Science or a Religion Called Darwinism??? Part 2

This is the second in a three part series discussing Darwinism. The final post will be whether or not Christianity and Science are at odds. For now, we will look at the facts given by actual high-school text books for evolution.

What evidence is there for evolution? Check out these developments from the things you were taught in your high-school science class...

A. Darwin’s Beaks: One of the most widely cited pieces of evidence for evolution is the variation among finches on the Galapagos Islands off the cost of South America. The idea is that these finches’ beak size would differ according to the place where they lived – which suggests that they evolved with their environment to the varying conditions. The text book page says “The evolution of the various species of finches on the Galapagos Islands shows how geographic and behavioral barriers and reproductive isolation eventually lead to the formation of new species.” But that is not the end of the story. You are supposed to believe that these new species remain, and eventually continue to evolve into something new, yet again. Of course, carried out over Billions of years, they must form new species altogether (in other words, eventually a finch could evolve into a giraffe). But that is not the end of the story. What you are not told in this text book is that eventually, the rains on the Galapagos Islands returned and the seeds (which caused the beaks to change in the first place) was back to the original size. What happened then? The beaks of the finches changed back to the original size as well, leaving no new species. This was not a road to evolving into a new kind of bird, instead, it was simply a minor adaptation that allowed the species to survive in dry weather. This teaching leads you to believe that things evolved to finches, and these finches are in the process of evolving into something else, but it failed.
Nancy Pearcy says “It did not demonstrate that they originally evolved from another kind of organism, nor that they are evolving into anything new.” When the National Academy of Sciences put out a booklet on evolution for teachers, it failed to put the fact that the beaks returned to their original size. Instead, the Academy speculated that that if the change had the opportunity to continue for hundred of years, it would have produced a new kind of finch. How is this based on evidence? This is a lie and a distortion of facts.

B. The Famous Fruit Flies: Realizing that little “new species” evidence is in existence to support evolution, scientists began trying to produce mutation in a laboratory to show support for evolution. They used fruit flies because they reproduce in only a matter of days, which means changes and mutations can be seen in several generations in a very short amount of time. So, the scientist exposed these flies to a series of radiation tests, toxic chemicals and then observed. Sure enough, mutations did occur. What was produced? Larger Wings, smaller wings, no wings, even legs growing out of the head instead of antennae. The scientist, excited by the discover touted that they have proven evolution. Unfortunately, the changes in the flies were coaxed, and never formed into a new insect at all. In fact, non of the flies were even improved. None of the mutated flies could fly as well as the original form, and absolutely would not survive in the wild. The conclusion is that Darwin can explain the survival of the fittest, but cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.

C. Peppered Moths, glue and a lie: In England, it is said that during the Industrial Revolution, new factories in the area would pour out black smoke and suit, which would darken the surrounding tree trunks where the moths perched. The moths used to blend in with the tree trunks, but when the suit and smoke covered the trunk it made it easier for birds to see their lighter variety of color and eat them. Over time, the moths evolved into darker moths which could blend in with the darker tree trunks.
However, there is a problem. Peppered moths don’t actually perch on tree trunks in the wild. How, then do we explain the photographs we see in the textbooks? THEY WERE STAGED!!! To create the photos, scientists actually glued dead moths onto the tree trunks. One scientist who helped make a television documentary acknowledged that he glued dead moths on the trees in producing the film. This scandal has been thoroughly aired in scientific literature, to the great embarrassment of evolutionists. Yet, the story still remains in science text books (like yours) because it demonstrates the principle behind Darwinism.

D. Is that all? No, unfortunately. The list of fakes and lies goes on and on. So, what’s the point of all this? It’s not so that you no longer believe your textbooks. Science teaches you things that are important, true, and necessary to know. However, you must know where they also begin to teach you things that are false and wrong. It is imperative to think critically.

A few more things you should be aware of are the following:

Irreducible Complexity of the Cell: Darwin admitted that the existence of irreducible complexity would stand as a refutation of his theory. Darwin even went so far as to say “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”. That is precisely what science has discovered in recent years. The cell is irreducibly complex and cannot be made into something simple at all.

Darwin’s Detestable Dogma: The theory of evolution was founded upon racist ideas. The subtitle to the famous book “Origin of Species” by Darwin reads like this “The Origin of Species by means of natural selection or the preservation of the favoured races in the struggle for life”. Carrying this dangerous racism to its conclusion was Adolf Hitler who was an outspoke supporter of Darwinian ideas and set out to destroy the weaker races in a human survival of the fittest. This does not demonstrate the falsehood of the theory, but definitely something worth noting.

Punctuated Equilibrium: A pattern of long stable periods interrupted by brief periods of change. This can also be called Macroevolution which seeks to explain the gap between fossil records. Basically, this believes that a new species will arise out of an existing species without the slow small changes that Darwin suggested. This explains gaps in fossil records, evidence that the earth is not as old as it says it is and snuffs anyone demonstrating the false evidence for microevolution. The problem? There is no evidence for “Punk Eek”.

The final post in this series will discuss the whethr or not Christianity and Science are at odds.