A Call to Truth: 15 ways Scientific American will Lie to You!
Doug S. Grauman
July 2002

In the July 2002 issue of Scientific American Magazine, propagandist editor John Rennie writes a self-promoted "refutation to creationism." Mr. Rennie assembles a collection of self-imagined arguments, from where only he knows, and then promotes them as arguments used by creationist's. What will be revealed here is the degree to which Rennie truly doesn't understand the creationist model of origins as I will clearly demonstrate four of his 15 arguments are flat out lies about the creationist position, while seven others are misrepresentations. Embarrassingly, Rennie has thus risked all credibility by blindly promoting them as the creationist view.

Now I don't deny the fact some Christians from time to time have attempted to use one of his arguments purely out of scientific ignorance, however, this does not mean such an individual is representing Creation Scientists and by no means does Rennie have a right to make such a claim. Simply said, many of his arguments are examples of deception by intentional omission.

Let's take a look at Rennie's misguided viewpoint in an effort to reveal the truth. Both Rennie's introduction and conclusion were printed in bold type and I'm not sure why but I will reference his quotes in the same fashion.

"When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination."

This tactic is all too often used by evolutions pastorate when speaking to the public. They use 'big words' to intimidate the scientific illiterate as they know much of their subscriber base is comprised of lay-people with minimal interests in science - thus, very easy to brainwash. Such statements do not establish credibility nor do they prove a theory.

"Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage."

Who's misunderstood whom? As I pointed out earlier, we are now going to find out just how deceitful Rennie is regarding what creationist teach and what they don't so let's breakdown his arguments

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

"According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth." "In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution." "Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain." "All scientists frequently rely on indirect evidence."

This is misrepresentative of how creationists approach this topic. Rennie falsifies the creationist perspective in an effort to perceptually strengthen his arguments. No informed creationist approaches this as Rennie presents. This is misrepresentation number one!

The only fact with regards to evolution is in micro changes. Macroevolution, which is what Rennie truly means here, is filed under, "theories in bankruptcy" as orthodox Darwinism conserves it's last bit of air still waiting to find that hopeful monster. Theories are derived from working models that seem to fit within the framework of scientific laws. However, since they cannot be factually proven, they remain theories. There is a clear distinction between the General Theory of Relativity however and evolution. Evolution is not credible enough to be placed on the shelf next to relativity.

Furthermore, the theoretical example Rennie uses of physicists being unable to see "...subatomic particles directly..." to support evolutionary theory is not contrastable to what evolution theory assumes as such experiments are observable in the present and continually repeatable. A lizard turning into a sparrow 170 million years ago is not observable in the present nor is it repeatable.

Rennie speaks as if he's open to using the argument of "indirect evidence," however, what he fails to point out is such "indirect evidence" may only be used by evolutionists and not Creationists. Both Creationists, and proponents of intelligent design theory, offer that the origin of the information on the DNA molecule is without a naturalistic explanation and thus, is indirect evidence for an intelligent designer. When such statements are made by creationists they are scoffed at and called psuedo-scientists. Yet Rennie uses such an example to support his lie.

2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.

"Survival of the fittest" is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders."

I don't know what creationist Rennie is referring to when he says we use such arguments. This is lie number one! Perhaps he is letting the lay-Christian pose Creationist arguments which certainly doesn't lend any credibility to his points.

Rennie uses an illustration in his article of the variation in beak sizes within the Galapagos Finches. My question to Rennie is, "How does beak variation explain origins?" A beak, regardless of its shape or color, is still a beak. No new information was created in such variations.

Natural selection is an absolute process and routinely used in Creation models! We fully acknowledge the observance of horizontal and downward mutations. Where we differ from evolutionists is the fact we all recognize no such mutational changes create new genetic information and we acknowledge this as the evidence supports. Rennie and his band of cronies are still hoping that one day a mutation will create new genetic information and this would be in violation to the second law of thermodynamics.

Natural selection works well with the Biblical record and with what we can observe. What's circular in evolutionary models is their methods of veryifying ages - that is, the rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks.

