SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN'S 15 ERRORS

Harun Yahya's Answer to John Rennie, editor in chief of Scientific American 

HARUN YAHYA 


In its July, 2002 issue, the magazine Scientific American published an article 
titled "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense." Yet that aggressive piece of writing 
actually contained no scientific answers to creationism at all, and merely demonstrated 
the fanaticism and bigotry of the Darwinist establishment

An interesting article appeared in the July, 2002, issue of Scientific American, 
one of the prominent scientific journals. Written by editor in chief John Rennie, 
"15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" contained important examples of Darwinist 
dogmatism. Beginning with its very title, the article and its aggressive style 
was a living proof of something we have been stating for years: Darwinists are 
tied to the theory of evolution in a totally dogmatic manner. Their intolerant 
reactions to criticism are the result of that philosophical rigidity. 

In this essay, you will find the errors, misconceptions and even the tricks in 
the Scientific American article in question.



Avoiding Difficult Questions

If you are going to reply to 15 questions regarding a thesis you oppose, then 
you will be expected to deal with each one in a tangible manner. If, on the other 
hand, you come up with imaginary questions and waste time with the answers to 
them, then your readers will naturally come to doubt your credibility. Avoiding 
getting to grips with the real questions is a sign that you are trying to deceive 
yourself or your readers.

Scientific American's "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" is just such an example 
of "avoiding the truth." Right from the start, a number of those questions reveal 
that this is what is going on:

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

"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." 

"If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

None of the above are objections expressed by critics of the theory of evolution. 
Everyone who offers serious criticism knows what the concept of "theory" actually 
means, and accepts that scientific research into events in the past cannot be 
carried out by means of observation and recreation. In the same way, no scientists 
who seriously criticize the Darwinist thesis as regards the origin of man would 
ever offer such a ridiculous objection as "If humans descended from monkeys, 
why are there still monkeys?"

John Rennie, the author of the article, should no doubt be well aware of this. 
Yet the way that he puts the above three statements forward as "creationist objections" 
and imagines that he has given satisfactory replies to them shows that he is 
"tilting at windmills." If he really wants to "reply to the creationists" then 
he needs to reply to such real questions as how it is that nearly all animal 
phyla suddenly appeared in the Cambrian without any trace of evolutionary ancestors; 
why not one example of a mutation that developed the genetic information of living 
things has ever been encountered; or why no trace has been found of the billions 
of intermediate form fossils that Darwin anticipated.

The truth about the questions that Rennie has tried to reply to, most of which 
can again be seen as "easy questions," is set out below.



Rennie's Misconception About Natural Selection - I (Question 2)

Two of John Rennie's questions are to do with the concept of natural selection. 
In the first of these, (Question 2) he tries to respond to the objection that 
natural selection is a tautology. In the second, (Question 11) he tries to reply 
to the objection that natural selection can bring about micro-evolution but not 
macro-evolution.

In the first case, the only reference Rennie is able to provide is Peter P. Grant's 
well known observations of finches in the Galapagos Islands. Rennie describes 
this example as "population shifts in the wild," and counts it as evidence for 
evolution with natural selection. However, Grant's studies demonstrated only 
that the finch populations in the Galapagos Islands "fluctuated" according to 
the changes in natural conditions, in other words, that they did not develop 
in any particular direction. Furthermore, they also revealed that the 13 different 
species identified in the finch population actually came under a far smaller 
number of species, and that the different species in question were tending to 
converge. That means that natural selection has not brought about evolution (in 
other words development in one particular direction and thus the emergence of 
a new species) on the Galapagos Islands.

In his meticulous book Icons of Evolution, biologist Jonathan Wells considered 
all the details of Grant's work and came to the conclusions we have outlined 
above. The fact that Rennie is nevertheless still doggedly putting forward Grant's 
Galapagos observations is nothing less than an admission of despair.



Rennie's Misconception About Natural Selection - II (Question 11)

The sleight of hand in Rennie's second question on natural selection is particularly 
noteworthy. The question reads, 

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

Rennie's response to this rests on the concept of "allopatric speciation" put 
forward by Ernst Mayr. 

In order to clarify the error here, we need to define the concept of "allopatric 
speciation" and its basic concept, "geographic isolation." It is well known that 
every living species has within it differences stemming from genetic variation. 
If a geographic obstacle arises between members of a species, in other words 
if they are "isolated" from one another, then it is very probable that different 
variations will begin to predominate in the two groups that are now separated 
from each other. Despite being from the same species, such variations with specific 
morphological differences between them (name them as "variation A" and "variation 
B") are called "sub-species." 

The claim of speciation that Rennie talks about enters the equation after that 
point. Sometimes, variations A and B that have split from one another due to 
geographic isolation are unable to reproduce when they are brought back into 
contact again. According to contemporary biology's definition of "species," since 
they are unable to reproduce, they are no longer different "sub-species," but 
'different species.' This is called speciation. 

