FW: Harun Yahya's Answer to Scientific American

From: alexanian@uncw.edu
Date: Sun Jul 21 2002 - 11:56:58 EDT

  • Next message: Lucy Lear: "RE: Noahic Covenant"

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Rasim Basaran [mailto:rasimbasaran@gmx.net]
            Sent: Sat 7/20/2002 6:08 PM
            To: Alexanian, Moorad
            Subject: Harun Yahya's Answer to Scientific American

            Dear Moorad Alexanian,

            You must have heard about Scientific American's recent
    article ’Äú15 Answers to
            Creationist Nonsense’Äù by John Rennie. I would like to share
    with you a writing
            authored by Harun Yahya as a reply to the so-called claims
    put forward by Scientific


            Harun Yahya's Answer to John Rennie, editor in chief of
    Scientific American

            HARUN YAHYA

            In its July, 2002 issue, the magazine Scientific American
    published an article
            titled "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense." Yet that
    aggressive piece of writing
            actually contained no scientific answers to creationism at
    all, and merely demonstrated
            the fanaticism and bigotry of the Darwinist establishment

            An interesting article appeared in the July, 2002, issue of
    Scientific American,
            one of the prominent scientific journals. Written by editor
    in chief John Rennie,
            "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" contained important
    examples of Darwinist
            dogmatism. Beginning with its very title, the article and its
    aggressive style
            was a living proof of something we have been stating for
    years: Darwinists are
            tied to the theory of evolution in a totally dogmatic manner.
    Their intolerant
            reactions to criticism are the result of that philosophical rigidity.

            In this essay, you will find the errors, misconceptions and
    even the tricks in
            the Scientific American article in question.

            Avoiding Difficult Questions

            If you are going to reply to 15 questions regarding a thesis
    you oppose, then
            you will be expected to deal with each one in a tangible
    manner. If, on the other
            hand, you come up with imaginary questions and waste time
    with the answers to
            them, then your readers will naturally come to doubt your
    credibility. Avoiding
            getting to grips with the real questions is a sign that you
    are trying to deceive
            yourself or your readers.

            Scientific American's "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" is
    just such an example
            of "avoiding the truth." Right from the start, a number of
    those questions reveal
            that this is what is going on:

            "Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law."

            "Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or
    falsifiable. It makes
            claims about events that were not observed and can never be

            "If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

            None of the above are objections expressed by critics of the
    theory of evolution.
            Everyone who offers serious criticism knows what the concept
    of "theory" actually
            means, and accepts that scientific research into events in
    the past cannot be
            carried out by means of observation and recreation. In the
    same way, no scientists
            who seriously criticize the Darwinist thesis as regards the
    origin of man would
            ever offer such a ridiculous objection as "If humans
    descended from monkeys,
            why are there still monkeys?"

            John Rennie, the author of the article, should no doubt be
    well aware of this.
            Yet the way that he puts the above three statements forward
    as "creationist objections"
            and imagines that he has given satisfactory replies to them
    shows that he is
            "tilting at windmills." If he really wants to "reply to the
    creationists" then
            he needs to reply to such real questions as how it is that
    nearly all animal
            phyla suddenly appeared in the Cambrian without any trace of
    evolutionary ancestors;
            why not one example of a mutation that developed the genetic
    information of living
            things has ever been encountered; or why no trace has been
    found of the billions
            of intermediate form fossils that Darwin anticipated.

            The truth about the questions that Rennie has tried to reply
    to, most of which
            can again be seen as "easy questions," is set out below.

            Rennie's Misconception About Natural Selection - I (Question 2)

            Two of John Rennie's questions are to do with the concept of
    natural selection.
            In the first of these, (Question 2) he tries to respond to
    the objection that
            natural selection is a tautology. In the second, (Question
    11) he tries to reply
            to the objection that natural selection can bring about
    micro-evolution but not

            In the first case, the only reference Rennie is able to
    provide is Peter P. Grant's
            well known observations of finches in the Galapagos Islands.
    Rennie describes
            this example as "population shifts in the wild," and counts
    it as evidence for
            evolution with natural selection. However, Grant's studies
    demonstrated only
            that the finch populations in the Galapagos Islands
    "fluctuated" according to
            the changes in natural conditions, in other words, that they
    did not develop
            in any particular direction. Furthermore, they also revealed
    that the 13 different
            species identified in the finch population actually came
    under a far smaller
            number of species, and that the different species in question
    were tending to
            converge. That means that natural selection has not brought
    about evolution (in
            other words development in one particular direction and thus
    the emergence of
            a new species) on the Galapagos Islands.

            In his meticulous book Icons of Evolution, biologist Jonathan
    Wells considered
            all the details of Grant's work and came to the conclusions
    we have outlined
            above. The fact that Rennie is nevertheless still doggedly
    putting forward Grant's
            Galapagos observations is nothing less than an admission of despair.

            Rennie's Misconception About Natural Selection - II (Question 11)

            The sleight of hand in Rennie's second question on natural
    selection is particularly
            noteworthy. The question reads,

            "Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it
    cannot explain the origin
            of new species and higher orders of life."

            Rennie's response to this rests on the concept of "allopatric
    speciation" put
            forward by Ernst Mayr.

            In order to clarify the error here, we need to define the
    concept of "allopatric
            speciation" and its basic concept, "geographic isolation." It
    is well known that
            every living species has within it differences stemming from
    genetic variation.
            If a geographic obstacle arises between members of a species,
    in other words
            if they are "isolated" from one another, then it is very
    probable that different
            variations will begin to predominate in the two groups that
    are now separated
            from each other. Despite being from the same species, such
    variations with specific
            morphological differences between them (name them as
    "variation A" and "variation
            B") are called "sub-species."