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

Evolution is as scientific as creation. Both use scientific methods, observation and calculation, but both also require faith. One cannot be independently labeled as religion while the other one is pardoned as science. Rennie identifies two very important, yet distinct, terms; micro and macroevolution, and accuses Creationists of ignoring them. He should practice what he preaches as the bi-lingua franqua of evolution is the art of manipulation and lying about what the evidence truly representes - Archaeoraptor(1), peppered moths.(2)

The argument does not lie within the size of the change but rather with the direction of the change - that is, changes are always horizontal or downward, within the species, never vertical, a species becoming another species. Here again he has misrepresented how creationists approach this issue; misrepresentation number two!

All changes we can and have observed, continually demonstrate a loss of genetic information while evolution requires and promotes an increase in information. And even though there is no such evidence demonstrating an increase in such complexity, the propagandists of the evolutionary pastorate promote the lies that there is. Well where then?

"Microevolution looks at changes in species over time -- changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related."

Where Rennie fails to be truthful is in the fact such evidence must first be interpreted. And such interpretation always begins with ones ideological framework. Rennie and his cronies first begin their interpretations from fallible mans construction of the geological column and its 'painted pictures' of species transitioning. They are not interested in developing their framework from any other perspective nor are they interested in hearing any either. Creationists begin their interpretation from an infallible God.

Biochemical similarities among life forms can easily be explained by the fact all such life forms have the same designer. It's His signature on His creation just as an artist signs his paintings. Such relationships are quite simple to explain within the Biblical framework. Evolutionists arguments that apes and humans share a common ancestor is easily explained within the creationist model in that both are mammals with very similar features, so both have similarities in their DNA. We find that all mammals with similar features have a very close DNA relationship whereas the DNA contrast between an ape and a frog does not share as many similarities.

If Rennie is truly interested in the truth, he would offer-up the many problems associated with his religion such as the similarities between various organisms that evolutionists don't believe are closely related. An example of this would be in starfish, earthworms, and even some bacteria where we find hemoglobin just as we find in vertebrates(3,4) There are numerous more examples as destructive as this but Rennie makes no mention of any of them.

"These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Galapagos finches)."

No kidding! These beliefs are not only held and promoted by creationists because of what various studies show, but because it fits into the Biblical model of creation and the curse. Again, what Rennie leaves out here is the fact that none of these examples demonstrate an increase in information or even new information. So how then can this truly support evolution if it never makes way for a newly evolved species?

"For instance, 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 feathers progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows."

Well I sure wish he or his fellow cronies would show me such creatures! When we examine the evidence from the fossil record we see apes (including australopithocines) and we see humans (including all in the genus Homo, that are hardly more diverse than today's tribes), side-by-side, in deposits that are embarrassingly "old" for the evolutionist. Honest interpretation reveals the fact apes have always been apes, and people, people. Evolutionists, with their vivid imaginations, pretend australopithecus africanis (Lucy), and a handful of other orangatangs, were half human. Yet studies in the jaw, fingers and hands, as well as their arms prove these were tree-dwelling creatures rather than crude man attempting to walk upright.(5)

"But one should not - and does not - find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period...."

We have several examples of 'out of place' fossils and evidence of modern humans living with the dinosaurs such as the "Paluxy River Prints,"(6) "the Coelacanth Fish,"(7) the "Laetoli Foorprints"(8) and "cave paintings of man hunting dinosaurs"(9) just to name a few. However, it would be all too easy for an evolutionist to 'rework the facts' in an effort to blend in such a find with the geological column.

4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.

"Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but non-existent. In the mid-1990's George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. "Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously."

Well it's time John Rennie open up the blinders and get up to date with the facts as many such attempts have been made most recently by Dr. Michael Behe when he requested to publish his answers to a handful of rebuttals regarding his 2000 book, "Darwin's Black Box - A Biochemical Challenge to Evolution." (See Dr. Behe's Correspondence with Science Journals) in various science journals but was refused because such comments were challenging orthodox Darwinism. Because this has all too often been the status quos, creation scientists as well as members from the ID camp, have in-turn created their own medium-outsources for truth via websites as well as quarterly journals (Creation Research Society and Creation Ex Nihilo just to name a couple). This is lie number two!

Here's an offer to Mr. Rennie, Creation Apologetics will be willing to submit a paper on creationist research so which issue will Scientific American publish it in?

5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.

"Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs... These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology." "Unfortunately, dishonest creationists have shown a willingness to take scientists' comments out of context to exaggerate and distort the disagreements."