Two important points arise here:

1) Variations A and B, isolated from one another, may not be able to reproduce 
when brought together. Yet this generally stems from "reproductive behavior." 
For that reason, they are still, genetically speaking, members of the same species. 
(In fact, for that reason, the concept of "species" continues to be a matter 
of debate in the scientific community)

2) The really important point is that the "speciation" in question means a loss 
of genetic information rather than an increase. The cause of speciation is not 
that new genetic information has been acquired by one or both variations. There 
is no such addition of genetic information. On the contrary, instead of a population 
that previously had a larger gene pool, there are now two different populations 
with reduced gene pools.

That is why the "speciation" that Rennie refers to as an example of evolution 
actually offers the theory of evolution no support at all. The theory of evolution 
claims that all living species developed by chance mutations and natural selection 
from the simple to the complex. In order for the theory to be taken seriously, 
therefore, it needs to propose "mechanisms that create and increase genetic
information." 

Having dealt with that matter, let us now turn to Rennie's second error (or rather 
deception).

You will notice that Rennie expresses the "creationist question" 11 in these 
terms, "Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain 
the origin of new species and higher orders of life." In other words, he is speaking 
about the origins of both species and "higher orders of life." 

Yet in his reply, he only mentions the origin of species! (And that, as we saw 
above, is a totally inadequate account) Rennie never mentions the origins of 
genera, families, orders, classes or phyla, all of which are higher categories 
than species, and offers no explanation at all. 

This is in all probability intended to convince less careful readers. People 
who read the "15 questions" but cannot bring themselves to read the long (but 
empty) answers that follow them will imagine that Rennie has actually responded 
to them all. 

The way that the proponents of Darwinism resort to such methods once again reveals 
the terrible straits the theory finds itself in.

Rennie's last account on the subject of natural selection suggested that there 
could be evolutionary mechanisms outside natural selection. The only example 
he gave consisted of speculation on the origin of mitochondria that evolutionists 
have long been engaged in. The fact that he resorts to speculation and not evidence 
to support the theory of evolution, which is itself speculation, is
self-explanatory.



The Origin of Man and the Evolutionary Impasse (Question 3)

In the third question, John Rennie touches on the origin of man, and writes:

... 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 features 
progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record 
shows.

However, the fact that evolutionists can place creatures that lived in the past 
in an order to suit their theory does not demonstrate that those living things 
actually underwent such a process of evolution. That opinion is shared by Nature 
magazine editor Henry Gee, one of John Rennie's fellow evolutionists. In his 
book In Search of Deep Time, (1999) Gee points out that all the evidence for 
human evolution "between about 10 and 5 million years ago-several thousand generations 
of living creatures-can be fitted into a small box." He concludes that conventional 
theories of the origin and development of human beings are "a completely human 
invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices", and 
adds:

To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific 
hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity 
as a bedtime story-amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific. (1)

Recently, Gee also made a very important comment on the new skull fossil found 
in Chad (Sahelanthropus tchadensis) and its implications for the theory of evolution. 
According to Gee, "Whatever the outcome, the skull shows, once and for all, that 
the old idea of a 'missing link' is bunk".(2) He also explains that the there 
is no evidence for the idea of human evolution in the fossil record; It is simply 
a projection created according to evolutionist assumptions:

It is suspected that the last common ancestor of humans and our closest living 
relatives, the chimpanzees, lived around 7m years ago. We know this not from 
direct fossil evidence, but from studying the small differences in the otherwise 
similar genes of humans and chimps, and estimating the time needed for these 
differences to accrue. Looking at the fossil evidence itself, we see a huge and 
frustrating gap. (3)

The closer one examines John Rennie's words, the more evolutionist frustrations 
become apparent.



Why Just A Few Dare to Speak Out? (Question 4)

Another argument offered by Rennie as he tries to defend Darwinism is that the 
theory of evolution is widely accepted by the scientific world.

There are generally two different reasons for an opinion's commanding widespread 
support. Either there is a great deal of evidence for it, or else the system 
somehow imposes it on people. It is the second of these that applies in the "widespread 
scientific support" behind the theory of evolution. The academic world is laboring 
under a heavy misconception in believing that science is equivalent to materialist 
philosophy. The leaders of the scientific establishment impose that error on 
other scientists. In such an environment that regards opposing evolution as opposing 
science, then how are scientists to offer any free criticism of the theory?

Even John Rennie's own writing bears the traces of this ideological dictatorship. 
The title of his article refers to creation as "nonsense." When a scientific 
journal employs a headline of that sort, can one really say that the matter in 
question is being treated in a climate of free debate? Rennie grows even more 
aggressive in the introduction, and says that defending creation is as unscientific 
as defending "flat earth cosmology." In the body of his article, he speaks in 
terms of "dishonest creationists." (Page 65) In such a climate of ideological 
pressure, how can scientists criticize Darwinism when they have to publish their 
articles in scientific magazines? How many people can take the risk to say "The 
emperor has no clothes"?