            The claim of speciation that Rennie talks about enters the
    equation after that
            point. Sometimes, variations A and B that have split from one
    another due to
            geographic isolation are unable to reproduce when they are
    brought back into
            contact again. According to contemporary biology's definition
    of "species," since
            they are unable to reproduce, they are no longer different
    "sub-species," but
            'different species.' This is called speciation.

            Two important points arise here:

            1) Variations A and B, isolated from one another, may not be
    able to reproduce
            when brought together. Yet this generally stems from
    "reproductive behavior."
            For that reason, they are still, genetically speaking,
    members of the same species.
            (In fact, for that reason, the concept of "species" continues
    to be a matter
            of debate in the scientific community)

            2) The really important point is that the "speciation" in
    question means a loss
            of genetic information rather than an increase. The cause of
    speciation is not
            that new genetic information has been acquired by one or both
    variations. There
            is no such addition of genetic information. On the contrary,
    instead of a population
            that previously had a larger gene pool, there are now two
    different populations
            with reduced gene pools.

            That is why the "speciation" that Rennie refers to as an
    example of evolution
            actually offers the theory of evolution no support at all.
    The theory of evolution
            claims that all living species developed by chance mutations
    and natural selection
            from the simple to the complex. In order for the theory to be
    taken seriously,
            therefore, it needs to propose "mechanisms that create and
    increase genetic information."

            Having dealt with that matter, let us now turn to Rennie's
    second error (or rather

            You will notice that Rennie expresses the "creationist
    question" 11 in these
            terms, "Natural selection might explain microevolution, but
    it cannot explain
            the origin of new species and higher orders of life." In
    other words, he is speaking
            about the origins of both species and "higher orders of life."

            Yet in his reply, he only mentions the origin of species!
    (And that, as we saw
            above, is a totally inadequate account) Rennie never mentions
    the origins of
            genera, families, orders, classes or phyla, all of which are
    higher categories
            than species, and offers no explanation at all.

            This is in all probability intended to convince less careful
    readers. People
            who read the "15 questions" but cannot bring themselves to
    read the long (but
            empty) answers that follow them will imagine that Rennie has
    actually responded
            to them all.

            The way that the proponents of Darwinism resort to such
    methods once again reveals
            the terrible straits the theory finds itself in.

            Rennie's last account on the subject of natural selection
    suggested that there
            could be evolutionary mechanisms outside natural selection.
    The only example
            he gave consisted of speculation on the origin of
    mitochondria that evolutionists
            have long been engaged in. The fact that he resorts to
    speculation and not evidence
            to support the theory of evolution, which is itself
    speculation, is self-explanatory.

            The Origin of Man and the Evolutionary Impasse (Question 3)

            In the third question, John Rennie touches on the origin of
    man, and writes:

            ... evolution implies that between the earliest-known
    ancestors of humans (roughly
            five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically
    modern humans (about
            100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid
    creatures with features
            progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed
    what the fossil record

            However, the fact that evolutionists can place creatures that
    lived in the past
            in an order to suit their theory does not demonstrate that
    those living things
            actually underwent such a process of evolution. That opinion
    is shared by Nature
            magazine editor Henry Gee, one of John Rennie's fellow
    evolutionists. In his
            book In Search of Deep Time, (1999) Gee points out that all
    the evidence for
            human evolution "between about 10 and 5 million years
    ago-several thousand generations
            of living creatures-can be fitted into a small box." He
    concludes that conventional
            theories of the origin and development of human beings are "a
    completely human
            invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human
    prejudices", and

            To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a
    lineage is not a scientific
            hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries
    the same validity
            as a bedtime story-amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not
    scientific. (1)

            Recently, Gee also made a very important comment on the new
    skull fossil found
            in Chad (Sahelanthropus tchadensis) and its implications for
    the theory of evolution.
            According to Gee, "Whatever the outcome, the skull shows,
    once and for all, that
            the old idea of a 'missing link' is bunk".(2) He also
    explains that the there
            is no evidence for the idea of human evolution in the fossil
    record; It is simply
            a projection created according to evolutionist assumptions:

            It is suspected that the last common ancestor of humans and
    our closest living
            relatives, the chimpanzees, lived around 7m years ago. We
    know this not from
            direct fossil evidence, but from studying the small
    differences in the otherwise
            similar genes of humans and chimps, and estimating the time
    needed for these
            differences to accrue. Looking at the fossil evidence itself,
    we see a huge and
            frustrating gap. (3)

            The closer one examines John Rennie's words, the more
    evolutionist frustrations
            become apparent.

            Why Just A Few Dare to Speak Out? (Question 4)

            Another argument offered by Rennie as he tries to defend
    Darwinism is that the
            theory of evolution is widely accepted by the scientific world.

            There are generally two different reasons for an opinion's
    commanding widespread
            support. Either there is a great deal of evidence for it, or
    else the system
            somehow imposes it on people. It is the second of these that
    applies in the "widespread
            scientific support" behind the theory of evolution. The
    academic world is laboring
            under a heavy misconception in believing that science is
    equivalent to materialist
            philosophy. The leaders of the scientific establishment
    impose that error on
            other scientists. In such an environment that regards
    opposing evolution as opposing
            science, then how are scientists to offer any free criticism
    of the theory?

