The Bait and Switch Tactic of Evolutionists
A definition of Evolution….. In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. These changes are caused by a combination of three main processes: variation, reproduction, and selection.
By itself the above definition is true and has been observed since before Darwin. It simply describes the obvious fact that there is variation within every species / kind of animal and plant. Natural selection, due to environmental reasons, can encourage some traits over others in subsequent generations. We can and do observe natural selection reinforcing existing traits. But such things are not mechanisms to add new information into the genes and change one kind of animal (e.g., a reptile) into a totally different kind (e.g., a bird).
Darwin may have been a great observer, like other naturalists of his day. He was right about natural selection”right about different species (within a kind, of course) becoming more focused on specific traits (we use the term speciation) but he was wrong about his belief that one could extrapolate this as a mechanism to explain the evolution of all the different kinds of animals, plants, etc. Darwin knew he had a problem with the fossil record, and to this day there is no evidence of new kinds of animals making the gradual change to higher and higher and totally different kinds of animals.
The problem is that the secularists often falsely claim that creationists believe God made the animals and plants just as we see them today – NOT TRUE. Creationists believe God made the original animal and plant kinds. There have been considerable changes within the kinds since that time. For instance, after the Flood, different species of dogs have formed, but they are still the dog kind and will never change into a different kind. Secularists often falsely tell students that creationists believe animals don’t change (but they do), and then tell them that we see animals changing (speciation) and then slip in the term evolution for such changes. In the strict definition of the word evolution meaning simply change, then one could say that. But these same secularists know that when students hear the word evolution, they think of Darwinian evolution, meaning the molecules-to-man idea. Thus, a straw man is set up, and students think that creationists arent good scientists, so one cant trust them. Change is all around us, therefore Evolution is true! This has become an effective bait and switch tactic, especially on students who are captive in a classroom.
Without much discussion, the minor changes of natural selection are then extrapolated to mean, not just variation within an animal group or kind, but that the variation over time has allowed invertebrates to transform into vertebrates, and yes – it includes the full range of change from microbes to mankind. It is this extrapolation that is inferred to have happened, that is then taught as a fact – just like that. Believe in a little change, and suddenly we are told See, Evolution is true! Therefore you must believe that all the required and significantly broad changes in physiology in all animals alive today, came from a common ancestor! It is this extrapolation, this immense jump, from minor changes where existing traits are selected to wholesale development of all new life that is the problem and is truly non-science.
Micro-Evolution (also called Horizontal Change) – Creationists have never had a problem with Natural Selection, and variation within a kind or family group, or in some cases the phyla or species. (There is no consistent definition of species). Everyone understands change and variation in what characteristics the descendants may inherit and become dominant. This includes the length of beaks in finches and coloring of moths, and even dominant hair and skin color in humans. This variation can be controlled by humans (i.e. dog breeding) and can also happen naturally (hence: Natural Selection) such as long beaked finches having an advantage in times of drought. Their longer beak allows them to pick food deeper out of rock crevices, survive and breed, while their short beaked cousins die off.
Natural Selection does cause micro-evolution, but it was a creationist who broadly discussed this before Darwin. Edward Blyth wrote three major articles on natural selection that were published in The Magazine of Natural History from 1835 to 1837. Blyth correctly saw the concept of natural selection as a mechanism by which the sick, old and unfit were removed from a population; as a preserving factor of a created kind. Creationists like Edward Blyth (and also todays) see natural selection as a process of culling; that is, of choosing between several traits, all of which must first be in existence before they can be selected.
Charles Darwin was aware of Blyth. Reportedly the University of Cambridge, has Darwins own copies of the issues containing the Blyth articles, with Charless handwritten notes in the margins. Loren C. Eiseley, a professor of anthropology, in the book Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X(New York: E.P. Dutton, 1979), wrote “Blyth is more than a Darwinian precursor, he is, instead, a direct intellectual forebear. . . .Darwin made unacknowledged use of Blyth’s work.” Darwin apologists do try to cover for Charles, but the fact remains, much of Charles material came from others.
The point: Creationists before and after Darwin, do not disagree at all with natural selection or Mico- Evolution as some call it. All of the characteristics the information in the DNA for a variety of traits, appearances, etc., are already there. Natural selection just selects from what is available. At best, natural selection is a conservative force, picking the traits needed for survival in a fallen and changing world, but it is powerless to generate increasing complexity and to originate something new or novel totally unable to change one kind of animal into another whole new kind.
