|
Darwin’s Brave New World is a 3-part television series on the life
of Charles Darwin, produced and shown around the world in 2009 as part of the evolutionary
hype for the 150th anniversary of the publishing of Darwin’s book
Origin of Species. As the series is now being reshown in Australia by ABC-TV
(Oct. 31, and Nov. 7 & 14), we are reprinting our review of each episode. The
second is below.
|
Experiments that actually don’t prove evolution
A review of Darwin’s Brave New World, Episode Two1
Image wikipedia.org
Charles Darwin
by Russell Grigg
Published: 27 November 2009; republished: 10 November 2010 (GMT+10)
Episode Two of the TV series Darwin’s Brave New World, shown on ABC1
in Australia in November 2009, is titled “Evolutions”. It has a couple
of segments dealing with Darwin’s daughter’s illness, so we will combine
them to begin with.
Darwin’s daughter, Annie
We see Darwin’s 10-year-old daughter, Annie, “fighting for her life
against a mysterious illness”. Her mother, Emma, says, “We trust in
the name of the Lord, our God”, albeit without the film showing anyone praying
for Annie’s healing. Presumably the point is to show that “trust in
God” is a waste of time.
And as to cruelty in nature, the world today is not as God created it, namely very
good, but we are living in a cursed world—cursed because of mankind’s
sin
The Announcer declares, “Darwin sees Annie’s death as a tragic reminder
of natural selection. Only the strong survive, and nature, not God, decides her
fate like that of any other animal.” Prof. Richard Dawkins chips in with,
“The whole of nature, when you look at it not only is cruel, but has to be
cruel as a part of natural selection.”
Darwin tried every natural remedy he could think of to save his daughter. including
the water cure and various medicines. All to no avail. In fact, it is God, not nature,
who determines who survives.2
And as to cruelty in nature, the world today is not as God created it, namely very
good, but we are living in a cursed world—cursed because of mankind’s
sin (Genesis chapter 3).3
Darwin’s barnacles
In 1844, the publication of a rival book about evolution called Vestiges of the
Natural History of Creation by an anonymous author (later known to be Scottish
journalist Robert Chambers) temporarily sets Darwin back, until his friend, Joseph
Hooker, gets him going again by advising him to specialize. Darwin chooses to study
barnacles for the next eight years.
Natural selection is a winnowing agent that gets rid of the less fit, and so maintains
the status quo.
We are told that no one has studied barnacles before. Nevertheless it was believed
that all barnacles were hermaphrodite, i.e. having both female and male sexual organs.
Darwin then sees one barnacle under his microscope that is male only. The Announcer
reworks this as, “He sees some barnacles that can change into a single sex.
Like the finches from the Galápagos islands: more evidence that species can
change dramatically, the process of natural selection.” Prof. Iain McCalman
says, “The process of producing offspring in itself produces inherent and
inevitable varieties. He discovers that variations occur inevitably and perpetually
in nature.”
But Darwin discovered no such thing. All that he discovered was one barnacle that
is male. The rest is spin, i.e. that because there are two varieties, one of them
must have changed into the other. This is not a “crucial insight”, but
a fundamental non sequitur. This is similar to the argument put forward
by evolutionists that germs evolve into antibiotic-resistant types. The better explanation
is often that the antibiotic-resistant type has existed all along and flourishes
when the non-resistant type is eliminated. And even where a new type arises by mutation,
it is always a downhill change.4
Darwin’s male-only barnacle obviously had less genetic information than the
hermaphrodite ones (or possibly the instructions for making the female parts had
been switched off).
The real meaning of “natural selection”
Darwin continues to wonder just how one species might change into another. And regarding
Darwin’s belief that, in the competition to thrive in a new environment, species
eventually modify to form new species, we are given some words of wisdom by Dr David
Suzuki. “When you begin to think that the environmental conditions in some
way impinged on our hereditary material and favoured one set of genes over another,
then it begins to make sense; that’s how they began to diverge, that’s
why they’re different—because of the environmental conditions that act
to basically filter out or winnow out those combinations of genes that were less
fit.”