Consequently, the graph in Rennie's article which purports to show that belief 
in creation declines with peoples' educational level (Page 65) is nothing more 
than a statement of the dictatorship of Darwinist thought. Nothing could be more 
natural than for an education system dominated by Darwinists to produce Darwinist 
individuals. 

Yet one good thing about science is that such dogmatism never succeeds for long. 
The cracks in the foundations of the Darwinist temple are a sign that free science 
will soon tear that dogma down.



Why do Evolutionists Confess? (Question 5)

As John Rennie tries to remove all doubts about Darwinism from his readers' mind, 
he brings up the subject of quotations taken from evolutionist authorities by 
creationists, and claims that these are invariably distorted. In Rennie's view, 
scientific authorities whose works are quoted are always evolutionists, but that 
"dishonest creationists" try to portray these people as being opponents of
evolution. 

Whereas the truth of the matter is very different. Creationists do not try to 
portray the evolutionist authorities from whom they take extracts as being opposed 
to evolution. Stephen Jay Gould, Alan Feduccia or Henry Gee Nobody claims such 
scientists are opposed to evolution. Yet these and many other similar supporters 
of evolution have seen and spoken about the deficiencies in the theory of evolution. 
Nothing could be more natural than for their comments on such matters to be made 
use of.

The reason for the great number of such quotations is that the theory of evolution 
is a mass of speculation. Since there is no concrete evidence for the theory, 
evolutionists engage in speculation on just about every aspect of it. Since that 
speculation does not conform to the available facts, gaps keep emerging, and 
various scientists report on the fact. This is the reason of why we have so many 
quotes doubting evolution in a committed Darwinist establishment.



The Origin of Life and John Rennie's Wriggling (Question 7)

Following all the speculation in the first six of his 15 questions, Rennie finally 
comes to an important matter in Question 7; The Origin of Life. How did the first 
living thing emerge?

All that Rennie does in the face of that question is to sum up in a few sentences 
the scenario that evolutionists have been putting forward ever since the time 
of Alexander Oparin in the 1920s. After admitting that "The origin of life remains 
very much a mystery," Rennie tries to make the scenario credible by saying, "... 
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."

Rennie is quite right to gloss over such an important subject as the origin of 
life in this superficial way, because he has no way of going into details. If 
we analyze the above statement, we can see just how unrealistic Rennie's claim 
actually is:

1) First of all, contrary to what Rennie claims, the question of how "primitive 
nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life" emerged in the 
primitive atmosphere on earth is a terrible dilemma for evolutionists. They used 
to think the problem had been resolved in the primordial atmosphere experiments 
by Stanley Miller and his successors. Yet in the 1970s it was realized that the 
primordial atmosphere was not based on methane-ammonia and that it contained 
large amounts of oxygen, for which reason it emerged that it was impossible for 
even the simplest organic molecules, such as amino acids, to be synthesized. 

2) If we assume that simple building blocks such as nucleic acids or amino acids 
did somehow synthesize in the primitive atmosphere (or had come from outer space, 
as Rennie claimed after the above lines), that hypothesis still does not benefit 
the theory of evolution in any way. The problem is one of how these simple organic 
compounds came to turn into a living cell of incredible complexity and containing 
genetic information? Contrary to Rennie's claim, organic molecules have never 
been observed to "organize themselves" and turn into self-reproducing, living 
organisms. No observation, experiment or even theoretical study has ever been 
performed that might suggest that could ever happen.

In short, Rennie's argument about the origin of life is quite worthless.
Moreover,  the following lines from the end of the topic are of great interest, both as 
an admission of defeat and an indication of his prejudice against creation:

"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." 

Interesting truths begin to emerge when we analyze these lines:


The Darwinist camp can not go further than Miller's now refuted experiment. 
1) Rennie talks about a "current inability to explain the origin of life". In 
other words, he hopes that the problem is temporary and one day in the future, 
facts in favor of evolution will be discovered. Giving such a hostage to future 
confirms that belief in evolution stems not from scientific discoveries but
philosophical  assumptions. This attitude of Rennie's is no different to that of the dogmatic 
Marxist who sees that Karl Marx's theories totally fail to fit the current
social  and political facts, but who nevertheless expects the awaited "proletarian
revolution"  to happen one day in the future.

2) Rennie admits that intelligent design could account for the origin of life 
and that science may well reach that conclusion, but for some reason he chooses 
to suggest aliens as the source of that design. The "aliens" theory turns up 
again in Rennie's article (in his reply to Question 3). The interesting thing 
is that Rennie is quite happy to admit the possibility of the existence of an 
intelligent design created by aliens, but totally rejects the intervention of 
a metaphysical Creator. This once again reveals that Rennie's devotion to Darwinism 
and his reaction to the concept of creation actually stem from his philosophical 
prejudices against Theism.