Macro-Evolution (also called Vertical Change): This is the ever increasing complexity of life, The natural development of simple cells, and then invertebrates, then fish, amphibians, and eventually humans. This is what most people think of when we use the basic term Evolution. The problem is that evolutionists simply extrapolate if micro-evolution is true then macro-evolution must be true. There is variation and change within a species, therefore the whole species must have evolved over time. Bait and switch.
The problem is there is NO evidence for macro-evolution at all in the fossil record. And all of our discoveries and research into micro-biology and heredity, make this idea of macro-evolution not just unlikely, but impossible. DNA works against this happening. Mutations, or errors in DNA do not add new information and do not help. Ernst Mayr, the prominent atheistic biologist released a new book in 2001: What Evolution Is and his fellow evolutionists said there is no better book on evolution.
And Yet Mayr uses virtually the same evidences as those used 150 yrs ago by Darwin in Origin. He devotes five chapters to micro-evolution and only one to macro-evolution, AND GIVES NO examples or solid evidences of any macro-evolutionary change. No science, just bait and switch.
The Grants and others have gone back and studied the finches on the Galapagos Islands for longer periods of time. But in the end its the same thing. The finches “inherited” traits are proving evolution! Yet they are still finches, and all that is happening is natural selection of existing information. This is still only micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. Additionally, after several generations and changes in weather patterns, the length of finch beaks actually goes back to the original lengths of many previous generations. Of course you have to actually study the data trends over time, and get past the bait and switch game: Look Beaks change! Evolution is true!
Many evolutionists have admitted they have no mechanism to advance from one species or phyla to another: This includes S.J. Gould (Harvard university) who wrote in Scientific American, (Oct 1994)
“Natural selection is therefore a principle of local adaption, not of general advance or progress.”
In a study on Parasites, four Ph.D.s wrote this:
“Natural selection can act only on those biological properties that already exist; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs.”
Elmer Noble, Ph.D. Zoology, Glenn Nobel,Ph.D. Biology, Gerhard Schad, Ph.D. Biology, Austin MacInnes, Ph.D. Biology, – Parasitology: The Biology of Animal Parasites, 1989, p. 516.
Pierre P. Grass, one of the most distinguished of all French scientists, published a book, LEvolution du Vivant -his conclusion was even stronger that biology is impotent in explaining the origin of species, and must yield to a supernatural explanation. Macro-evolution is simply not a proven concept. No, not even close. Grass admits it is more logical to accept that there is a creator God (a supernatural or mystical cause).
S’oren Lovtrup, a Swedish embryologist, wrote in his book Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth – London: Croom Helm, p.422:
“I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: … I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?”
And now there is the Altenberg 16. In July 2008, in Austria, there was a gathering of 16 prominent evolutionary biologists and philosophers. One of their defenders described them as those who recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence. It’s pre the discovery of DNA, lacks a theory for body form and does not accommodate “other” new phenomena.
Of course they will do anything but admit that the Biblical record, might be worth another look, and admit there is a creator God. Thats not science thats just stubbornness. To be a creationist does not mean you can not be a great scientist and move science forward.
Creation and Science: Many evolutionists have built their entire worldview on a stubborn prior commitment to an ideology of evolution that there is no Creator God not an honest assessment of the evidence. They simply do not WANT their to be a God.
After a lifetime of being a prominent atheist, Prof. Antony Flew, finally had to admit there is a Creator. He was quoted by Richard Ostling in Leading Atheist Now Believes in God (AP, 12/9/2004) :
“What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinary diverse elements together.”
A few years later in a follow up discussion Prof. Flew said:
“There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe.
The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself which is far more complex than the physical Universe can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source.
The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins’ comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a “lucky chance.” If that’s the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.” – quoted by Dr. Benjamin Wicker in interview 10/30/2007.
To be a creationist does not mean you cannot be a great scientist and move science forward.
You can do great research in all fields of science and be a creationist, no matter what the evolutionists say. There are an estimated over 10,000 PhD scientists in the United States alone who are creationists, and they are doing research and working to advance science. They are not wasting time having to make up new excuses for a falsified theory.
Instead they are doing work in the vein of Louis Pasteur, who opposed Darwin. Pasteur was a scientist who was able to bring about major advances in the treatment of diseases; he helped found modern medicine & the science of micro-biology and has arguably helped more people and saved more lives across the globe than any other scientist. He said:
“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.” – Louis Pasteur.
All in the Way You Say Things by Ken Ham, online article Published January 26th, 2009