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 .

THE "MITOCHONDRIAL EVE" DECEPTION ON THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL

THE "MITOCHONDRIAL EVE" DECEPTION ON THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL

The Discovery Channel recently broadcast a documentary called The Real Eve, in which imaginary scenarios were put forward regarding the spread of modern man, who allegedly emerged by means of evolution in Africa, to the rest of the world.

However, scientific discoveries show that the evolution of man is nothing but a fantasy, and that the claims made on The Discovery Channel are unfounded. This article reveals the scientific errors made by the channel.

The program begins with the claim that all human races in existence today are descended from one single woman who lived in Africa some 130,000 years ago, and that this woman was the first representative of Homo sapiens, who allegedly emerged through a process of evolution. Since these claims concerning this woman are based on analyses of mitochondrial DNA, this mythical female is known as "mitochondrial Eve."

It is suggested that these human beings, with their large brains, left the continent, maybe to find new resources, and began spreading to the rest of the world some 80,000 years ago. The likely migration routes of one small group of humans, shown wearing primitive clothing, and the incidents that may have taken place during their journey, are depicted. Such issues as climate changes, the relationship between Neanderthals and modern man, and a number of fossil discoveries are also discussed. The Darwinist message is that every person alive today is the product of evolution, and that the traces of this so-called evolution are to be found in our genes.

Paleontological methods based on the fossil record and biological methods based on mtDNA and Y-chromosome analyses yield extremely contradictory results about the dates of the human origins scenario. This is natural, because, neither on the anatomic level, nor on the molecular level, is any organism the "ancestor" of another.

Yet the genetic facts said to confirm these claims are not actually objective scientific discoveries at all, but rather facts interpreted in the light of evolutionist prejudices. In other words, such interpretations of genes have no realistic basis.

The clearest example of this is the concept of "mitochondrial DNA" (mtDNA), used as the springboard for the evolutionist claims in the program. Mitochondrial DNA analyses always take pride of place in the claims put forward on the program. The allegations that Homo sapiens emerged some 130,000 years ago in Africa and that the first Americans came to the continent 20,000 years ago, as well as the speculation regarding the migration routes taken by human beings as they spread out of Africa, are all based on mtDNA.

The fact is, however, that age analyses based on mitochondrial DNA have recently been scientifically disproved!

Until very recently, it was believed that mtDNA was passed on only by the mother, for which reason a woman's mtDNA could be followed down the generations. Evolutionary biologists frequently resorted to mtDNA analyses and used mtDNA to put forward speculation about the origin of life. Yet due to their attachment to evolution as a dogma they interpreted mtDNA in a one-sided manner, and imposed the precondition that the differences between the various examples of mtDNA they examined had to have come about by mutation.

However, a fact that emerged only last year has fundamentally undermined the credibility of these analyses. An article entitled "Mitochondria can be inherited from both parents" in the well-known magazine New Scientist described how 90% of the mitochondria in one Danish patient had been passed down from the individual's father. It thus emerged that all the mtDNA research employed to support imaginary evolutionary scenarios was actually meaningless. New Scientist confessed this fact in these words:

Evolutionists cannot reach an agreement even on the most basic topics regarding their theory such as when and where the first human beings emerged and how they spread around the world. The "out of Africa" theory (above left) holds that the first human beings emerged in Africa and then emigrated to all around the world. In contrast, some researchers such as Milford Wolpoff maintain that human beings evolved not only in Africa but simultaneously in Africa, Europe, and Asia (below left). These contradictory theses show one thing:that man never underwent an evolutionary process.

Evolutionary biologists often date the divergence of species by the differences in genetic sequences in mitochondrial DNA. Even if paternal DNA is inherited very rarely, it could invalidate many of their findings.1

For this reason, the "mitochondrial Eve" thesis put forward on The Discovery Channel has been totally invalidated by the above finding. Evolutionist sources such as The Discovery Channel interpret the genetic differences among the peoples of the world in the light of their own prejudices to reinforce their own theories. That is what invalidates the evolutionist claims based on genetic analyses.

Another research technique pointed to by evolutionists as supporting their "out of Africa" theories is Y-chromosome analysis, based on the study of the Y-chromosome, which can only be passed on by the father. Yet when Y-chromosome and mtDNA analyses are compared, the inconsistency of the evolutionist claims becomes even more obvious. Furthermore, a great many paleontologists fiercely oppose chronologies based on genetic analysis. The paleontological evidence is completely at odds with mtDNA and Y-chromosome analyses.

The researcher Spencer Wells, who studied the differences between the various human races using Y-chromosome analysis, suggests that all human beings are descended from a common ancestor living in Africa some 60,000 years ago. Paleontologist s basing their figures on the fossil record claim this happened some 40,000 years earlier. There is obviously an enormous difference between the dates proposed by genetic analysis and the fossil record. Alison Brooks, a paleontologist at George Washington University, says, "The dates don't compare well to the order or the geography of the migration patterns revealed by the fossil record."2 The difference between Y-chromosome and mtDNA analyses is even greater. Research based on the latter puts this departure back by 90,000 years, to 150,000 years ago.

