The fact is, however, that all this has to do with a groundless and unscientifically based propaganda.
1. Future Oriented Evolutionary Scenarios Have As Much Scientific Value as “Astrology”
Those who defend “the future of evolution” scenarios have no hesitation about providing rather detailed information about the animals they assume will be living in the future. They describe which organ of which animal will turn into what, how their behavior will be affected, what they will eat, and where they will live. They even give each one names according to their own lights. However, they provide not a single scientific explanation of how these changes will come about, and nor do they even attempt to do so.
The fact is, however, that in making calculations aimed at the future a scientist must base these on powerful and absolute scientific facts and must reveal his or her estimations using completely scientific methods. Otherwise that scientist will be no different to a “soothsayer” or “astrologist” busy with nonsense.
A geologist may bear in mind all the data regarding the speed at which a land mass has changed place over millions of years to come up with an estimate of where it is likely to be in 50 million years” time. Or, a geneticist may take into account all the research performed on genes to estimate and announce that in the near future this or that genetically based disease will be totally eradicated from the face of the Earth.
The assumptions of those proponents of “the future of evolution” scenarios are backed up by no scientific data, they also depend entirely upon these individuals” imaginations. Indeed, Focus magazine admitted as much in one edition in which it carried such scenarios. Focus agreed that a paleontologist whose scenarios it covered had been overcome by certain human tendencies and had worked under the influence of the imagination, and that this study had not been carried out with the requisite scientific methods required by science. The magazine went on to say that:
“There is no doubt that science is a field with its own methods, in which the same experiments give the same results under the same conditions … Those working within the bounds of the scientific method naturally abide by these strict rules. But they sometimes feel the unbearable lightness of being human. They may therefore STRAIN THEIR IMAGINATIONS. The Scottish palaeontologist Dougal Dixon, creator of the work “The Zoology of the Future,” is one of these … In his work he imposes an evolutionary process on animals, and adds many things from himself…” (our emphasis)
It is most deceptive that this study, which was based entirely upon imagination and had no more significance than a fantasy scenario, should appear in magazines such as Focus, which claim to be scientific, or on TV channels such as Animal Planet. There may be nothing wrong in readers watching or reading programs or articles about such matters as “your fantasies” or “the works of the imagination” on a science fiction channel or magazine. Yet if pictures of and detailed information concerning such strange beings, the products of someone”s imagination, appear in scientific publications, and if the headlines used give the impression that fantasies concerning imaginary creatures are actually scientific facts, then that is wrong. In short, certain scientists with a blind belief in the theory of evolution must not impose the fairy tales they dream up “by stretching their imaginations” on society under a scientific guise.
This method is one that can be seen very frequently. Unable to base their theories on scientific findings, evolutionists frequently resort to deceptive news stories or scenarios that never happened, and submit these to people with little or no knowledge of the subject in question as if they were scientific facts. They seek to deceive others by depicting their own preconceptions and imaginations as “science.” Despite being an evolutionist himself, Pierre Paul Grassé, one of France”s greatest zoologists, had this to say about evolutionary scenarios put forward with no supporting evidence:
“There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it..”(Pierre Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 103)
2. Evolution never took place in the past, and there is no evidence to suggest that it will do so in the future.
Publications that carry such studies portray the theory of evolution as if it were scientifically proven, and start out with the mistaken perspective that “since evolution took place in the past, evolution will also be experienced in the future.” The fact is that in the same way as there was no evolution in the past, so there will be none in the future. This is a fact revealed by the findings of modern science.
For decades now evolutionists have produced countless scenarios about the past and with the indoctrination and propaganda methods they have used have imposed on people the idea that these imaginary scenarios represent scientific fact. However, the scientific and technological advances made in the second half of the 20th century have overturned all the evolutionist assumptions, definitively and irrefutably revealing that evolution never happened.
One of the main quandaries facing evolution is its inability to explain by what mechanisms evolution actually took place. In the evolutionary scenario we reported at the beginning of this article it is claimed that bats will undergo enormous changes, first losing their wings and then trying to live underwater, and there is an attempt to support this claim with fictitious drawings. The bats seen in the drawing have lost their wings and grown arms instead. In order for this claim to acquire any scientific worth it needs to scientifically explain how bat wings will develop into arms, how such a flying mammal as the bat will live underwater, how it will breathe, and how it will acquire features that will enable it to hunt.
