Guys, it’s been a while, I know. My summer has been wild, and I have not had time/gotten around to posting like I used to. But enough of that. Today I will be addressing one of my biggest annoyances: Creation Science, and specifically, the media “creation scientists” cling to as support of their argument, in this case, the popular “Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution.”
I would like to say to start that Creation Science is an oxymoron. Science and creationism does not mix. Whatever your beliefs are, you plainly cannot support the Bible’s stories with science, it just isn’t compatible. Not hating on anyone’s beliefs here, but to take the Bible literally is to reject proven science, and to understand science is to reject the literal translation of the Bible. You cannot possibly take both.
This little video here tries to disprove evolution using primarily examples from the natural world as its evidence. This would be an incredible, ground breaking film, if it weren’t complete lies. What I have next is a play-by-play of sorts debating the “facts” put forth in the video. I would like to start by saying I am just a kid entering his freshmen year in college, and I certainly am no scientific scholar of any sort, so most of what I have written is personal conjecture. However, it will be a logical and simple guide to why this video is bullshit. Enjoy.
Here is one of the videos. Enjoy, for free. The play-by-play will be below. http://vimeo.com/22493796
The narrator starts in a field of beautiful flowers, and harks their beauty. He seems to disregard that those flowers were engineered by humans and are at an evolutionary disadvantage the way they are, with too many petals and no access to their pollen. He also seems to disregard all of the hideous creatures (look up the lamprey for kicks) like parasites (tapeworm ring a bell?) that thrive on earth.
00:26 “we are going to take a look at some animals, and shatter that very idea [that those animals developed through evolution]” Challenge Accepted, mate.
1:00 “he has been a college professor, and a dentist.” Already this is a poor source. He’s a dentist, and he teaches dentistry classes. He is no authority on evolution. The fact that he served on a presidential dentist crew does not have anything to do with how informed he is on this matter.
They keep referring to Dr. Martin’s scientific and medical background. He’s not a scientist, he’s a dentist. His medical background is unrelated. He is not an authority on the matter.
1:26 He starts to explain the big bang, which is not directly associated with the theory of evolution. This is a horribly simplistic, and wrong explanation. Certainly hydrogen gas cannot simply just “turn to dust.” Hydrogen is hydrogen, I know not of a “dust” element. “Volcanic activity produced the water.” That’s kind of a stupid thing to say. Water cannot simply appear because of a volcano erupting, spilling out rock. Water probably came to earth through a number of asteroids containing water crashing into earth. “Zapped by some kind of x-ray…” I wonder if this guy is serious. X-rays? Just in, Curie goes back in time, creates life! It was probably a lighting strike that caused chemicals to bond together to form the first cell. “Speck of light.” What the heck is he talking about? “That cell became beautiful you.” Well, that escalated quickly.
2:46 “I hadn’t even heard of it.” You call yourself a professor and have never heard of creation science? Wait, did he say that was in 1971? So… more than 40 years ago. Times have changed. Go back to dental college to educate yourself on astrology why don’t you.
3:25 He says assumptions, but does not specify the assumptions made, except for “rocks are very old” Going by his own big bang speech, which tells us that volcanoes were erupting before the onset of life, it is possible to assume that rocks are very old. A two year old could figure that out.
3:35 he starts talking about the bombardier beetle. He claims that the bombardier beetle could not have possibly evolved all of those features to create a one perfect beetle. I don’t see this. The evolution Bombardier beetles can easily be explained. Here is an explanation that may or may not be true, but follows the theory of evolution, and yes, Dr. Martin, the theory of punctuated equilibrium. There are plenty of noxious, non-exploding beetles, that leak or give off poisons or deterrents. Would it be too difficult to say that those chemicals were an evolutionary accident? A non-toxic beetle develops wax on its outer shell to keep water in or out. This trait gives this beetle an evolutionary advantage, and eventually, through generations, this trait becomes the norm for beetles. Then a beetle’s DNA is changed through mutation, the wax becomes more dense, and distasteful to predators. They eat his fellow beetles but avoid him, this beetle has many many baby beetles, the trait eventually becomes the norm again. ANOTHER beetle has a mutation it its DNA, the wax becomes very noxious through a mixing of naturally produced chemicals in the digestive tract, natural selection happens again, many baby beetles, becomes the norm. Mutation again, the beetle produces a catalyst that when a leg is pinched, the chemical explodes, sending away predators, the beetle lives, natural selection. As the mutation and natural selection happen again and again, the beetle refines its method of delivering the explosions, eventually making that brilliant turret we see on it today. See? You may have mulled over how this beetle was formed for years, but I created a reasonable explantation in five minutes! This is not intelligent design, and can be explained. For more information, look up the beetle, and you’ll find a legitimate and complicated explanation.