Rennie here is demonstrating propaganda in its loudest form. This is no more than a desperate attempt to manipulate the public into believing their disagreements are only in the details. Gould and Dawkins for years bitterly feuded over fundamental Darwinism. Furthermore, to say creationists quote out of context is. I would strongly recommend one read the book, "Creation Scientists Answer their Critics, Duane T. Gish, ICR, 1993." This book lists numerous examples of "quoted out of context" claims such as Rennies where Dr. Gish goes back to each and every quote and this time lists, in some cases, nearly the entire page where the quote was found an in effort to prove each and every evolutionists meant exactly what they said when they were quoted. Furthermore, the book not only proves that such accusations are without merit, but it clearly offers numerous evidence there is a fierce battle being waged within the evolution camp where devastating arguments have been tossed back and forth with regards to the opponents idea.

His statements here are flat out lies! This brings him up to lie number three!

6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

"This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor."

This is another misrepresented fact; number three. The only people that would make such a statement would be lay church-goers who would only say such a thing out of honest ignorance. I have yet to read, see, or hear any creation scientist making such a statement. Why doesn't Rennie reference a creationist publication that makes such a statement? This demonstrates how low evolutionists will go in their propaganda campaign.

Rennie nearly contradicts his Darwin God here as Darwin's book spoke more of competition and obsolescence than about "splinter groups". Darwin wrote that new creatures arise, in part because old ones die out due to obsolescence. So according to Darwin, greater cleverness had something to do with Homo out-competing the apes for a given food supply, then the question of why there are still apes is not such an ignorant one as Rennie scoffs.

7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.

"The origin of life remains very much a mystery, 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." "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."

Amen! Rennie is just attempting to fill space here with his babble. In broadcasting they call this, "fill" and this now becomes lie number four.

Despite Rennies claims here that biochemists have "...learned how... life could have formed...," this is a flat out lie as evolutionary speculation has been all over the board with regards to biogenesis. Evolutions entire existence rests upon this required, initial process. How dare Rennie try and pass-off the importance of this issue. How can he be so dogmatic about macroevolution but unable get past the life from non-life fact? Without this first step, there's nothing to evolve. The sad fact is that Naturalism's theologians frequently abandon their philosophy at this initial point by moving far up the evolutionary tree where they can avoid discussion of this very initially required step of how life arose from non-living chemicals.

The chemistry that makes up life is a complex information system that produces building materials, energy, locomotion, and reproduction. Today, most scientists recognized evidence for this initial process is non-existant, as any such organic molecules would break down as fast as they formed before life could even begin, preventing a concentration of organic molecules from ever developing.

We've heard the propaganda before that evolutionists have tested various biogenesis models that have produced life. However, the reality is that only some of the building blocks required for life were produced and in very carefully controlled conditions where the amino acids were removed from the reaction with a trap as soon as they were formed. Life is a continual reproductive process not a once, short-lived chemical reaction. Belief in the origin of life from non-life is an absolute violation to one of the fundamental laws of biology, the Law of Biogenesis. And if it can't start, it can't continue!

Evolution requires the introduction of new information in the forms of new genes. Mutations occur when the cell replaces damaged genes as a result of a repair process and a mistake occurs in the repair, or when genes are swapped into new sequences. These scenarios result in useless proteins and less efficient organisms. There is no mechanism proposed for new, improved genes producing new species.

The probing question of origins is where did the information come from that exists in the genetic code? A majority of scientists have excused random chance evolution as the author because blind chance has no ability for intricate design.(10) As the Law of Biogenesis proves, life comes only from life, so does the laws of information science prove that information comes only from intelligent sources.

8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.

"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. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times."

Rennie exposes the weakness of his argument here when he says, "As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction..." Of course he knows the lay-reader will never know that such an example doesn't exist this is why he's not concerned with providing any examples. Natural selection is either governed by "chance" or a "directed process," and since a directed process would require the involvement of a master designer, Rennie is left with "chance."

The information for which natural selection acts is simply mutational errors happening randomly. If molecules-to-man evolution were true, we should find endless, information-increasing mutations but such mutations don't happen now and never happened in the past.

9. Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.

"This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts. The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word. More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials."

Here Rennie misapplies how creationists argue this topic. Yes, I have heard many lay-Christians misapply this law but they certainly are not representing creation scientists so Rennie shouldn't act like they do; misrepresentation number four!

Evolutionists argue that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the evidence that all systems deteriorate toward disorganization.