            Even John Rennie's own writing bears the traces of this
    ideological dictatorship.
            The title of his article refers to creation as "nonsense."
    When a scientific
            journal employs a headline of that sort, can one really say
    that the matter in
            question is being treated in a climate of free debate? Rennie
    grows even more
            aggressive in the introduction, and says that defending
    creation is as unscientific
            as defending "flat earth cosmology." In the body of his
    article, he speaks in
            terms of "dishonest creationists." (Page 65) In such a
    climate of ideological
            pressure, how can scientists criticize Darwinism when they
    have to publish their
            articles in scientific magazines? How many people can take
    the risk to say "The
            emperor has no clothes"?

            Consequently, the graph in Rennie's article which purports to
    show that belief
            in creation declines with peoples' educational level (Page
    65) is nothing more
            than a statement of the dictatorship of Darwinist thought.
    Nothing could be more
            natural than for an education system dominated by Darwinists
    to produce Darwinist

            Yet one good thing about science is that such dogmatism never
    succeeds for long.
            The cracks in the foundations of the Darwinist temple are a
    sign that free science
            will soon tear that dogma down.

            Why do Evolutionists Confess? (Question 5)

            As John Rennie tries to remove all doubts about Darwinism
    from his readers' mind,
            he brings up the subject of quotations taken from
    evolutionist authorities by
            creationists, and claims that these are invariably distorted.
    In Rennie's view,
            scientific authorities whose works are quoted are always
    evolutionists, but that
            "dishonest creationists" try to portray these people as being
    opponents of evolution.

            Whereas the truth of the matter is very different.
    Creationists do not try to
            portray the evolutionist authorities from whom they take
    extracts as being opposed
            to evolution. Stephen Jay Gould, Alan Feduccia or Henry
    Gee’Ķ Nobody claims such
            scientists are opposed to evolution. Yet these and many other
    similar supporters
            of evolution have seen and spoken about the deficiencies in
    the theory of evolution.
            Nothing could be more natural than for their comments on such
    matters to be made
            use of.

            The reason for the great number of such quotations is that
    the theory of evolution
            is a mass of speculation. Since there is no concrete evidence
    for the theory,
            evolutionists engage in speculation on just about every
    aspect of it. Since that
            speculation does not conform to the available facts, gaps
    keep emerging, and
            various scientists report on the fact. This is the reason of
    why we have so many
            quotes doubting evolution in a committed Darwinist establishment.

            The Origin of Life and John Rennie's Wriggling (Question 7)

            Following all the speculation in the first six of his 15
    questions, Rennie finally
            comes to an important matter in Question 7; The Origin of
    Life. How did the first
            living thing emerge?

            All that Rennie does in the face of that question is to sum
    up in a few sentences
            the scenario that evolutionists have been putting forward
    ever since the time
            of Alexander Oparin in the 1920s. After admitting that "The
    origin of life remains
            very much a mystery," Rennie tries to make the scenario
    credible by saying, "...
            but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic
    acids, amino acids and
            other building blocks of life could have formed and organized
    themselves into
            self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the
    foundation for cellular biochemistry."

            Rennie is quite right to gloss over such an important subject
    as the origin of
            life in this superficial way, because he has no way of going
    into details. If
            we analyze the above statement, we can see just how
    unrealistic Rennie's claim
            actually is:

            1) First of all, contrary to what Rennie claims, the question
    of how "primitive
            nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life"
    emerged in the
            primitive atmosphere on earth is a terrible dilemma for
    evolutionists. They used
            to think the problem had been resolved in the primordial
    atmosphere experiments
            by Stanley Miller and his successors. Yet in the 1970s it was
    realized that the
            primordial atmosphere was not based on methane-ammonia and
    that it contained
            large amounts of oxygen, for which reason it emerged that it
    was impossible for
            even the simplest organic molecules, such as amino acids, to
    be synthesized.

            2) If we assume that simple building blocks such as nucleic
    acids or amino acids
            did somehow synthesize in the primitive atmosphere (or had
    come from outer space,
            as Rennie claimed after the above lines), that hypothesis
    still does not benefit
            the theory of evolution in any way. The problem is one of how
    these simple organic
            compounds came to turn into a living cell of incredible
    complexity and containing
            genetic information? Contrary to Rennie's claim, organic
    molecules have never
            been observed to "organize themselves" and turn into
    self-reproducing, living
            organisms. No observation, experiment or even theoretical
    study has ever been
            performed that might suggest that could ever happen.

            In short, Rennie's argument about the origin of life is quite
    worthless. Moreover,
            the following lines from the end of the topic are of great
    interest, both as
            an admission of defeat and an indication of his prejudice
    against creation:

            "Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by
    pointing to science's
            current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if
    life on earth turned
            out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens
    introduced the
            first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then
    would be robustly confirmed
            by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies."

            Interesting truths begin to emerge when we analyze these lines:

            The Darwinist camp can not go further than Miller's now
    refuted experiment.
            1) Rennie talks about a "current inability to explain the
    origin of life". In
            other words, he hopes that the problem is temporary and one
    day in the future,
            facts in favor of evolution will be discovered. Giving such a
    hostage to future
            confirms that belief in evolution stems not from scientific
    discoveries but philosophical
            assumptions. This attitude of Rennie's is no different to
    that of the dogmatic
            Marxist who sees that Karl Marx's theories totally fail to
    fit the current social
            and political facts, but who nevertheless expects the awaited
    "proletarian revolution"
            to happen one day in the future.