It can be seen that evolutionists cannot even agree among themselves about the "out of Africa" theories discussed on The Discovery Channel. In fact, many evolutionist anthropologists and paleontologists completely oppose the "out of Africa" theory. One group of scientists led by such researchers as Alan Thorne and Milford Wolpoff defend the multi-region theory and put forward discoveries showing that the "mitochondrial Eve" thesis is a work of fantasy. The 68,000-year-old Mungo Man discovered in Australia by Alan Thorne has dealt a serious blow to the "out of Africa" theories, and of course to the "mitochondrial Eve" thesis.3

The reason why there are so many mutually conflicting theses is that the suggested process of evolutionary change is totally imaginary and unreal. Since there was no evolutionary process in the past, everyone comes up with his own individual scenario.

Mutation and the Molecular Clock Deception

The program on The Discovery Channel carries various pieces of speculation about when the first Americans might have reached the continent. This migration was first thought to have taken place 15,000 years ago. The program describes how following mtDNA analyses, the date was put back by another 5,000 years, to 20,000 years ago. One researcher whose views were reported says that a mutational difference had been identified between those people who crossed the Bering Strait to America and those who remained in Asia. He then goes on to comment on the "molecular clock," something that is frequently cited by evolutionist researchers, using the expression "if we assume that a mutation takes place once every 20,000 years …" Yet this interpretation is nothing but an evolutionist castle in the air, based on no scientific foundation: The concept of the molecular clock used in the identification of genetic mutations is a completely hollow concept, the result of prejudiced views.

It will now be useful to consider this concept, so frequently resorted to in the evolutionists' distortions of the genetic facts, in more depth.

The so-called molecular clock hypothesis assumes that the amino acids in the proteins of living things, or the nucleotides in their genes, change at a particular rate. The claim put forward on The Discovery Channel that human beings undergo a mutation once every 20,000 years is based on that hypothesis. Evolutionists examine the mitochondria of chimpanzees and human beings, who are assumed to have descended from a common ancestor, and identify different nucleotides within the analogous regions of the DNA. Assuming man and chimpanzees to have split apart some 6 million years ago, they divide that 6 million by the number of their different nucleotides, thus coming up with a kind of timetable of imaginary mutations.

Naturally, these claims are based on nothing more than evolutionist prejudice, and have no meaning whatsoever in the face of the scientific facts. (For further details, see Darwinism Refuted:How the Theory of Evolution Breaks Down in the Light of Modern Science by Harun Yahya, Goodword Books, 2003)

The "winding up" of this molecular clock rests entirely on evolutionist prejudice. In fact, the "clock" in question is not synchronized for that very reason: It was claimed in one article in the well-known journal Science that according to one new molecular clock "mitochondrial Eve" must have lived no more than 6,000 years ago.4

All this shows that the "mitochondrial Eve" thesis expressed on The Discovery Channel is actually quite meaningless. The essence of the theory is that evolutionists dazzled by the illusion of Darwinism naturally look at genes under the influence of that illusion, and see exactly what they want to see.

The Neanderthal Deception

In that section dealing with the "out of Africa" scenarios, we are told how modern human beings encountered Neanderthals when they reached Europe, and brief information regarding the Neanderthals is supplied. Despite the Neanderthals' being accepted as a human race, Neanderthal Man is still portrayed as a primitive species. The recreations portrayed by The Discovery Channel show Neanderthal Man as a human who screamed instead of using proper speech, a wild thing who howled like a wolf.

The fact is, however, that discoveries regarding Neanderthal anatomy and culture show that there was nothing primitive about Neanderthal Man at all, and prove that they were a human race who lived, thought and spoke, and enjoyed a culture and civilization just like modern man.

The evolutionist distortion in this regard goes back to the 19th century, to the discovery of the first Neanderthal fossil in 1856. The distortions in the skeletal reconstruction made by the French anatomist Marcelline Boule led to Neanderthal Man's being regarded as a brutish ape-man, who walked in a crouch and possessed no culture. In fact, the word "Neanderthal" even entered the English language as a synonym for "crude, ignorant." However, new findings regarding the Neanderthals have shown that this was utterly mistaken, and the idea that they were ape-men has now finally been abandoned.

The Discovery Channel is still serving as a tool for Darwinist propaganda in this area. Its attempt to portray Neanderthal Man as a product of evolution by describing him as "10 times closer to man than the chimpanzee" is a totally meaningless and fictitious comparison.

Conclusion

The "mitochondrial Eve" documentary shown on The Discovery Channel constitutes an enormous deception. The analyses used as evidence have no validity and do nothing more than reflect evolutionist prejudices. The Darwinist propaganda put forward by The Discovery Channel, totally ignoring the scientific facts, has utterly collapsed. Neither Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) nor Neanderthal Man is an evolved species. Both are human, whom God created, with such superior abilities as the power of speech and thought.