While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

The fact is that the best-known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

What is comforting to know is the Bible is in full-compliance with what we observe. That is, the first law states nothing is now being created nor destroyed, which exactly represents the Genesis doctrine of the finished creation, which God maintains. This second law says that this once, very good, creation now suffers under the penalty of sin and death. Every object on earth that we study and every reaction that we observe abide by these two laws. Our observations confirm what we read in the Bible.

10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

"On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organisms DNA) - bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example. Mutations that arise in the homebox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. 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."

Creationists do not deny the observable fact mutations create new traits, but rather such new traits do not create or present any new genetic information. Here is misrepresentation number five!

No observed mutation has ever introduced an innovative design change into an organism that actually benefited the organism. There are various ways new traits can arise through the loss of genetic information however, these mistakes are still going in the wrong downhill direction. What evolutionists fail to recognize is that these are either information destroying traits or corrupting their expression. The mixing and matching of Hox genes does nothing to bring about the kind of new information increase needed to drive evolution. Where does the needed information come from?

An antennae or leg growing in the wrong place does not exhibit new information as such genetic information already existed. If "limbs" that have grown in the wrong place "are not functional" how can natural selection test them for possible uses? I would call such a comment a description of a "hopeless monster" in that Rennie claims natural selection can find ways to use useless limbs that sprouted on top of a species head. If its legs are on top of its head, how is it mobile enough to search for food or defend itself long enough to survive? Such a creature would evolve itself right out of existence long before it ever had time to turn its genetic information from chaos to complex.

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

"...in the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species."

Creationists have little problem with the tenets of natural selection. Small variations having survival benefit within created kinds, such as coloration of peppered moths or differently shaped beaks, no more disprove creation than fossils in sedimentary rocks disprove a universal flood. The Creator not only displays tremendous variety of kinds but also enormous variety within created kinds. The transition from one species to another however, is the problem.

Rennie's quote above explains in a nutshell the creationist model for the origins of races we see today (Genesis 11). Again, here's another revelation of the ignorance he has regarding the creationist model of origins. This brings him up to misrepresentation number six! However, one small item to correct is that although we today find many variations of homo sapiens, all remain fully human as natural selection hasn't the ability to create a biologically new species.

Darwinism failed completely as a scientific explanation for origins. Darwin recognized three major problem areas himself: perfection of adaptation, the origin of variation, and the fossil evidence. And despite the lies here being promoted by Scientific American, no such transition has ever even been observed.

12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.

"Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species." "Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection--for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits--and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment."

Creationists fully accept the fact new speciation can happen, however, such speciation once again does not mean a biologically new species and this is the foundational requirement for evolution. Yes cats, cougars and lions derived from a common genetic cat stock, however, how is this an example of a frog becoming a polar bear?

Fundamental creationists don't argue against speciation after their kind so here is yet another example of Rennie's ignorance of the creation model. Misrepresentation number seven.

13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils-creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.

"Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures pecuiliar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition..."

I would ask Rennie to present an example of a sedimentary rock outcrop where fossil evolution can be traced from the lower layers up through the higher layers and which leave a variety of intermediates along the way to a new kind of species. If macroevolution is true, and if it happened over billions of years, this shouldn't be difficult.

What Rennie leaves out with regards to the fossil record is what the true evidence demonstrates: a sudden appearance of fully formed complex invertebrates which leave no trace of ancestors, in addition to the sudden appearance of every major kind of fish, fully formed - supposedly the first vertebrates - and again, without a trace of ancestors. The evidence overwhelmingly proves, beyond reasonable doubt, vertical evolution has not occurred.

Furthermore, there are three other basically different types of flying creatures - flying insects, flying reptiles - now extinct, and flying mammals - bats. It would be incomprehensible that millions of years of evolution of these three basically different types of flying creatures, each involving the remarkable transition of a land animal into a flying animal, would have failed to produce large numbers of transitional forms. If evolution has occurred the way its theologians promote, our museums should contain thousands of fossils of intermediate forms in each case. However, not a trace of an ancestor or transitional form has ever been found for any of these creatures!