            2) Rennie admits that intelligent design could account for
    the origin of life
            and that science may well reach that conclusion, but for some
    reason he chooses
            to suggest aliens as the source of that design. The "aliens"
    theory turns up
            again in Rennie's article (in his reply to Question 3). The
    interesting thing
            is that Rennie is quite happy to admit the possibility of the
    existence of an
            intelligent design created by aliens, but totally rejects the
    intervention of
            a metaphysical Creator. This once again reveals that Rennie's
    devotion to Darwinism
            and his reaction to the concept of creation actually stem
    from his philosophical
            prejudices against Theism.

            3) Rennie's acceptance that intelligent design might be
    behind the origin of
            life but his rejection of it during the subsequent course of
    natural history
            is a thoroughly prejudiced and unscientific position. That is
    because there is
            just as much evidence for intelligent design in the origin of
    very many other
            complex organic systems as there is for that of life itself.
    Rennie's use of
            such expressions as "robustly confirmed" in order to gloss
    over these facts but
            still to impress his readers, are no solution at all.

            Rennie's Dawkins-Style Tricks (Question 8)

            The theory of evolution's greatest error of all is the idea
    that living things
            are the product of unconscious natural mechanisms. Rennie
    attempts to deal with
            that objection in Question 8, but merely ends up
    disappointing himself. Rennie's
            response to the objection that the complexity in living
    things cannot be explained
            by chance takes this form:

            "Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random
    mutations that
            can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend
    on chance to create
            organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite:
    natural selection,
            the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses
    nonrandom change by preserving
            "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable"
    (nonadaptive) ones."

            That is no answer at all, since it is something known to
    everyone. According
            to the theory of evolution, all living things were produced
    by "chance" (mutations)
            and natural selection, which is presumed to select the most
    beneficial of these.

            The problem is this: Natural Selection is not a conscious
    mechanism. If it is
            therefore to select a chance change, this has to provide the
    organism with an
            effective advantage. Yet many complex organs in living things
    provide no advantage
            at all unless they are fully formed. It is therefore
    impossible for natural selection
            to make a selection in that direction. (It also remains to
    say that natural selection
            played no part in the origin of life because there was no
    life or competition
            around in the so-called "prebiotic soup".)

            Rennie tries to cover up this gaping hole in the theory of
    evolution, and employs
            the same trick as those of Richard Dawkins. The example he
    gives is that the
            phrase 'TOBEORNOTTOBE' was formed by a computer using the
    selection method in
            336 goes.

            Do evolutionists really believe in such examples? Or are they
    compelled to employ
            them in order to save face in front of not well informed
    readers? One wonders
            ... The above example is banal and based on an evident
    deception. The computer
            that came up with 'TOBEORNOTTOBE' was programmed to do so.
    The ultimate result
            was predetermined from the start. The programme places
    letters into 13 blank
            spaces at random, but it selects a letter when it moves into
    its pre-ordained
            position. In other words, it knows that the first letter is T
    before 'TOBEORNOTTOBE'
            comes into being, selects T when one appears in that
    position, and leaves it

            In short, there is a predetermined plan and a selection
    mechanism working consciously
            according to this plan. However, the theory of evolution
    maintains that living
            things emerged with no predetermined plan and by an
    unconscious selection mechanism.
            Therefore, Rennie's argument is, at least, ridiculous.

            Rennie's Misconceptions About The Second Law of
    Thermodynamics (Question 9)

            Evolutionists' claims regarding thermodynamics are based on a
    classic case of
            error and deception, and John Rennie repeats them.

            The first error consists of ignoring the difference between
    ordered and organized
            systems. Rennie cites the examples of mineral crystals and
    snowflakes, and says
            that these "complex structures" emerge spontaneously through
    natural processes.
            Yet these are not complex systems, but organized ones.

            We can make this clear with an example. Imagine a completely
    flat beach on the
            seashore. When a strong wave hits the beach, mounds of sand,
    large and small,
            form bumps on the surface of the sand. This is a process of
    "ordering". The seashore
            is an open system, and the energy flow (the wave) that enters
    it can form simple
            patterns in the sand, which may look regular. From the
    thermodynamic point of
            view, the wave can set up order here where before there was
    none. But we must
            make it clear that those same waves cannot build a castle on
    the beach. If we
            see a castle there, we are in no doubt that someone has
    constructed it, because
            the castle is an "organized" system.

            Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen, in
    their book titled
            The Mystery of Life's Origin, explain why analogies from
    self-ordering cases
            (like the snow flake) does not account for the origin of
    biological complexity:

            ... such analogies have scant relevance to the origin-of-life
    question. A major
            reason is that they fail to distinguish between order and
    complexity... Regularity
            or order cannot serve to store the large amount of
    information required by living
            systems. A highly irregular, but specified, structure is
    required rather than
            an ordered structure. This is a serious flaw in the analogy
    offered. There is
            no apparent connection between the kind of spontaneous
    ordering that occurs from
            energy flow through such systems and the work required to
    build aperiodic information-intensive
            macromolecules like DNA and protein. (4)

            John Rennie's claim regarding open systems is also a classic
    evolutionist error.
            Yes, entropy may decrease in open systems that receive energy
    from the outside,
            but specific mechanisms are needed to make the energy
    functional. For instance,
            a car needs an engine, a transmission system, and related
    control mechanisms
            to convert the energy in oil to work. Without such an energy
    conversion system,
            the car will not be able to use the energy stored in oil.

