Many media outlets are billing the Science magazine's top scientific achievements as proof of evolution. For example, these headlines:
"Evolution takes science honours" - BBC News
"Darwinism hailed as breakthrough of year in snub to creationists" - The Independent
"Evolution named 2005's top scientific breakthrough" - San Diego Union Tribune
"Journal cites evolution studies in 2005" - USA Today
"Evolution comes out tops" - News24
"Evolution 'breakthrough of the year,' Science journal declares" - CBC Ottowa
"Evolutionary studies top annual scientific breakthrough" - People's Daily Online (China)
"Evolution evidence rated as top ‘breakthrough'" - MSNBC
In the article in BBC News entitled "Evolution takes science honours", we hear
"The studies bestowed with the title "breakthrough of the year" by Science include the sequencing of the chimpanzee genome; recreation of the 1918 flu virus in a laboratory; and a study on European blackcap birds which demonstrated how two different populations can become two separate species."
In the Independent we hear these studies "have shown beyond any doubt how evolution underpins all aspects of modern biology."
The people at Science didn't say that at all. According to BBC News (in a stunning stroke of candor), news editor Colin Norman said, "...it was in the realisation that scientists tend to take for granted that evolution underpins modern biology." He didn't state unequivocally that evolution underpins all aspects of modern biology, he said that scientists tend to take it for granted. BIG difference. Kinda like "Bob Ellis is an incredibly handsome guy" versus "Bob Ellis takes it for granted that he's an incredibly handsome guy"--the difference being reality versus my psychosis.
The Independent article did however point out that the people at Science did have their own agenda: "this year some segments of American society fought to dilute the teaching of even the basic facts of evolution. With all this in mind, Science has decided to put Darwin in the spotlight by saluting several dramatic discoveries, each of which reveals the laws of evolution in action."
But getting back to my overall point, these science achievements (chimp genome sequencing, flu virus recreation, and bird studies) don't prove squat about evolution.
The media--Science magazine included--is just looking to ridicule creationism and intelligent design theory, just like they seek to ridicule anything that doesn't fit their secular liberal worldview. They cannot bear any dissent from their "God is dead, and hail to the evolution of communism" philosophy.
The elephant in the living room that evolutionists try DESPERATELY to ignore is that in order for evolution to occur, NEW genetic material must somehow come into being. Yet the only species changes scientists can point to are small changes that ALWAYS result in a LOSS of genetic information. That's not evolution, but devolution, with the resulting organism retaining less genetic diversity, not more.
For instance, the original dog created by God contained enough DNA (genetic diversity) to produce a large variety of dogs (beagles, German shepherds, poodles, etc). The poodle doesn't "evolve" from the original dog; it merely displays a dominant set of genetic characteristics inherited from its ancestor. No new genetic material came into being; instead, the genetic traits that make a poodle a poodle are isolated by breeding two dogs which both have those dominant genetic characteristics.
In the case of the bird studies, two different kinds of birds does not mean new genetic material has come into being; nowhere in the study does it have the audacity to purport that new genetic material has been produced.
In order for man (and all other organisms) to have evolved from the simple, single-celled organism which evolutionists claim we all came from, a LOT of new genetic material had to come into being.
If you can't show new genetic material coming into being, then you have no proof of evolution or evolutionary change. You can spin it any way you like, but in the end what you've spun bears a strong resemblance to a certain emperor's clothes...
0 comments:
Post a Comment