As for Archaeopteryx, Rennie discusses a very bias perspective. First, it had an impressive array of features that immediately identify it as a bird. Second, it had perching feet. Third, several of its fossils bear the impression of feathers. These feathers were identical to those of modern birds in every respect. The primary feathers of non-flying birds are distinctly different from those of flying birds. Archaeopteryx had the feathers of flying birds,(11) had the basic pattern and proportions of the avian wing, and an especially robust furcula - wishbone. Furthermore, there was nothing in the anatomy of Archaeopteryx that would have prevented it from being a powered flyer.(12) No doubt Archaeopteryx was a feathered creature that flew. It was a bird!

Let's take a look at what others in the evolutionary pastorate have said regarding Archaeopteryx and evidence in the fossil record:

"Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of paleobabble is going to change that.(13) "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition. . . ."(14) "As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly. . . ."(15) "The fossil record of evolution is amenable to a wide variety of models ranging from completely deterministic to completely stochastic."(16)

And from evolution's Godfather part II himself,

"I regard the failure to find a clear "vector of progress" in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. . . . we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it."(17) "And this poses something of a problem: If we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?"(18) "A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?"(19) "In any case, no real evolutionist . . . uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation. . . ."(20)

As far as Rennie's lie about "whale evolution" I need not address this here as we already have on this site so for the truth about whale evolution, please see, A Whale Fantasy from National Geographic.

14. Living things have fantastically intricate features - at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels - that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.

"Generations of creationists have tried to counter Darwin by citing the example of the eye as a structure that could not have evolved. The eye's ability to provide vision depends on the perfect arrangement of its parts, these critics say. Natural selection could thus never favor the transitional forms needed during the eyes evolution - what good is half an eye? Anticipating this criticism,Darwin suggested that even 'incomplete' eyes might confer benefits (such as helping creatures orient toward light) and thereby survive for further evolutionary refinement. Biology has vindicated Darwin: researchers have identified primitive eyes and light-sensing organs throughout the animal kingdom and have even tracked the evolutionary history of eyes through comparative genetics. (It now appears that in various families of organisms, eyes have evolved independently.)"

Darwin himself had no explanation as to the evolution of the eye. To understand in details just how complex the eye is, see the article "The Human Eye," by Dr. Sean Pitman. In this article Dr. Pitman writes:

"but he proposed (referring to Darwin) a stepwise evolution of the human eye by showing examples of differences in the eyes of other creatures that seemed to be less complex. These differences were ordered in a stepwise fashion of progression from the most simple of eyes to the most complex. There did in fact appear to be a good number of intermediaries that linked one type of eye to another type in an evolutionary pattern. Some of the 'simplest' eyes are nothing more than spots of a small number of light sensitive cells clustered together. This type of eye is only good for sensing light from dark. It cannot detect an image. From this simple eye, Darwin proceeded to demonstrate creatures with successively more and more complex eyes till the level of the complexity of the human eye was achieved. This scenario certainly seems reasonable. However, many theories that initially seem reasonable on paper are later disproved. Such theories need direct experimental evidence to support them before they are accepted outright as 'scientific.' Do complex structures such as eyes actually evolve in real life? As far as I could find, there is no documented evidence of anyone evolving an eye or even an eye spot through any sort of selection mechanism in any creature that did not have an eye before. Also, I have not seen documented evidence for the evolution of one type of eye into a different type of eye in any creature. As far as I can tell, no such evolution has ever been directly observed. Of course the argument is that such evolution takes thousands or even millions of years to occur. Maybe so, but without the ability for direct observation and testing, such assumptions, however reasonable, must maintain a higher degree of faith. The necessary faith in such a scenario increases even more when one considers the fact that even a simple light sensitive spot is extremely complicated, involving a huge number of specialized proteins and protein systems. These proteins and systems are integrated in such a way that if one were removed, vision would cease. In other words, for the miracle of vision to occur, even for a light sensitive spot, a great many different proteins and systems would have to evolve simultaneously, because without them all there at once, vision would not occur. For example, the first step in vision is the detection of photons. In order to detect a photon, specialized cells use a molecule called 11-cis-retinal. When a photon of light interacts with this molecule, it changes its shape almost instantly. It is now called trans-retinal. This change in shape causes a change in shape of another molecule called rhodopsin. The new shape of rhodopsin is called metarhodopsin II. Metarhodopsin II now sticks to another protein called transducin forcing it to drop an attached molecule called GDP and pick up another molecule called GTP. The GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II molecule now attaches to another protein called phosphodiesterase. When this happens, phosphodiesterase cleaves molecules called cGMPs. This cleavage of cGMPs reduces their relative numbers in the cell. This reduction in cGMP is sensed by an ion channel. This ion channel shuts off the ability of the sodium ion to enter the cell. This blockage of sodium entrance into the cell causes an imbalance of charge across the cell's membrane. This imbalance of charge sends an electrical current to the brain. The brain then interprets this signal and the result is called vision. Many other proteins are now needed to convert the proteins and other molecules just mentioned back to their original forms so that they can detect another photon of light and signal the brain. If any one of these proteins or molecules is missing, even in the simplest eye system, vision will not occur.(2) The question now of course is, how could such a system evolve gradually? All the pieces must be in place simultaneously. For example, what good would it be for an earthworm that has no eyes to suddenly evolve the protein 11-cis-retinal in a small group or "spot" of cells on its head? These cells now have the ability to detect photons, but so what? What benefit is that to the earthworm? Now, lets say that somehow these cells develop all the needed proteins to activate an electrical charge across their membranes in response to a photon of light striking them. So what? What good is it for them to be able to establish an electrical gradient across their membranes if there is no nervous pathway to the worm's minute brain? Now, what if this pathway did happen to suddenly evolve and such a signal could be sent to the worm's brain. So what? How is the worm going to know what to do with this signal? It will have to learn what this signal means. Learning and interpretation are very complicated processes involving a great many other proteins in other unique systems. Now the earthworm, in one lifetime, must evolve the ability to pass on this ability to interpret vision to its offspring. If it does not pass on this ability, the offspring must learn as well or vision offers no advantage to them. All of these wonderful processes need regulation. No function is beneficial unless it can be regulated (turned off and on). If the light sensitive cells cannot be turned off once they are turned on, vision does not occur. This regulatory ability is also very complicated involving a great many proteins and other molecules... all of which must be in place initially for vision to be beneficial. Now, what if we do not have to explain the origin of the first light sensitive "spot." The evolution of more complex eyes is simple from that point onward... right? Not exactly. Every different component that requires unique proteins doing unique functions requires a unique gene in the DNA of that creature. Neither the genes nor the proteins that they code for function alone. The existence of a unique gene or protein means that a unique system of other genes and proteins are involved with its function. In such a system, the absence of any one of the system genes, proteins, or molecules means that the whole system becomes functionless. Considering the fact that the evolution of a single gene or protein has never been observed or reproduced in the laboratory, such apparently small differences suddenly become quite significant."(21)

Rennie's own biasness keeps him from telling the truth that evolutionists to this date still have no explanation as to the eyes evolution so once again, Rennie is deceptive by omission.

15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.

"Irreducible complexity" is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe chooses the mousetrap--a machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the whole. What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this intricate array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks intelligent design. He makes similar points about the blood's clotting mechanism and other molecular systems. Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum to work. The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells. 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. Similarly, the blood-clotting system seems to involve the modification and elaboration of proteins that were originally used in digestion, according to studies by Russell F. Doolittle of the University of California at San Diego. So some of the complexity that Behe calls proof of intelligent design is not irreducible at all."

Since Rennie seems to be picking a fight here exclusively with Dr. Behe and the Intelligent Design camp, and since Dr. Behe has contributed to this site and can better represent the ID camp than I, I will gladly refer you to Dr. Behe's article, In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade: Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison, which is in response to Doolittle, Miller, and Robison.

Rennie's Conclusion

"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms."

His statement here reveals the fact that both he and his fellow evolutionary cronies aren't interested in any other qualified perspective that hints at eventual accountability to a divine creator. Such a thought scares them all to death.

"Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works.

How ignorant and contradictory can one be? How in the world did he ever become an editor? It was the creation scientist Isaac Newton who discovered the spectrum of light. It was the creation scientist Louis Pasteur who formulated the germ theory of disease and disproved spontaneous generation. It was the creation scientist Raymond Damadian who developed Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), which is used in brain research. Perhaps a quick tutorial of "The Greatest Scientists in History" will do Mr. Rennie well and assure him he won't stick his foot in his mouth in utter embarrassment ever again. For further information on Creationist contributions to science, please see the article Creation Research and its Implications for Science

Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort"

He's displayed enough ignorance of creationists and both their model of origins and their contributions to science that he has no feet left to stick in his mouth since he has already stuck both of them in there by himself.