3) Rennie's acceptance that intelligent design might be behind the origin of 
life but his rejection of it during the subsequent course of natural history 
is a thoroughly prejudiced and unscientific position. That is because there is 
just as much evidence for intelligent design in the origin of very many other 
complex organic systems as there is for that of life itself. Rennie's use of 
such expressions as "robustly confirmed" in order to gloss over these facts but 
still to impress his readers, are no solution at all.



Rennie's Dawkins-Style Tricks (Question 8)

The theory of evolution's greatest error of all is the idea that living things 
are the product of unconscious natural mechanisms. Rennie attempts to deal with 
that objection in Question 8, but merely ends up disappointing himself. Rennie's 
response to the objection that the complexity in living things cannot be explained 
by chance takes this form:

"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."

That is no answer at all, since it is something known to everyone. According 
to the theory of evolution, all living things were produced by "chance" (mutations) 
and natural selection, which is presumed to select the most beneficial of these. 

The problem is this: Natural Selection is not a conscious mechanism. If it is 
therefore to select a chance change, this has to provide the organism with an 
effective advantage. Yet many complex organs in living things provide no advantage 
at all unless they are fully formed. It is therefore impossible for natural selection 
to make a selection in that direction. (It also remains to say that natural selection 
played no part in the origin of life because there was no life or competition 
around in the so-called "prebiotic soup".)

Rennie tries to cover up this gaping hole in the theory of evolution, and employs 
the same trick as those of Richard Dawkins. The example he gives is that the 
phrase 'TOBEORNOTTOBE' was formed by a computer using the selection method in 
336 goes. 

Do evolutionists really believe in such examples? Or are they compelled to employ 
them in order to save face in front of not well informed readers? One wonders 
... The above example is banal and based on an evident deception. The computer 
that came up with 'TOBEORNOTTOBE' was programmed to do so. The ultimate result 
was predetermined from the start. The programme places letters into 13 blank 
spaces at random, but it selects a letter when it moves into its pre-ordained 
position. In other words, it knows that the first letter is T before 'TOBEORNOTTOBE' 
comes into being, selects T when one appears in that position, and leaves it 
there.

In short, there is a predetermined plan and a selection mechanism working consciously 
according to this plan. However, the theory of evolution maintains that living 
things emerged with no predetermined plan and by an unconscious selection mechanism. 
Therefore, Rennie's argument is, at least, ridiculous. 



Rennie's Misconceptions About The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Question 9)

Evolutionists' claims regarding thermodynamics are based on a classic case of 
error and deception, and John Rennie repeats them.

The first error consists of ignoring the difference between ordered and organized 
systems. Rennie cites the examples of mineral crystals and snowflakes, and says 
that these "complex structures" emerge spontaneously through natural processes. 
Yet these are not complex systems, but organized ones.

We can make this clear with an example. Imagine a completely flat beach on the 
seashore. When a strong wave hits the beach, mounds of sand, large and small, 
form bumps on the surface of the sand. This is a process of "ordering". The seashore 
is an open system, and the energy flow (the wave) that enters it can form simple 
patterns in the sand, which may look regular. From the thermodynamic point of 
view, the wave can set up order here where before there was none. But we must 
make it clear that those same waves cannot build a castle on the beach. If we 
see a castle there, we are in no doubt that someone has constructed it, because 
the castle is an "organized" system. 

Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen, in their book titled 
The Mystery of Life's Origin, explain why analogies from self-ordering cases 
(like the snow flake) does not account for the origin of biological complexity:

... such analogies have scant relevance to the origin-of-life question. A major 
reason is that they fail to distinguish between order and complexity... Regularity 
or order cannot serve to store the large amount of information required by living 
systems. A highly irregular, but specified, structure is required rather than 
an ordered structure. This is a serious flaw in the analogy offered. There is 
no apparent connection between the kind of spontaneous ordering that occurs from 
energy flow through such systems and the work required to build aperiodic information-intensive
macromolecules like DNA and protein. (4)

John Rennie's claim regarding open systems is also a classic evolutionist error. 
Yes, entropy may decrease in open systems that receive energy from the outside, 
but specific mechanisms are needed to make the energy functional. For instance, 
a car needs an engine, a transmission system, and related control mechanisms 
to convert the energy in oil to work. Without such an energy conversion system, 
the car will not be able to use the energy stored in oil.

The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It is true that life derives 
its energy from the sun. However, solar energy can only be converted into chemical 
energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion systems in living things (such 
as photosynthesis in plants and the digestive systems of humans and animals). 
Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing but a source of destructive 
energy that burns, parches, or melts. 