            The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It is
    true that life derives
            its energy from the sun. However, solar energy can only be
    converted into chemical
            energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion systems in
    living things (such
            as photosynthesis in plants and the digestive systems of
    humans and animals).
            Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing but a
    source of destructive
            energy that burns, parches, or melts.

            The Ultimate Problem About Mutations (Question 10)

            In question 10, John Rennie tries to give the appearance of
    having answered one
            of the most fundamental questions facing the theory of
    evolution. The problem
            is that mutations never increase living things' genetic
    information. Rennie,
            naturally enough, maintains the opposite, and suggests that
    mutations can bring
            about such an increase (and therefore evolution itself). Of
    course he needs to
            find examples if that is to be taken seriously, but the ones
    he comes up with
            are not valid.

            Rennie's first example is bacterial resistance to
    antibiotics. That is in any
            case one of the most popular themes in evolutionist
    propaganda. But it is flawed.
            It is true that bacteria can sometimes develop a resistance
    to antibiotics by
            means of mutations, but these mutations do not add the
    bacteria any new genetic
            information. On the contrary, they lead to morphological
    degeneration in them.
            As with the case of immunity to streptomycin revealed in
    great detail by the
            Israeli biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner: Bacterial resistance to
    streptomycin stems
            from a mutation that affects the ribozome and structurally
    damages it. Even if
            this mutation benefits the bacteria in terms of antibiotic
    immunity, it nevertheless
            represents a genetic reduction that reduces the functioning
    of the ribosome.
            As Dr. Spetner has made clear, mutations such as these are
    not what the theory
            of evolution needs. (5)

            The invalidity of Rennie's second example on the subject of
    mutations can be
            seen from his own words:

            "In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called
    Antennapedia causes legs to
            sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are
    not functional, but
            their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can
    produce complex structures,
            which natural selection can then test for possible uses."

            Everybody is aware that mutations can bring about major
    morphological changes
            in living things. The question is this: Do the morphological
    changes brought
            about by these mutations grant living things any increase in
    genetic information
            and beneficial features? No! There are no such examples. In
    fact, Rennie confesses
            that, and says that the mutations in question produced
    non-functional (in other
            words crippled) legs growing from where the antennae should
    have been in flies.
            How can anyone believe that a process that cripples creatures
    could have led
            them to evolve? And how can Rennie suggest that as evidence
    for evolution?

            In his last paragraph on mutations, Rennie speaks of greater
    genetic changes
            going beyond point mutations. Yet the question is still the
    same. Such changes
            have never been observed to increase the genetic information
    in a living thing.
            In this case, Rennie does not even try to offer an example.

            What he has to say about globin is nothing but a reflection
    of evolutionist speculation.
            This speculation begins with comparative analyses of the DNA
    in living things,
            and comes up with an evolutionary connection in their globin
    structures. On close
            inspection however, this turns out to be circular reasoning.
    The evolutionary
            family relationships built on these comparative DNA analyses
    rest on the assumption
            that living things descended from a common ancestor.
    Portraying these theoretical
            relationships, which are constructed on the assumption that
    evolution is true,
            as evidence for evolution is simply expressing the same claim
    in another way,
            a tautology

            The Question of Transitional Forms (Question 13)

            In question 13, John Rennie attempts to deal with the problem
    of transitional
            forms, one of the major stumbling blocks facing the theory of
    evolution, and
            is similarly unable to provide a satisfactory response. The
    following shows the
            true position of the "intermediate forms" he suggests:

            Archaeopteryx: Rennie writes that Archaeopteryx, a candidate
    for the title of
            the greatest transitional form of all time, was an
    intermediate form between
            reptiles and birds, but that "creationists" refuse to accept
    this, calling it
            "just an extinct bird with reptilian features." The fact is,
    however, that it
            is not only "creationists" who say that, but also
    world-renowned ornithologists
            who have examined the matter in great detail. Alan Feduccia,
    one of the foremost
            names in ornithology, shares that view regarding Archaeopteryx.

            "Feathered Dinos" were not feathered at all, like the fossil
    forgery above, Archaeoraptor

            In fact, a considerable body of evidence has emerged to
    demonstrate the invalidity
            of the claim that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form. As
    Feduccia has stated,
            "Most recent workers who have studied various anatomical
    features of Archaeopteryx
            have found the creature to be much more birdlike than
    previously imagined," and
            "the resemblance of Archaeopteryx to theropod dinosaurs has
    been grossly overestimated."(6)
            Another problem regarding Archaeopteryx is that the theropod
    dinosaurs, which
            many evolutionists regard as its ancestors, emerge after
    Archaeopteryx in the
            fossil record, and not before it.

