The ‘there is just so much evidence’ argument sounds, of course, hugely impressive unless one has taken the trouble of critically assessing the specific areas to see exactly what each supposedly contributes to the big picture.
Concerning the subject of DNA specifically, I have pointed out in discussion with Evolutionists that in fact molecular biology is a field that has produced some of the biggest problems for the theory precisely because it actually fails to corroborate the pattern of morphologically derived relationships which Evolutionists have sketched out in their ‘tree of life’.
But, of course, my being a Biblical Creationist, my comments were duly disregarded. How could I possibly know what I was talking about, right?
Biblical Creationists having been successfully caricatured in the public arena as ignorant, extreme and devious to varying degrees, the victims of Naturalistic propaganda consider themselves morally obligated to dismiss and deride everything we say simply on the basis that we question Evolutionism.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jan/21/charles-darwin-evolution-species-tree-lifeI quote: 'modern genetics
has revealed that representing evolutionary history as a tree is misleading'; and: '"The tree of life is being politely buried," said Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine.'
The DNA does not corroborate the pattern of morphologically derived relationships which Evolutionists have sketched out in their ‘tree of life’. Only this time it's Evolutionists saying it, so it must be proper science an' all. Not ridiculous, ignorant and misleading. Because, as everyone knows, Evolutionists don't say things that are ridiculous, ignorant and misleading.
Now, as is invariably the case, whilst their 'tree of life' is being 'politely buried', the fact that DNA does not corroborate the Evolutionists' morphologically derived 'tree of life' seems not to have hit the headlines at places like the BBC, who usually like to keep the public well informed about the latest discoveries about Evolution. Not newsworthy enough? "Our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change," said Michael Rose, the evolutionary biologist from the University of California. No news there then. But did you hear about who got knocked out of Strictly Come Dancing? In-depth and impartial coverage of the important issues from the BBC.
And, too, of course, as is the Evolutionist manner, the whole fundamental change in how biology is viewed does not require disregarding the idea of Evolution per se. No, it must just have happened some other way. More bushy than tree-like it seems is the novel new variation of those sturdy old scientific facts. Yes, not a tree of life, but a thicket of life, or a web of life. This is the new fact. Evolution, the propagandists have been declaring from the rooftops, is a fact, a FACT!! And the fact, it seems, has now changed from a tree to a web.
But was there not until recently just so much evidence for the Evolutionist tree of life? Well, welcome to the shady and nebulous world of Evolutionary theory.
Now, if I had told you that actually there never was any evidence for the Evolutionist tree of life anyway, would you have scoffed? Well, if you've an Evolutionist outlook then of course you would have, that's how your free-thinking, rational mind has been induced to react to anything which casts doubt on Evolutionary theory. But what if an Evolutionist told you there is no evidence for the Evolutionist tree of life? What then? Different frame of mind?
Again I quote from the article: '"We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, told New Scientist magazine.'
"We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality." That's exactly what Biblical Creationists have been saying for over a century. No evidence. But when an Evolutionist says it The Guardian writes an article about it, and without even a hint of derision. Marvellous.
But of course, the fact that this 'news' merely indicates that these evolutionary biologists misunderstood the history of life on earth all along does not mean they need to discount Evolutionary theory. No, no, a fundamental change in how biology is viewed does not mean anything quite as fundamental as that. What is meant, you see, is a fundamental change without any alteration to the basic notion, that kind of fundamental. No, the show must go on! Evolution is a fact, that's plain; all that's needed is a little fundamental tweaking, a few nudges et voila! there you have it - the latest contradictory evidence blends perfectly with all the previously established sturdy old facts. What a tangled web indeed.
[Picture: NASA]
[Hubble Ultra Deep Field. Photo Credit: NASA/ESA/S. Beckwith(STScI) and The HUDF Team] 
[Picture derived from public domain image from PDClipart.org]
[Picture of Tiktaalik roseae derived from original 
Interesting article by Don Batten, published June 2009, over at Creation Ministries International, entitled ‘Age of the earth - 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe’ which lists evidences for 'a young world' and has links to articles expanding on each point -
(The young Charles Darwin from 'The Voyage That Shook the World'; photo by Steve Murray, courtesy CMI)
Posts