7:15 Martin starts to explain his thoughts on the giraffe. Wait wait wait. Did he just say evolutionists can’t explain how a giraffe knows the difference between a lion and a zebra? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? A zebra goes like this, “clomp clomp clomp.” A lion goes like this, “—- —- ROAR padpadpadpad.” A giraffe has ears. It can HEAR the lion versus the zebra. It has a nose. it can SMELL the difference between a pack of zebras and a lone lion. It has eyes, it can SEE the difference between a lion and a zebra. Get the point? Evolutionists don’t need to explain that, it’s painfully obvious.
Giraffes are one of evolution’s pride and joys, their necks are just long enough to eat from the native trees, which co-evolved as the trees shrank upward to avoid the giraffe’s bites, and the giraffes grew taller to eat it. Their mouths grew hard to be able to bite down on the thorns, and their pattens hid them from predators.
He seems to disregard the fact that giraffes did not start their evolution with their long necks. Of course, as the necks got longer, wouldn’t the ones with the better blood supply lines already in place be better off to defend predators? When their neck was just about as long as a common horse say, and the trees they ate from were just about that high, there were giraffes that perhaps had some of these mutations already in place. It wasn’t necessarily beneficial, it might have been a trait that didn’t help or harm, perhaps like your blonde hair, sir. But as their necks got longer, the giraffes with these traits in place would have already been in place. Right now, having blonde hair would not be a disadvantage or advantage. But let’s say alligators had a boom year, and millions were born all over the united states. Due to blonde hair’s light reflecting effects, alligators avoided attacking blondes. Other haired individuals would be on the run. You were not designed to be a lesser target for alligators and so have a better chance at survival, you were accidentally born with blonde hair that did no help or harm, and that trait eventually became an advantage. Eventually, everyone would be blonde. Do you see now? Plus, wouldn’t God just create a shorter necked giraffe and shorter trees in the first place, so that all of this extra energy wouldn’t be wasted, pushing blood flow to the head? Wouldn’t that design be more perfect? He is using the “all the perfect parts couldn’t have evolved to work perfectly together like this” argument, which probably has a better name. But indeed, wouldn’t a better design be to have one single vein that pumps blood up and down if necessary to the brain by magic? A set of parts is actually inconvenient and can easily have evolved one at a time, or partially together.
9:42 he then goes on to talk about the world’s tallest giraffe. Wouldn’t that be an example of a mutation that did not benefit the giraffe, supporting the theory of evolution? He also claims giraffes have no vocal chords, which is false. Giraffes have vocal chords, they just rarely use them. Baby and youth giraffes have been know to cry out in duress. Perhaps that is one of those hidden mutations that do no help or harm?
10:15 He begins to describe the woodpecker. He AGAIN uses the same argument to say how not all of these parts could have possible evolved together. That simply, is not true, as explained earlier, each feature could have evolved independently. Woodpeckers would blow their brains out or starve, originally, as his argument goes, as they dig into tough trees. However, weak, soft trees would be teeming with bugs, and a hardy bird could make a nice meal out of it. As it continually pecked at the trees, it evolved a tougher skull and beak to support itself. He uses an example of the European Green Woodpecker, and how its tongue is unique, and the reason for this was an intelligent design to challenge future evolutionists, which is a laughable concept. Since I sensed he was not giving out the full story, I did a little research on my own. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html here is a wonderful, in depth description of how this may have evolved. The short version: the tongue is mostly made of hard material, allowing it to function as both support, and to allow the tongue to protrude much farther into the wood than a normal bird’s, a great advantage, from what I gather. You may do a bit of research on your own to support this, if you want. Science is rarely left with an unexplainable phenomenon, and when there is, explanations eventually appear.
14:55 His statement about holding back evidence is at the utmost irony here. Science is 100% based on evidence. Creationism is based 100% on faith. That is not evidence, my friend.
16:00 he starts to speak about the Australian Incubator Bird. “Impossible, impossible!” Sir, this bird laying eggs that weigh a 1/2 pound is possible. That’s because it happens. Are you rejecting evidence? Do I have to refer you to Romans? 19:20 “The birds somehow know, I gotta get out of here.” No shit. If I was hungry and in a pile of leaves, I would want to get the fuck out of there too. Apparently it’s a miracle that the bird knows how to create a pile of leaves even though he wasn’t taught by his parents. OK seems reasonable, until you think about some human behaviors. Babies learn to walk without being taught, right? Even if no one had taught you or your partner, you would know how to reproduce. These are instincts, not miracles. We are born with this knowledge like we are born with the knowledge of how to move our eyes or fingers. That’s why salmon swim upstream to their birthplaces, why birds migrate, and why bears hibernate. It’s the same concept. How could this bird evolve you ask? Very easily, especially in comparison the other examples, which were more tricky to explain. The birds that exhibited some or all of these behaviors had a better chance of survival than those who didn’t. This bird looks like it could evolve further, having the eggs be more insulated and more resistant to temperature. Perhaps this evolution is happening right now. But you won’t see it in your lifetime, and your children’s children’s children’s children’s children won’t see it either. It’s just such a slow process, evolution.