The Ultimate Problem About Mutations (Question 10)

In question 10, John Rennie tries to give the appearance of having answered one 
of the most fundamental questions facing the theory of evolution. The problem 
is that mutations never increase living things' genetic information. Rennie, 
naturally enough, maintains the opposite, and suggests that mutations can bring 
about such an increase (and therefore evolution itself). Of course he needs to 
find examples if that is to be taken seriously, but the ones he comes up with 
are not valid.

Rennie's first example is bacterial resistance to antibiotics. That is in any 
case one of the most popular themes in evolutionist propaganda. But it is flawed. 
It is true that bacteria can sometimes develop a resistance to antibiotics by 
means of mutations, but these mutations do not add the bacteria any new genetic 
information. On the contrary, they lead to morphological degeneration in them. 
As with the case of immunity to streptomycin revealed in great detail by the 
Israeli biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner: Bacterial resistance to streptomycin stems 
from a mutation that affects the ribozome and structurally damages it. Even if 
this mutation benefits the bacteria in terms of antibiotic immunity, it nevertheless 
represents a genetic reduction that reduces the functioning of the ribosome. 
As Dr. Spetner has made clear, mutations such as these are not what the theory 
of evolution needs. (5)

The invalidity of Rennie's second example on the subject of mutations can be 
seen from his own words: 

"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."

Everybody is aware that mutations can bring about major morphological changes 
in living things. The question is this: Do the morphological changes brought 
about by these mutations grant living things any increase in genetic information 
and beneficial features? No! There are no such examples. In fact, Rennie confesses 
that, and says that the mutations in question produced non-functional (in other 
words crippled) legs growing from where the antennae should have been in flies. 
How can anyone believe that a process that cripples creatures could have led 
them to evolve? And how can Rennie suggest that as evidence for evolution? 

In his last paragraph on mutations, Rennie speaks of greater genetic changes 
going beyond point mutations. Yet the question is still the same. Such changes 
have never been observed to increase the genetic information in a living thing. 
In this case, Rennie does not even try to offer an example.

What he has to say about globin is nothing but a reflection of evolutionist speculation. 
This speculation begins with comparative analyses of the DNA in living things, 
and comes up with an evolutionary connection in their globin structures. On close 
inspection however, this turns out to be circular reasoning. The evolutionary 
family relationships built on these comparative DNA analyses rest on the assumption 
that living things descended from a common ancestor. Portraying these theoretical 
relationships, which are constructed on the assumption that evolution is true, 
as evidence for evolution is simply expressing the same claim in another way, 
a tautology



The Question of Transitional Forms (Question 13)

In question 13, John Rennie attempts to deal with the problem of transitional 
forms, one of the major stumbling blocks facing the theory of evolution, and 
is similarly unable to provide a satisfactory response. The following shows the 
true position of the "intermediate forms" he suggests:

Archaeopteryx: Rennie writes that Archaeopteryx, a candidate for the title of 
the greatest transitional form of all time, was an intermediate form between 
reptiles and birds, but that "creationists" refuse to accept this, calling it 
"just an extinct bird with reptilian features." The fact is, however, that it 
is not only "creationists" who say that, but also world-renowned ornithologists 
who have examined the matter in great detail. Alan Feduccia, one of the foremost 
names in ornithology, shares that view regarding Archaeopteryx.



"Feathered Dinos" were not feathered at all, like the fossil forgery above,
Archaeoraptor 

In fact, a considerable body of evidence has emerged to demonstrate the invalidity 
of the claim that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form. As Feduccia has stated, 
"Most recent workers who have studied various anatomical features of Archaeopteryx 
have found the creature to be much more birdlike than previously imagined," and 
"the resemblance of Archaeopteryx to theropod dinosaurs has been grossly overestimated."(6) 
Another problem regarding Archaeopteryx is that the theropod dinosaurs, which 
many evolutionists regard as its ancestors, emerge after Archaeopteryx in the 
fossil record, and not before it.

On the other hand, the tale of "feathered dinosaurs" that John Rennie refers 
to is nothing more than evolutionist speculation. All of the fossils that have 
been put forward as "feathered dinosaurs" in the last 10 years are debatable. 
Detailed studies have revealed that the structures portrayed as "feathers" are 
actually collagen fibers.(7) Such speculation all stems from evolutionist prejudice. 
As Feduccia has said, "Many dinosaurs have been portrayed with a coating of aerodynamic 
contour feathers with absolutely no documentation."(8) (One of the so-called 
'feathered dinosaurs' in question, namely Archaeoraptor, turned out to be a fossil 
forgery). Feduccia sums the position up in these terms, "Finally, no feathered 
dinosaur has ever been found, although many dinosaur mummies with well-preserved 
skin are known from diverse localities." (9)