Note Dr Suzuki’s last 10 words: “winnow out those combinations of genes
that are less fit”. This is indeed all that natural selection does. Depite
all the huffing and puffing in this film, natural selection does not create
the more fit. Rather, it is a winnowing agent that gets rid of the less fit and
so maintains the status quo. Furthermore, natural selection was not “discovered”
by Charles Darwin; if anything it was “discovered” by the creationist
chemist/zoologist Edward Blyth (1810–1873), who wrote about it in 1835–37,5 as elimination of the less
fit in order to preserve the status quo (the fitness) of the group.6,7
Image wikipedia.org
Creationist Edward Blyth “discovered” natural selection and wrote about
it in 1835–37, years before Darwin.
Darwin’s experiments: what they do and don’t prove
The film now seems to suggest that if Darwin can discover by experiment how species
migrate, he will have proved that they have ipso facto evolved. We are
told, “He thinks laterally to show exactly how animals and plants could migrate
around the world and then evolve into new species.” But the fact that something
migrates anywhere is no proof whatever that it then evolves. People who migrate
to Australia may become Australians, but they don’t start to turn into kangaroos.
Nevertheless we are shown some experiments.
- Darwin immerses some seeds in salty water to see how long they can survive. It is
long enough for them to drift across an ocean. Great, but all this proves is that
these seeds can survive long enough to drift across an ocean, not that they then
evolve into anything else once they get somewhere else! In fact, these experiments
have given great ammunition to creationists to answer those who claim that floating
seeds could not have helped substantially re-vegetate a post-Flood Earth.
- He tests whether snails could hitch a ride on ducks’ feet by seeing how many
snails fall off some appendages while he shakes them. He shakes them for 10 seconds—12
fall off and four stay put. It’s difficult to see how that proves much at
all!
- In his garden he shows that some insects go only to some flowers.
- He was shown an orchid from Madagascar that had a very long neck, over a foot long.
Naturalists in Europe were only familiar with moths that had a very short proboscis.
Darwin predicted that a moth would be found with a proboscis a foot long. It was
found 100 years later. However, this does not prove evolution; at most it demonstrates
natural selection—not the same thing.8
No matter how much they have been bred, no pigeon has ever changed into a non-pigeon.
Prof. Janet Browne tells us that while Darwin continues his experiments “he
meticulously gathers evidence [note the word!] by a relentless writing campaign
to hundreds of naturalists around the world. He requests animal and plant specimens,
along with detailed notes on their habits and histories. … He put everything
he had into making that theory work, into finding evidence [that word again] to
support it, into discussing it, or at least the facts that it was based on, with
colleagues from all over the world. So his entire life was given to that theory.”
Well, hooray for Darwin! But Prof. Browne did not give us even one piece of the
alleged “evidence” that Darwin deduced from the specimens, such as the
skeletons from India and the beans from Norway, etc., that were sent to him by his
many colleagues around the world. The fact that he put so much effort into his search
doesn’t prove that his theory was true; if anything, it could show how elusive
any evidence for it was!
We are now introduced to Alfred Russel Wallace,9
about whom we are told (inter alia) that he grew up without any scientific
background, that he makes a living collecting animal specimens in the Malay archipeligo
for resale around the world, and that he believes orangutans are related to man.
Prof. McCalman puts into Wallace’s mouth that “evolution is an indisputable
fact”. However, the only actual Wallace quote given, from a paper he wrote
in 1855 exploring the concept of evolution and formation of new species, doesn’t
quite say this: “Every species has come into existence coincident with both
time and space with a pre-existing closely allied species.”
Pigeons: what do they prove, if anything?
Photo stock.xchng
Pigeon experiments have always shown that variation has limits, so if anything they
are evidence against Darwinism.