            On the other hand, the tale of "feathered dinosaurs" that
    John Rennie refers
            to is nothing more than evolutionist speculation. All of the
    fossils that have
            been put forward as "feathered dinosaurs" in the last 10
    years are debatable.
            Detailed studies have revealed that the structures portrayed
    as "feathers" are
            actually collagen fibers.(7) Such speculation all stems from
    evolutionist prejudice.
            As Feduccia has said, "Many dinosaurs have been portrayed
    with a coating of aerodynamic
            contour feathers with absolutely no documentation."(8) (One
    of the so-called
            'feathered dinosaurs' in question, namely Archaeoraptor,
    turned out to be a fossil
            forgery). Feduccia sums the position up in these terms,
    "Finally, no feathered
            dinosaur has ever been found, although many dinosaur mummies
    with well-preserved
            skin are known from diverse localities." (9)

            Horse Series: The horse series that John Rennie portrayed as
    an important proof
            of evolution is actually a terrible blunder on his part. That
    is because the
            horse series that makes up a so-called evolutionary process
    from Eohippus to
            the present-day horse (Equus) has actually been accepted as
    erroneous by a great
            many evolutionist authorities. For example, evolutionist
    science writer Gordon
            R. Taylor acknowledged that "’Ķ the line from Eohippus to
    Equus is very erratic.
            It is alleged to show a continual increase in size, but the
    truth is that some
            variants were smaller than Eohippus, not larger. Specimens
    from different sources
            can be brought together in a convincing-looking sequence, but
    there is no evidence
            that these were actually ranged in this order in time." (10)

            The Origin of Whales: Rennie also includes the scenario
    concerning the evolution
            of whales as an example of proven evolution. Yet that, too,
    is nothing more than
            evolutionist speculation. There are great morphological
    differences between the
            land mammal Ambulocetus and such archaic whales as
    Rodhocetus, the alleged descendant
            of the former. The details of the matter were examined in my
    article "A Whale
            Fantasy from National Geographic"

            The Origin of Molluscs: This, also glossed over by Rennie as
    an example of evolution,
            is actually another dilemma facing the theory. These shelled
    creatures that make
            up the phylum Mollusca are divided into eight separate
    classes, and all of these
            emerged suddenly in the Cambrian Period, just like most
    living phyla and classes.
            Even the determinedly evolutionist Encyclopedia Britannica
    accepts that there
            is no fossil evidence for the evolution of molluscs in the
    words: "The fossil
            record gives little clue as to how the molluscs originated
    and how the eight
            classes differentiated in Precambrian times. The evolutionary
    pathway must thus
            be largely inferred from comparative anatomy and development." (11)

            The Origin of Man: Rennie claims that 20 or more hominids
    fill the gap between
            Lucy and modern man. Yet the truth is that there is no line
    from Australopithecus
            to man (Homo sapiens).

            One indication of this is that the categories between
    Australopithecus and Homo
            sapiens (like Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis or Homo erectus)
    are exceedingly
            speculative and debatable. An article by the evolutionary
            Bernard Wood and Mark Collard, published in Science in 1999,
    maintained that
            the Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis categories were
    imaginary, and that the
            fossils ascribed to them needed to be transferred to the
    genus Australopithecus.(12)
            Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan and Alan Thorne
    of the University
            of Canberra are of the belief that Homo erectus is an
    imaginary category, and
            that the fossils ascribed to it are actually variations of
    Homo sapiens.(13)
            This means that there are no other hominids between
    Australopithecus, an extinct
            species of ape, and Homo sapiens, including modern man and
    his racial variations.
            In other words, mankind has no evolutionary origins.

            Another fact that invalidates the claim of a direct line
    between Australopithecus
            and modern man (Homo sapiens), is that the categories alleged
    to have followed
            one another actually lived at the same time. The latest
    evidence to demonstrate
            that was the discovery published in Science magazine that
    fossils named as Homo
            habilis, Homo ergaster and Homo erectus have lived at the
    same time. Reid Fleming,
            of the University of North Texas, who led the research, sums
    up the significance
            of that discovery in this way, "This was completely
    unexpected, because until
            now, prevailing scientific views placed habilis, ergaster and
    erectus into an
            evolutionary sequence." (14)

            Molecular Biology and the Evolutionary Family Tree: Rennie
    must have been aware
            of the feeble nature of his claims on fossils, since he then
    sought to find support
            from molecular biology in his search for evidence of
    evolution. His argument
            was based on genetic similarities and he claimed that,
    "structures of these genes
            and their products diverge among species, in keeping with
    their evolutionary

            Yes, that is indeed what evolutionists expect from molecular
    biology - in other
            words that living things closely related according to the
    theory of evolution
            will have very similar molecules. Yet the facts demonstrate
    the exact opposite.
            Recent molecular discoveries have produced results totally at
    odds with the 150-year-old
            evolutionary family tree.

            According to a 1999 article by French biologists Hervˆ©
    Philippe and Patrick Forterre,
            "with more and more sequences available, it turned out that
    most protein phylogenies
            contradict each other as well as the rRNA tree." (15)

            Neither the comparisons that have been made of proteins, nor
    those of rRNAs or
            of genes, confirm the premises of the theory of evolution.
    Carl Woese, a biologist
            from the University of Illinois, admits that;

            No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many
    individual protein
            phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can
    be seen everywhere
            in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings
    within and among
            the various (groups) to the makeup of the primary groupings
    themselves. (16)

            The fact that results of molecular comparisons are not in
    favor of, but rather
            opposed to, the theory of evolution is also admitted in an
    article called "Is
            it Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?" published in Science in
    1999. This article
            by Elizabeth Pennisi states that the genetic analyses and
    comparisons carried
            out by Darwinist biologists in order to shed light on the
    "tree of life" actually
            yielded directly opposite results, and goes on to say that
    "new data are muddying
            the evolutionary picture" (17)

            In short, molecular comparisons between living things all
    work against the theory
            of evolution, in total contrast to what John Rennie claims.