Horse Series: The horse series that John Rennie portrayed as an important proof 
of evolution is actually a terrible blunder on his part. That is because the 
horse series that makes up a so-called evolutionary process from Eohippus to 
the present-day horse (Equus) has actually been accepted as erroneous by a great 
many evolutionist authorities. For example, evolutionist science writer Gordon 
R. Taylor acknowledged that " the line from Eohippus to Equus is very erratic. 
It is alleged to show a continual increase in size, but the truth is that some 
variants were smaller than Eohippus, not larger. Specimens from different sources 
can be brought together in a convincing-looking sequence, but there is no evidence 
that these were actually ranged in this order in time." (10)

The Origin of Whales: Rennie also includes the scenario concerning the evolution 
of whales as an example of proven evolution. Yet that, too, is nothing more than 
evolutionist speculation. There are great morphological differences between the 
land mammal Ambulocetus and such archaic whales as Rodhocetus, the alleged descendant 
of the former. The details of the matter were examined in my article "A Whale 
Fantasy from National Geographic"

The Origin of Molluscs: This, also glossed over by Rennie as an example of
evolution,  is actually another dilemma facing the theory. These shelled creatures that make 
up the phylum Mollusca are divided into eight separate classes, and all of these 
emerged suddenly in the Cambrian Period, just like most living phyla and classes. 
Even the determinedly evolutionist Encyclopedia Britannica accepts that there 
is no fossil evidence for the evolution of molluscs in the words: "The fossil 
record gives little clue as to how the molluscs originated and how the eight 
classes differentiated in Precambrian times. The evolutionary pathway must thus 
be largely inferred from comparative anatomy and development." (11) 

The Origin of Man: Rennie claims that 20 or more hominids fill the gap between 
Lucy and modern man. Yet the truth is that there is no line from Australopithecus 
to man (Homo sapiens).

One indication of this is that the categories between Australopithecus and Homo 
sapiens (like Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis or Homo erectus) are exceedingly 
speculative and debatable. An article by the evolutionary paleoanthropologists 
Bernard Wood and Mark Collard, published in Science in 1999, maintained that 
the Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis categories were imaginary, and that the 
fossils ascribed to them needed to be transferred to the genus Australopithecus.(12) 
Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan and Alan Thorne of the University 
of Canberra are of the belief that Homo erectus is an imaginary category, and 
that the fossils ascribed to it are actually variations of Homo sapiens.(13) 
This means that there are no other hominids between Australopithecus, an extinct 
species of ape, and Homo sapiens, including modern man and his racial variations. 
In other words, mankind has no evolutionary origins.

Another fact that invalidates the claim of a direct line between Australopithecus 
and modern man (Homo sapiens), is that the categories alleged to have followed 
one another actually lived at the same time. The latest evidence to demonstrate 
that was the discovery published in Science magazine that fossils named as Homo 
habilis, Homo ergaster and Homo erectus have lived at the same time. Reid Fleming, 
of the University of North Texas, who led the research, sums up the significance 
of that discovery in this way, "This was completely unexpected, because until 
now, prevailing scientific views placed habilis, ergaster and erectus into an 
evolutionary sequence." (14)

Molecular Biology and the Evolutionary Family Tree: Rennie must have been aware 
of the feeble nature of his claims on fossils, since he then sought to find support 
from molecular biology in his search for evidence of evolution. His argument 
was based on genetic similarities and he claimed that, "structures of these genes 
and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary 
relationships."

Yes, that is indeed what evolutionists expect from molecular biology - in other 
words that living things closely related according to the theory of evolution 
will have very similar molecules. Yet the facts demonstrate the exact opposite. 
Recent molecular discoveries have produced results totally at odds with the 150-year-old 
evolutionary family tree. 

According to a 1999 article by French biologists Hervé Philippe and Patrick Forterre, 
"with more and more sequences available, it turned out that most protein phylogenies 
contradict each other as well as the rRNA tree." (15)

Neither the comparisons that have been made of proteins, nor those of rRNAs or 
of genes, confirm the premises of the theory of evolution. Carl Woese, a biologist 
from the University of Illinois, admits that;

No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein 
phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere 
in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among 
the various (groups) to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves. (16)

The fact that results of molecular comparisons are not in favor of, but rather 
opposed to, the theory of evolution is also admitted in an article called "Is 
it Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?" published in Science in 1999. This article 
by Elizabeth Pennisi states that the genetic analyses and comparisons carried 
out by Darwinist biologists in order to shed light on the "tree of life" actually 
yielded directly opposite results, and goes on to say that "new data are muddying 
the evolutionary picture" (17)

In short, molecular comparisons between living things all work against the theory 
of evolution, in total contrast to what John Rennie claims.



The Origin of the Eye and the Non-Evolution of the Evolutinary Theory (Question  14)

In Question 14, Rennie enters the field of irreducible complexity and mentions 
the origin of the eye, which has always been an insurpassable hurdle for evolutionists. 
Rennie's account is nothing but a repetition of speculation put forward by Charles 
Darwin 150 years ago: The claim that "primitive" eyes with very poor vision existed 
in nature and that more complex eyes might have evolved from these.