20:32 “here’s something we pull out of the icebox every morning.” Icebox? I have a fridge. Maybe this just shows how backward this whole video is.
20:40 he begins to explain how eggs develop. I don’t really see his argument here. He is saying that because the process of a developing egg is so precise and perfect, it must have been made by God. This makes no sense to me. Eggs have been around since before the dinosaurs, you can see the variation in snake and reptile eggs today, you’d think by now they would have perfected the process through evolution, which, by the looks of that process in this video, that has almost happened. The thing is, baby chicks die all the time before emerging from their eggs, that’s why we find pushed out eggs from nests in our neighborhoods, they just weren’t able to develop. The ones that do survive, and pass their strong genes down to their offspring, further improving the process. Evolution, bitch.
24:50 the narrator claims there was a very prolific chicken at a university. Perhaps if that chicken were to be mated, it would pass those genes down to its offspring and have many more eggs than normal. Alas, a mutation, again confirming evolution in the same source trying to disprove it.
27:00 Dr. Martin claims there is no explanation for how the beaver can pull the branch across a river. In fact, there is: a beaver is very strong. They evolved to be able to pull that branch because better, drier houses mean more babies. More babies mean survival of those genes. God is not an explanation, it is an excuse for ignorance in this case. Learn the other opinions and stop blindly accepting, and you may find there IS an evolutionary explanation.
28:00 He describes the platypus, but does not explain how it defies evolution, in fact everything he said supports the theory of evolution. I don’t really know what to sy here.
29:15 Black and Yellow Garden Spider. He wonders how the spider would be able to manufacture their web factory. Well the answer to that is no different than why a spider evolved a hard exoskeleton, the spider with the better webs caught more food and was able to better their chances at survival. The “praising God” method of studying is ridiculous. Scientists come from all faiths and beliefs and it would be highly insulting, in addition to being completely immoral, unethical and an impediment to science to study organisms this way.
34:17 the Gecko Lizard: the questions he asks: Why would the lizard evolve tiny suction cups? Well, the answer is obvious, to stick to things to escape predation. How would it evolve these? Well, like any other trait, through a beneficial genetic mutation that is naturally selected. Note: Darwin never used the term “survival of the fittest.” That was coined by Social Darwinists. How would it evolve feet to perfectly fit the suction cups? Well, not all similar lizards have the same feet. If it were because of intelligent design, God would have designed the feet identically, and perfectly, instead of the variety and imperfection that exists. How? Perhaps the feet that the lizard had originally were adequate enough to move around with, and as the generations passed, the better equipped lizards survived more often, eventually producing better feet. Perhaps the feet evolved first, the suction cups improved later, making the foot ideal. I don’t know exactly, but my point is that there are many logical options to how these creatures evolved, and one simply has to do a little critical thinking, which Dr. Martin seems to not be doing.
≈36:00 The other lizard, I’m not sure how to spell it. This is certainly a remarkable creature. But, the qualities that make it are not unexplainable by evolution. The “sneezes” that expel salt are not entirely unique. Every creature in the desert has its own way of desalinizing its blood, many by solid urine, or uric acid. This is simply a different way of solving the same problem, and shows truly the variety of the biosphere and the remarkable ways multiple creatures have solved their problems. This is not a testament to creationism but merely a display of evolution’s marvels.
39:10: Oh goodness, people. This is going to be good. He addresses the ear, which is indeed a marvelous organ. “How could this marvel evolve?” he asks. Well, through millions of years of changes and variation. First off, there are many many many creatures with less developed ears than humans. These provide clues as to when our ancestors evolved variations on the ear and split off towards different evolutionary paths. Our ear is not as developed as the cat’s, and their ear can distinguish between small sounds we cannot even detect. Our ear is not perfect. He questions how our eyes might evolve. Look at the snail, those eyes can barely distinguish between light and dark. Just like the ear, it evolved piece by piece until it is what it is today. Also, the eye is not perfect, in fact, it is inefficient. There are parts of the eye that obscure light from the receiving neurons, which the brain is forced to adjust for. There is a blind spot where the optic nerve gets in the way of vision and the brain must compensate. The image is recorded upside down before the brain is forced to flip it. The eye is inefficient, and is not perfect. Perhaps we are still evolving, and those issues will be ironed out over many many years.
He finishes by saying that these creatures have defied evolution in every single way. Haven’t we proved otherwise? He ends on the same thought he started with, that the world is beautiful, and that’s because God made it that way. Personally, I think people are pretty ugly myself.
Again, I’m not a scientist, I’m a kid. Don’t take my explanations too seriously, they are just a demonstration of critical thinking that I found to be lacking in this video.
Please contribute to the conversation, I would love to hear your opinion on either side of the debate, and I’ll respond and check your blog out. You can follow me if you like, the posts will be sporadic.
And yeah, fuck those carbon dating debaters too. They’re dumber than this guy.
Stay confident. Stay happy.