According to this there will be major changes in many of the bat”s organs, and these changes will follow a very target directed sequence. These changes, which stem entirely from need, will have to be carried out by such a mechanism that a bat that is unable to meet its food requirements in the air will first turn its wings into arms and then facilitate its hunting on the ground. Then, when the bat sees it is unable to find enough to eat on the ground, this mechanism must provide it with gills and other equipment and allow the bat to live underwater.
Fine, but what is this talented mechanism in nature? Evolutionists have been debating this mechanism “which has to exist” for the last 150 years. Yet it is clear and evident that no mechanism in nature could bring such a transition about. The two mechanisms evolutionists propose as being “evolutionary,” natural selection and mutation, could obviously never bring about such a transition, and that is admitted even by evolutionists. It is a fact accepted by scientific circles that natural selection and mutations can never form “new living things.” (For detailed information see Harun Yahya: The Evolution Deceit, Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd., 2004, Darwinism Refuted, Goodword Books, November 2002)
In addition, evolutionist claims regarding the future of nature definitively refute the history of nature itself. When we examine natural history we see, not creatures that have “evolved by means of different anatomical structures” as suggested in scenarios regarding the future of evolution, but creatures that have kept and maintained the same anatomical structures unchanged over millions of years. This phenomenon, known to scientists as “stasis,” can clearly be observed in all living species: a 400-million-year-old Coelacanth fossil is no different to a specimen living today. In the same way, fossils of arthropods, worms, insects, amphibians and turtles that are hundreds of millions of years old possess the same features as their present-day counterparts. The Harvard University paleontologist and prominent evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould admits this in the following terms:
Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. (S.J. Gould and Niles Eldredge, “Punctuated Equillibria: The Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered”, Paleontology, 3 (2), 1977, p.115)
Therefore, there is no scientific reason for us to think that creatures that will be living 10, 50 or 200 years from now, if there will be any, will be any different to their counterparts of today.
3. The only aim behind the scenarios of future evolution is “evolutionary propaganda.”
The theory of evolution was proposed some two centuries ago, in the 19th century, and its invalidity has been revealed in the present day through scientific findings. Science and technology has experienced the most magnificent advances in all fields since Charles Darwin”s time, and it has been realized that many things that seemed believable to 19th century evolutionists are in fact impossible.
Nonetheless, unlike other outdated theories and ideas, the theory of evolution has not been consigned to the waste bin of history, but has, on the contrary, been the subject of careful efforts to keep it alive. That is because the theory of evolution has for centuries provided a form of support, albeit a false one, for those circles seeking a scientific guise and justification in peoples” eyes for their lack of belief, their denial of God, their view of mankind as unsupervised and unregulated, and the importance they attach to matter. Therefore, evolutionists who are unable to defend their theory, in which they placed such great hopes, with scientific methods, try to do this using indoctrination, sleight of hand and propaganda instead. People who are unwilling to go into the matter in detail will be convinced that evolution, concealed under a scientific mask by means of newspapers, magazines, books etc, is a scientific fact.
The imaginary creatures straight from science fiction films and that it is suggested will come into being in the future as a result of evolution are part of this propaganda. This is not the first time evolutionists have employed this method. Richard Dawkins, one of the best-known proponents of evolution, depicted the “human being of the future.” This alleged “human being of the future” was given a very impressive appearance, and was also produced for the same purpose, as a work of the imagination without any scientific method being employed whatsoever.
The way that evolutionists resort to such unscientific, “three-card trick” methods is actually a consequence of the defeat Darwinism has suffered at the hands of science. Since no laboratory experiment or scientific observation supports the theory of evolution, evolutionary biologists draw imaginary creatures by “stretching their imaginations” and thus seek to influence many people with little knowledge of the subject. These are the final death throes of Darwinism. Humanity will soon be totally freed from this theory, with its nonsense proposed in the name of science.