However, clear evidence to disprove that claim has emerged since Darwin's day:


Evolutionists are still leaning on Darwin's primitive arguments on the complexity of nature. 
1) Natural history reveals that the first eye identified on earth was not primitive 
at all, but actually had an extraordinarily complex structure. That eye structure 
in question was the double-lens compound eyes of the trilobites. The nuclear 
physicist and trilobite aficionado Levi-Setti states that: "the refracting interface 
between the two lens elements in a trilobite's eye was designed in accordance 
with optical constructions worked out by Descartes and Huygens in the mid-seventeenth 
century".(18) The most striking feature of these eyes, described as a marvel 
of optical design, is that they have no primitive form behind them, but rather 
emerged suddenly.

2) Even light-sensitive cells that Darwin referred to as "primitive eyes" actually 
possess an extraordinarily complex structure. Even the most "primitive" eye is 
an irreducibly complex system requiring a light-sensitive cell, extraordinarily 
complex biochemical mechanisms within that cell,(19) nerves linking that cell 
to the brain, and a visual center to interpret these. That cannot come about 
in stages. For that reason, the theory of evolution is unable even to account 
for the origin of the most "primitive" eye, let alone use that as a basis to 
account for more complex ones.

Rennie writes that "Today's intelligent-design advocates are more sophisticated 
than their predecessors." Yet the sad fact is that the proponents of the theory 
of evolution are still leaning on Darwin's invalid theses from 150 years ago. 
The fact that they still put forward the myth that the origin of the eye lies 
in "evolution from primitive eyes" shows that the theory of evolution has not 
evolved at all in the last 150 years.



Helplessness in the Face of Irreducible Complexity (Question 15)

In the final section of his article, John Rennie attempts to criticize the evidence 
put forward by such proponents of intelligent design as Michael J. Behe and William 
Dembski. The first thing he does is to cite the objections of evolutionists Kenneth 
R. Miller and Russell F. Doolittle, who are critical of Behe. The fact is, however, 
that Dr. Behe has comprehensively responded to and refuted these objections. 
(See Behe's responses to critics)

The paragraph that really shows Rennie's total helplessness in the face of irreducible 
complexity reads:

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.

In short, Rennie is saying that the flagellum might have come about "with the 
recombination of parts that initially evolved for other purposes." Yet that is 
the whole essence of the matter. What are those "other purposes"? For what purposes 
could the molecules that make up the flagellum have come about? Saying that "might 
have come about in other stages we are unaware of" without clearly defining these 
stages is simply a repetition of Darwinist dogma.

Rennie's effort to portray the organelle that Yersinia pestis uses to inject 
toxins into cells, which partly resembles the flagellum, or flagella with simpler 
structures as evolutionary stages of the flagellum itself is also hopeless. That 
is like using a car or a glider to account for the alleged "evolutionary" origins 
of a jet plane. There may be certain similarities, but that does not show that 
the vehicles in question evolved from one another as the result of blind coincidences. 
They are all separately designed structures.

When we come to Rennie's objection to Dembski's thesis, we see that it only consists 
of reference to studies by the Santa Fe Institute. Yet just like those of their 
precursors such as Ilya Prigogine, these theoretical studies do not carry the 
concept of "self-organization" any further than merely being a materialist belief. 
(The invalidity of the idea of self-organization is set out in detail in Dembski's 
2002 book No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased Without 
Intelligence). It must nevertheless be made clear that the evolutionists from 
the Santa Fe Institute display more common sense than John Rennie does. While 
Rennie tries to portray the concept of intelligent design as an unscientific 
thesis, Stuart Kauffman, the pre-eminent self-organizational theorist of the 
Santa Fe Institute, publicly admitted that intelligent design was a legitimate 
intellectual and scientific project. (20)



Rennie's Dogmatic Commitment to Materialism

Following his objections regarding intelligent design, Rennie unwillingly admits 
that the complexity in nature cannot be accounted for by evolutionary mechanisms, 
and to resolve this he elects to give a hostage to future:

"Some of the complexity seen in organisms may therefore emerge through natural 
phenomena that we as yet barely understand. But that is far different from saying 
that the complexity could not have arisen naturally."

Rennie's logic displays a blind dogmatism. If he thinks that he can account for 
the biological complexity in nature by means of evolution, then he needs to identify 
these mechanisms. When he is unable to find any mechanism, he suggests the existence 
of mechanisms that "we as yet barely understand." Yet if these mechanisms are 
not understood, then how can Rennie be sure they actually exist? What difference 
is there between believing in the existence of such mysterious evolutionary mechanisms 
and believing in an "alchemical mechanism" that can turn base metals into gold?

