Toppling the Icons of Evolution
Faithful Christian parents shudder at the thought of their children one day embracing the atheistic tenets of organic evolution. One of the best preventative measures is for parents to be proactive. Many of the icons that evolutionists routinely uphold as proof for their beloved theory have serious problems. Young and old alike should make themselves familiar with these icons as well as the errors associated with them. Listed below are some of the more common icons used as evidence. We encourage you to look through your child’s science book and teach them the truth regarding these evolutionary hoaxes.
In 1874, German biologist Ernest Haeckel published a series of drawings that has influenced thousands of biology students. He admitted that the changing point in his life was reading Charles Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species. Haeckel believed that humans evolved, and as such, hypothesized that during our embryological development humans allegedly go through successive stages from the animals we evolved from (e.g., fish to amphibian to reptile to lower mammal). Biology students today recognize this belief as “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” To support this idea, Haeckel an established artist, drew a series of images depicting embryos from several different species at various stages of development. In his drawings an early stage human embryo looked similar to the fish, salamander, turtle, bird, pig, etc. This series of drawings seemed to be the perfect evidence evolutionists were seeking to prove the descent of all animals from a common ancestor.
The only problem was the images were 100% faked. Haeckel altered the illustrations to portray this alleged similarity. Haeckel was rebuked by the scientific community for his fraudulent drawings, but they have continued to be published for decades. This hoax is persistently used by textbook writers to convey the idea of common ancestry. One of the most popular examples that originated from Haeckel’s embryos is the theory that humans have gill slits as they are growing in the womb. This concept spawned from a set of fabricated drawings. We know today that human embryos never possess gill slits in the womb, and yet, textbooks continue to promote this lie. (Haeckel’s embryos also served well in the 1970s for abortion-rights activists who asserted that the “thing” growing in the womb was not human, because it resembled the reptiles, fish, and amphibians. Today we know humans are different!)
Another evolutionary hoax can be laid directly at the feet of Charles Darwin. During his voyage on the H.M.S. Beagle, Darwin visited the Galapagos Islands. On these islands he observed thirteen species of finches that possessed differences in bill shape, diet, and the environments in which they lived. Since Darwin’s observations, researchers (e.g., Peter and Rosemary Grant) have documented populations of finches changing due to environmental pressure. For example, a drought might result in the primary population of these birds returning to smaller beaks so they could feed on the available plants. The changes documented in these finches have led many evolutionists to proclaim this as example of “evolution in action.”
However, the question should be asked: Do differences in beak size result in this species changing into an entirely new species? Microevolution can explain the small changes that are observed among the beaks, but organic evolution does not explain the existence of these birds in the first place. They are still finches – whether a drought existed or not. Also, we know today that these finches can interbreed – which demonstrates they are simply variations of the same species. [Additionally, these changes in beaks actually argue more against evolution. Evolutionists have always argued that evolution is a slow process requiring millions of years. Yet, the changes observed occur in a relatively short amount of time.] A few minor changes in beak size are hardly proof of common descent.
Almost everyone who has sat through a biology class can recall seeing a picture of a light-colored moth and a dark-colored moth resting on a tree trunk. Evolutionists proclaimed that prior to the industrial age, 95% of the moths in England were white, and only 5% were dark colored. They reasoned that the dark colored moths would be quickly eaten by birds, because they stood out against the white lichens of the trees. After the industrial age, the trees took on a darker color from the pollution and soot. The moth population shifted, and 95% of the moths were dark colored and only 5% were white. Evolutionists claimed the dark moths were better camouflaged. Again, they contend this is an example of evolution by natural selection. However, in more than 40 years of research, the moths have only been observed on tree trunks twice! So where did those now-famous pictures come from? They were faked – staged! The moths were glued or pinned to the tree. Additionally, the original research has never been replicated. Lastly, no matter what color they are, the moths are still moths! They have not evolved into a new species. Bob Ritter, a Canadian textbook writer who new the images were fabricated, noted: “You have to look at the audience. How convoluted do you want to make it for a first time learner? The advantage of this example of natural selection is that it is extremely visual. We want to get across the idea of selective adaptation. Later on, they [high school students – BH] can look at the work critically.” In other words, later on they can discern if it is true or not.
All of the biology textbooks in my office contain a discussion of the famous Miller-Urey experiment that was conducted in 1953. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey put, what they believed, were the early atmospheric conditions together in an apparatus. They used an electrical spark to simulate lightening. And then they heated up the mixture to see if they could spontaneously generate living material from these non-living gases.
Did they create life? No. Did they create proteins? No. What they created was 85% – something most textbook writers fail to include. Additionally, we know today that the experiment was carried out in the absence of oxygen, in a reducing atmosphere – something honest scientists will admit is foolishness. (However, Miller and Urey had to do this in order to keep the oxygen from breaking down the desired amino acids.) Additionally, the electrical spark they used was constant, unlike the ever-changing frequency of lightening that would be found in the real conditions of nature. However, they did create trace amounts of a few amino acids. As such, most of these textbooks contain the phrase “scientists have created the building blocks for life” – another embellishment that is used to promote evolution. Routinely, after pronouncing this bold statement, the textbooks will then begin an intensive study of evolution. (Also, make sure children understand that humans have never successfully created living material from non-living material. Life always comes only from other life!)
In 1931, German scientist Alfred Wiedersheim listed 180 human organs as being vestigial or rudimentary in humans. Structures like the appendix, the tonsils, the thymus, etc. were all on the list. Today that list has been abolished due to our increased knowledge. This has not stopped textbook writers from proclaiming that these alleged vestigial structures are “leftover” by-products from our evolutionary ancestors. For instance, a biology textbook published by Holt in 1989 noted, “The vestigial tailbone in humans is homologous to the functional tail of other primates. Thus vestigial structures can be viewed as evidence for evolution: organisms having vestigial structures probably share a common ancestry” A Glenco biology book noted: “When compared with the caecum of a horse, the caecum and appendix of humans is thought to be vestigial.” Today, we know for example, that the appendix is a site where immune responses are initiated. Likewise, the tonsils play an immune function in humans. Just because we don’t know what something is does not mean it is evolutionary baggage.
Another common icon that evolutionists like to use is the Archaeopteryx. They proclaim this to be the missing link between dinosaurs and birds. Yet many scientists recognize this creature for what it truly is – a bird. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History observed that Archaeopteryx “has simply become a patsy for wishful thinking.” Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not a part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. In a recent email from world-renowned ornithologist Alan Fedducia, he declared: “Archaeopteryx was clearly a well-developed bird, with true feathers.” This creature is simply a bird – not the desired “missing link.
All of these errors and hoaxes may explain why evolutionists are hesitant to “teach the controversy”, and allow students to discuss the problems with the Darwinian theory.