Human beings are very superior to other living things. The civilization established by man reveals an extraordinary accumulation of knowledge. Philosophy, medicine, universities, science, technology, politics, art … the origin of all of these stems from consciousness. Consciousness, language, and speech are concepts that cannot be explained in terms of materialism. Man has no physical or psychological relationship to chimpanzees. It is not possible to talk of the mind's big bang through evolution, which is itself unable to account for reason in the first place. The great error of Darwinism is clear. Mutations which came about by chance cannot have caused a "big bang" in human brain and led to "the world's most complex" design, the human mind.

The truth, which evolutionists refuse to accept, is evident: it is impossible to account for human reason and consciousness in terms of materialism. The atoms in the brain cannot feel, know, or speak. There is no doubt that the source of the human brain is not atoms, but the inspiration of our Lord.

1 - Steven Pinker, Evolution of the Mind, WGBH Educational Foundation http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/2/text_pop/l_072_03.html
2- Ruthland Herald, "IBM engineer looks to brain for new technology," April 12, 2003, http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/Archive/Articles/ Article/49517.
3- "Brain's method of merging input depends on which senses supply it" http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-11/uop-bmo111902.php.
4- Colin McGinn, "Can We Solve the Mind-Body Problem?" Mind, 98 (1989), p. 349
5- "Repeat After Me," Discover, November 2002

THE DINO-BIRD FANTASY ON THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL

THE DINO-BIRD FANTASY ON THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL

A documentary about dinosaurs was broadcast on The Discovery Channel in January 2003. Most of the film was devoted to the way dinosaurs lived. Various dinosaur fossils were presented, and speculations advanced regarding their feeding habits and whether they were carnivorous. In the light of major fossil discoveries, particularly on the continents of Asia and America, the program tried to establish the migratory routes that these giant creatures might have followed.

The last 10 minutes of the film consisted of an introduction to the matter of "feathered dinosaurs," so frequently alluded to in evolutionist propaganda. It was maintained that feathers had been found on one fossil, called Caudipteryx, and that this fossil represented an intermediate form in the so-called evolution of birds.

The claims made on The Discovery Channel about the fossils are unfounded. The dino-bird theory, based on two fossils, flies in the face of the scientific facts. A wider consideration of the scientific findings that totally undermine the dino-bird theory can be found at our website www.darwinismrefuted.com.

The first of the two fossils given in the film is Sinosauropteryx. When this fossil was first found, in 1996, it was claimed that it had structures similar to feathers. However, later detailed analysis in 1997 revealed that these structures had nothing at all to do with feathers. The evolutionists therefore abandoned their claims that the creature had been feathered.

The second species alleged in the documentary to have been feathered is Caudipteryx. Evolutionists are unanimous that Caudipteryx lacked the power of flight. The creature had short arms and long legs, and possessed an anatomy far better suited to running. The main feature to invalidate the thesis that Caudipteryx might have been the ancestor to the birds is its age. Caudipteryx, which Phil Currie attempts to portray as a transitional species, is some 120 million years old. Archaeopteryx, the oldest known bird, is 30 million years older than that. The 150-million-year old bird Archaeopteryx is solid evidence that Caudipteryx was not an intermediate species. Archaeopteryx lived long before Caudipteryx and was able to fly perfectly, just like modern birds.

The dino-bird theory actually constitutes a rather superficial propaganda tool, which is why even some evolutionist scientists reject it. In an article in New Scientist, the famous ornithologist Alan Feduccia sets out the anatomical differences between birds and dinosaurs and states that from the paleontological point of view the theory is a disgrace:

Well, I've studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don't see any similarities whatsoever. I just don't see it... The theropod [a bipedal, meat-eating dinosaur] origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20^th century.1

Another ornithologist, Larry Martin, makes this comment in the same article:

To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds with those characters, I'd be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about it.2

Birds are the origin of birds. It is out of the question for dinosaurs or any other land animal to have come by the power of flight as a result of gradual mutations. That is because birds' bodies are specially designed to fly. When one examines the bird wing, feather, lung, and other structures, one encounters particular features peculiar to flight that are not found on any land creatures. The most important feature of this design is its irreducible nature. The wing, lung, and feather need to be present in perfect form in order for flight to be possible. One Turkish evolutionist, Engin Konur, says:

The common trait of the eyes and the wings is that they can only function if they are fully developed. In other words, a halfway-developed eye cannot see; a bird with half-formed wings cannot fly. How these organs came into being has remained one of the mysteries of nature that needs to be elucidated.3

Conclusion

In the light of scientific findings, the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs, as broadcast by The Discovery Channel, is invalid. Evolutionist sources such as The Discovery Channel shut their ears to the scientific facts and continue to portray this piece of fantastic fiction as if it were a scientific theory. We call on The Discovery Channel to abandon this deception, described by the famous ornithologist Larry Martin as "embarrassing," and to look upon birds and dinosaurs as separate species. 

1 - Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Dinosaurs?," New Scientist, 1 February 1997,p. 28
2- Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Dinosaurs?," New Scientist, 1 February 1997, p. 28.
3- Engin Korur, "Secret of Eyes and Wings," Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology), October 1984, No. 203, p. 25 .