Back to Darwin, who is now considering pigeons. The narrator tells us, “Darwin
argues that man has changed them enormously by selective breeding. He calls this
‘artificial selection’ and maintains it mirrors what nature does in
the wild with natural selection, his key to evolution.” Then Dr Suzuki says,
“Natural selection is just a marvellous extention of what Darwin knew—that
human intervention by artificial selection could lead to enormous changes. But if
the same process occurred in nature, then environmental conditions could act in
the same general way as humans deliberately selecting for certain traits.”
Quite so, but no matter how much they have been bred, no pigeon has ever changed
into a non-pigeon. Pigeon experiments are therefore a strong demonstration that
variation has limits, whereas evolution from molecules to man requires that it does
not.
Thomas Huxley
Earlier we have been introduced to Thomas Huxley as an incredibly angry young man
who loathes Christian naturalist Richard Owen, the head of Britain’s scientific
establishment. Huxley, Hooker and Darwin become friends. However, Huxley does not
agree with Darwin’s theory of natural selection and with good reason.
Prof. Iain McCalman says, “Huxley is interested in the anatomy, the structure,
of species. He saw no such law of development at all.” And Huxley says to
Darwin, “Intermediate forms are missing … even ancient fossil animals
have living relatives that have undergone little or no change. Fossil history does
not mirror an individual embryonic growth.”
Well said, Huxley! Nevertheless, Huxley needed a cause as much as Darwin needed
a champion, and soon Huxley would be known as Darwin’s bulldog.10
Summary
Vigorous activity in doing experiments, dedication, even ingenuity, are all commendable,
but they should not be confused with results, or “proof” of evolution.
Evolutionists and creationists have the same information—fossils, armadillos,
barnacles, seeds that can survive in salt water, pigeons, orangutans, whatever.
However, just what this information is evidence for depends on how we interpret
it. But which interpretation is most consistent? All the real scientific results
reported in this program fit better into a biblical creationist worldview than the
naturalistic worldview (materialism / atheism), which the program assumes.
Readers’ comments
Daniel S., Australia, 27 November 2009
I tend to think of Huxley as the “Charismatic Leader” of evolutionism. Cults often have a “founder” who comes up with the ideas and a “charismatic leader” who acts as the puppet who promotes it, although sometimes these two roles are held by the same person.
Tom K., Canada, 3 December 2009
It never ceases to amaze me how far non-believers will go trying to convince themselves that by denying God, they can somehow make Him go away. Their hearts have become dark and they make fools of themselves. I hear sentiments such as “It isn’t difficult to see that if creatures needed to have sight, then they would evolve and eventually develop eye sight.” Conjecture, opinion, bad science, deceit, lies, half truths in support of evolution are perfectly acceptable “Scientific facts”. Anything to get rid of a God who holds them accountable and who will judge them. It is tragic that the answer to escape that judgment is simple, believe that Christ has already been judged, and found guilty, on our behalf. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.” |
Related articles
Further reading
References.
- See also:
A Review of Darwin’s Brave New World, Episode 1 Return
to text.
- See Grigg, R.,
Darwin’s arguments against God. Return to text.
- See Sarfati. J., Why is there Death & Suffering?
booklet: Raises questions but provides framework for answers Return
to text.
- See Wieland, C.,
Superbugs not super after all, Creation 20(1):10–13,
1997. Return to text.
- Blyth, E., The Magazine of Natural History Volumes 8,
9 and 10, 1835–1837. Return to text.
- See Darwin’s
illegitimate brainchild: If you thought Darwin’s Origin was original,
think again! Creation 26(2):39–41, 2004.
Return to text.
- See Wieland, C.,
Muddy Waters: Clarifying the confusion about natural selection …
Return to text.
- See Grigg, R., The Love Trap,
Creation 24(3):26–27, 2002 and
Natural selection Q and A. Return to text.
- See Grigg, R.,
Alfred Russel Wallace: ‘Co-inventor’ of Darwinism, Creation
27(4):33–35, 2005. Return to text.
- Grigg, R.,
Darwin’s bulldog—Thomas H. Huxley, Creation 31(3):39–41,
June 2009. Return to text.
| The article you just read is free, but the staff time working on it … isn’t. Consider a small gift to keep this site going.  | | |
|