            The Origin of the Eye and the Non-Evolution of the
    Evolutinary Theory (Question

            In Question 14, Rennie enters the field of irreducible
    complexity and mentions
            the origin of the eye, which has always been an insurpassable
    hurdle for evolutionists.
            Rennie's account is nothing but a repetition of speculation
    put forward by Charles
            Darwin 150 years ago: The claim that "primitive" eyes with
    very poor vision existed
            in nature and that more complex eyes might have evolved from these.

            However, clear evidence to disprove that claim has emerged
    since Darwin's day:

            Evolutionists are still leaning on Darwin's primitive
            arguments on the complexity of nature.
            1) Natural history reveals that the first eye identified on
    earth was not primitive
            at all, but actually had an extraordinarily complex
    structure. That eye structure
            in question was the double-lens compound eyes of the
    trilobites. The nuclear
            physicist and trilobite aficionado Levi-Setti states that:
    "the refracting interface
            between the two lens elements in a trilobite's eye was
    designed in accordance
            with optical constructions worked out by Descartes and
    Huygens in the mid-seventeenth
            century".(18) The most striking feature of these eyes,
    described as a marvel
            of optical design, is that they have no primitive form behind
    them, but rather
            emerged suddenly.

            2) Even light-sensitive cells that Darwin referred to as
    "primitive eyes" actually
            possess an extraordinarily complex structure. Even the most
    "primitive" eye is
            an irreducibly complex system requiring a light-sensitive
    cell, extraordinarily
            complex biochemical mechanisms within that cell,(19) nerves
    linking that cell
            to the brain, and a visual center to interpret these. That
    cannot come about
            in stages. For that reason, the theory of evolution is unable
    even to account
            for the origin of the most "primitive" eye, let alone use
    that as a basis to
            account for more complex ones.

            Rennie writes that "Today's intelligent-design advocates are
    more sophisticated
            than their predecessors." Yet the sad fact is that the
    proponents of the theory
            of evolution are still leaning on Darwin's invalid theses
    from 150 years ago.
            The fact that they still put forward the myth that the origin
    of the eye lies
            in "evolution from primitive eyes" shows that the theory of
    evolution has not
            evolved at all in the last 150 years.

            Helplessness in the Face of Irreducible Complexity (Question 15)

            In the final section of his article, John Rennie attempts to
    criticize the evidence
            put forward by such proponents of intelligent design as
    Michael J. Behe and William
            Dembski. The first thing he does is to cite the objections of
    evolutionists Kenneth
            R. Miller and Russell F. Doolittle, who are critical of Behe.
    The fact is, however,
            that Dr. Behe has comprehensively responded to and refuted
    these objections.
            (See Behe's responses to critics)

            The paragraph that really shows Rennie's total helplessness
    in the face of irreducible
            complexity reads:

            The key is that the flagellum's component structures, which
    Behe suggests have
            no value apart from their role in propulsion, can serve
    multiple functions that
            would have helped favor their evolution. The final evolution
    of the flagellum
            might then have involved only the novel recombination of
    sophisticated parts
            that initially evolved for other purposes.

            In short, Rennie is saying that the flagellum might have come
    about "with the
            recombination of parts that initially evolved for other
    purposes." Yet that is
            the whole essence of the matter. What are those "other
    purposes"? For what purposes
            could the molecules that make up the flagellum have come
    about? Saying that "might
            have come about in other stages we are unaware of" without
    clearly defining these
            stages is simply a repetition of Darwinist dogma.

            Rennie's effort to portray the organelle that Yersinia pestis
    uses to inject
            toxins into cells, which partly resembles the flagellum, or
    flagella with simpler
            structures as evolutionary stages of the flagellum itself is
    also hopeless. That
            is like using a car or a glider to account for the alleged
    "evolutionary" origins
            of a jet plane. There may be certain similarities, but that
    does not show that
            the vehicles in question evolved from one another as the
    result of blind coincidences.
            They are all separately designed structures.

            When we come to Rennie's objection to Dembski's thesis, we
    see that it only consists
            of reference to studies by the Santa Fe Institute. Yet just
    like those of their
            precursors such as Ilya Prigogine, these theoretical studies
    do not carry the
            concept of "self-organization" any further than merely being
    a materialist belief.
            (The invalidity of the idea of self-organization is set out
    in detail in Dembski's
            2002 book No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be
    Purchased Without
            Intelligence). It must nevertheless be made clear that the
    evolutionists from
            the Santa Fe Institute display more common sense than John
    Rennie does. While
            Rennie tries to portray the concept of intelligent design as
    an unscientific
            thesis, Stuart Kauffman, the pre-eminent self-organizational
    theorist of the
            Santa Fe Institute, publicly admitted that intelligent design
    was a legitimate
            intellectual and scientific project. (20)

            Rennie's Dogmatic Commitment to Materialism

            Following his objections regarding intelligent design, Rennie
    unwillingly admits
            that the complexity in nature cannot be accounted for by
    evolutionary mechanisms,
            and to resolve this he elects to give a hostage to future:

            "Some of the complexity seen in organisms may therefore
    emerge through natural
            phenomena that we as yet barely understand. But that is far
    different from saying
            that the complexity could not have arisen naturally."

            Rennie's logic displays a blind dogmatism. If he thinks that
    he can account for
            the biological complexity in nature by means of evolution,
    then he needs to identify
            these mechanisms. When he is unable to find any mechanism, he
    suggests the existence
            of mechanisms that "we as yet barely understand." Yet if
    these mechanisms are
            not understood, then how can Rennie be sure they actually
    exist? What difference
            is there between believing in the existence of such
    mysterious evolutionary mechanisms
            and believing in an "alchemical mechanism" that can turn base
    metals into gold?