What difference, therefore, is there between believing in evolution and believing 
in alchemy?

All these questions demonstrate that Rennie's and other determined Darwinists' 
belief in the theory of evolution is the result of their dogmatic belief in materialism. 
Even Darwin behaved in a less biased manner when he said, "If it could be demonstrated 
that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by 
numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break 
down."(21) John Rennie and other contemporary Darwinists choose to give hostages 
to future rather than accept the collapse of the theory when faced with just 
the kind of irreducibly complex organs described by Darwin.

When one examines Rennie's article, one sees that one fundamental idea underlies 
all this dogmatism. The following lines are particularly enlightening:

"...science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond 
natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed 
to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific 
terms, is unproved."

In the first sentence here, Rennie says that certain forces, the existence of 
which is quite unproven, may contribute to evolution. Yet he imposes a condition 
in the sentence that follows: These forces must be natural. Therefore, he rejects 
the existence of a conscious Creator, because the existence of a conscious Creator 
is, in scientific terms, "unproven." Yet in the previous sentence, Rennie admits 
the possibility of unproven forces. Elsewhere in his article, as we have seen 
above, he also speaks of evolutionary mechanisms that have not yet been discovered, 
but which he hopes will be in the future. This means that Rennie's problem is 
not one of whether the existence of intelligent design has been proven or not, 
but that such design conflicts with the materialist philosophy he holds. 

Rennie is of course free to believe as he wishes. Some people believe in materialist 
philosophy. Others believe in astrology, and others in alchemy. The problem is 
that Rennie and materialists like him are trying to portray their dogma as actual 
science. That is a hypocritical deception. But one whose days are numbered.



Conclusion: Congratulations to John Rennie


John Rennie deserves appreciation for displaying Darwinist dogmatism. 
Actually, we should be congratulating Scientific American editor John Rennie 
on his article. By failing to provide any response to the proofs of creation, 
by ignoring a great deal of that important evidence as he flounders, and by exhibiting 
nothing but rage and fanaticism, he has only served to highlight the collapse 
that Darwinism is currently undergoing. 

In the collapse of Lamarckism, as well as the successes of such great scientists 
as Mendel, the terrible fiascoes of such Lamarckists as Lysenko also played a 
major role. In the same way today, alongside the successful work of scientists 
who support the idea of intelligent design, the logical and scientific rout of 
dogmatic Darwinists will also play a major role in the collapse of Darwinism.

Those who read about these debates in a few decades' time will see the truth 
of this much clearer, and will be amazed that so many people from the scientific 
community could have been taken in by such a myth as Darwinism.


NOTES 
____________________________________________ 

(1) Henry Gee, In Search of Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, New York, The Free Press, 1999, p. 126-127.
(2) "Face of yesterday : Henry Gee on the dramatic discovery of a seven-million-year-old  hominid", The Guardian, July 11, 2002
(3) Ibid.
(4) Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley & Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's  Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, 4th edition, Dallas, 1992, chapter 9, p.  134.
(5) Lee Spetner, Not By Chance, Judaica Press, 1997. Also see, Dr. Lee Spetner,  "Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue: Continuing an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max,"  2001, http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp
(6) Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University Press,  1999, p. 81
(7) Ann Gibbons, "Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur", Science, volume 278, Number  5341 Issue of 14 Nov 1997, pp. 1229 - 1230
(8) Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University Press,  1999, p. 130 
(9) Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University Press,  1999, p. 132
(10) Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, Abacus, Sphere Books,  London, 1984, p. 230.
(11) "Mollusk", Evolution and Paleontology, Encyclopedia Britannica, 2002
(12) Bernard Wood, Mark Collard, "The Human Genus", Science, vol. 284, No 5411, 2 April 1999, pp. 65-71
(13) Pat Shipman, "Doubting Dmanisi", American Scientist, November- December 2000, p. 491
(14) "Fossil Discovery Upsets Theories On Human Origins", Associated Press, http://www.msnbc.com/news/776334.asp?cp1=1
(15) Hervé Philippe and Patrick Forterre, "The Rooting of the Universal Tree of Life is Not Reliable", Journal of Molecular Evolution, vol 49, 1999, p. 510
(16) Carl Woese, "The Universel Ancestor", Proceedings of the National Academy  of Sciences, USA, 95, (1998) p. 6854
(17) Elizabeth Pennisi, "Is It Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?" Science, vol. 284, no. 5418, 21 May 1999, p. 1305
(18) Levi-Setti, R. Trilobites. 1993. (University of Chicago Press, Chicago). p.54.
(19) The extraordinarily complex structure of these mechanisms is illustrated  in Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box. As Behe maintains, even the chemical
make-up in the retinal cell alone is enough to disprove Darwin
(20) "Dembski and Kauffman Square Off in New Mexico", Philip Johnson's Weekly Wedge Update, November 19, 2001; www.arn.org
(21) Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189.