            What difference, therefore, is there between believing in
    evolution and believing
            in alchemy?

            All these questions demonstrate that Rennie's and other
    determined Darwinists'
            belief in the theory of evolution is the result of their
    dogmatic belief in materialism.
            Even Darwin behaved in a less biased manner when he said, "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."(21) John Rennie and other contemporary Darwinists
    choose to give hostages
            to future rather than accept the collapse of the theory when
    faced with just
            the kind of irreducibly complex organs described by Darwin.

            When one examines Rennie's article, one sees that one
    fundamental idea underlies
            all this dogmatism. The following lines are particularly enlightening:

            "...science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting
    from forces beyond
            natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they
    cannot be attributed
            to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose
    existence, in scientific
            terms, is unproved."

            In the first sentence here, Rennie says that certain forces,
    the existence of
            which is quite unproven, may contribute to evolution. Yet he
    imposes a condition
            in the sentence that follows: These forces must be natural.
    Therefore, he rejects
            the existence of a conscious Creator, because the existence
    of a conscious Creator
            is, in scientific terms, "unproven." Yet in the previous
    sentence, Rennie admits
            the possibility of unproven forces. Elsewhere in his article,
    as we have seen
            above, he also speaks of evolutionary mechanisms that have
    not yet been discovered,
            but which he hopes will be in the future. This means that
    Rennie's problem is
            not one of whether the existence of intelligent design has
    been proven or not,
            but that such design conflicts with the materialist
    philosophy he holds.

            Rennie is of course free to believe as he wishes. Some people
    believe in materialist
            philosophy. Others believe in astrology, and others in
    alchemy. The problem is
            that Rennie and materialists like him are trying to portray
    their dogma as actual
            science. That is a hypocritical deception. But one whose days
    are numbered.

            Conclusion: Congratulations to John Rennie

            John Rennie deserves appreciation for displaying Darwinist dogmatism.
            Actually, we should be congratulating Scientific American
    editor John Rennie
            on his article. By failing to provide any response to the
    proofs of creation,
            by ignoring a great deal of that important evidence as he
    flounders, and by exhibiting
            nothing but rage and fanaticism, he has only served to
    highlight the collapse
            that Darwinism is currently undergoing.

            In the collapse of Lamarckism, as well as the successes of
    such great scientists
            as Mendel, the terrible fiascoes of such Lamarckists as
    Lysenko also played a
            major role. In the same way today, alongside the successful
    work of scientists
            who support the idea of intelligent design, the logical and
    scientific rout of
            dogmatic Darwinists will also play a major role in the
    collapse of Darwinism.

            Those who read about these debates in a few decades' time
    will see the truth
            of this much clearer, and will be amazed that so many people
    from the scientific
            community could have been taken in by such a myth as Darwinism.


            (1) Henry Gee, In Search of Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to
    a New History of
            Life, New York, The Free Press, 1999, p. 126-127.
            (2) "Face of yesterday : Henry Gee on the dramatic discovery
    of a seven-million-year-old
            hominid", The Guardian, July 11, 2002
            (3) Ibid.
            (4) Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley & Roger L. Olsen,
    The Mystery of Life's
            Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, 4th edition, Dallas,
    1992, chapter 9, p.
            (5) Lee Spetner, Not By Chance, Judaica Press, 1997. Also
    see, Dr. Lee Spetner,
            "Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue: Continuing an exchange with
    Dr. Edward E. Max,"
            2001, http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp
            (6) Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale
    University Press,
            1999, p. 81
            (7) Ann Gibbons, "Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur", Science,
    volume 278, Number
            5341 Issue of 14 Nov 1997, pp. 1229 - 1230
            (8) Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale
    University Press,
            1999, p. 130
            (9) Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale
    University Press,
            1999, p. 132
            (10) Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery,
    Abacus, Sphere Books,
            London, 1984, p. 230.
            (11) "Mollusk", Evolution and Paleontology, Encyclopedia
    Britannica, 2002
            (12) Bernard Wood, Mark Collard, "The Human Genus", Science,
    vol. 284, No 5411,
            2 April 1999, pp. 65-71
            (13) Pat Shipman, "Doubting Dmanisi", American Scientist,
    November- December
            2000, p. 491
            (14) "Fossil Discovery Upsets Theories On Human Origins",
    Associated Press, http://www.msnbc.com/news/776334.asp?cp1=1
            (15) Hervˆ© Philippe and Patrick Forterre, "The Rooting of
    the Universal Tree
            of Life is Not Reliable", Journal of Molecular Evolution, vol
    49, 1999, p. 510
            (16) Carl Woese, "The Universel Ancestor", Proceedings of the
    National Academy
            of Sciences, USA, 95, (1998) p. 6854
            (17) Elizabeth Pennisi, "Is It Time to Uproot the Tree of
    Life?" Science, vol.
            284, no. 5418, 21 May 1999, p. 1305
            (18) Levi-Setti, R. Trilobites. 1993. (University of Chicago
    Press, Chicago).
            (19) The extraordinarily complex structure of these
    mechanisms is illustrated
            in Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box. As Behe maintains, even
    the chemical make-up
            in the retinal cell alone is enough to disprove Darwin
            (20) "Dembski and Kauffman Square Off in New Mexico", Philip
    Johnson's Weekly
            Wedge Update, November 19, 2001; www.arn.org
            (21) Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of
    the First Edition,
            Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 21 2002 - 17:07:03 EDT