The documentaries broadcast by such Darwinist TV channels as National Geographic TV and Discovery Channel share one point in common. These documentaries all contain imaginary conjecture as to why and/or how the biological structures or characteristics of a living thing may have evolved. The striking thing is that these accounts are told as facts while they are actually “artefacts” of evolutionists” imagination. Evolutionists seek to portray the scenarios they come up with in their own minds as if they were scientific evidence. Yet such deceitful accounts are nothing more than “Darwinist fairy tales” and they obviously represent no evidence for evolutionist claims.
Darwinist fairy tales are no different than the ones in Just-So Stories, a book published in 1902 by the British writer and poet Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936). In this book of tales intended for children, Kipling told a number of imaginative stories about how living things might have acquired various organs. He wrote this about the elephant”s trunk, for example:
In the High and Far-Off Times the Elephant, O Best Beloved, had no trunk. He had only a blackish, bulgy nose, as big as a boot, that he could wriggle about from side to side; but he couldn”t pick up things with it. But there was one Elephant – a new Elephant – an Elephant”s Child – who was full of “satiable curiosity…
So he went on… till he trod on what he thought was a log of wood at
the very edge of the great grey-green, greasy Limpopo River, all set about with fever-trees.
But it was really the Crocodile, O Best Beloved, and the Crocodile winked one eye – like this!…
Then the Elephant”s Child put his head down close to the Crocodile”s musky, tusky mouth, and the Crocodile caught him by his little nose…
Then the Elephant”s Child sat back on his little haunches, and pulled, and pulled, and pulled, and his nose began to stretch. And the Crocodile floundered into the water, making it all creamy with great sweeps of his tail, and he pulled, and pulled, and pulled. i
Kipling penned these lines as entertainment for children. However, expressions of this kind were employed in a documentary on the Discovery Channel on 7 April, 2003, as an allegedly scientific account of the supposed evolution of the elephant:
The evolution of the elephant”s trunk began 55 million years ago. This primitive creature had short legs and was about the size of a pig. In all probability the upper lip and nose it used to collect food developed into a mobile trunk. Later it grew dramatically down the generations. As these animals grew taller their lower jaws continued to extend, allowing them to make contact with the ground to feed. At this point, this protuberance, which slightly resembled a trunk, began to grow even further. Their skulls with larger teeth grew heavier. Their necks grew shorter and thicker to bear that weight. This tendency lasted for tens of millions of years. As the animals grew their jaws and trunks also continued to grow longer. Twenty million years ago their lower jaw began to shrink but the trunk still made contact with the ground. The result was the extension used by the modern elephant. ii
Henry Gee, editor of the magazine Nature and author of a great many articles and books on the subject of evolution, has stated, despite being an evolutionist himself, the error of resorting to tall tales of this kind:
… “our noses were made to carry spectacles, so we have spectacles.” Yet evolutionary biologists do much the same thing when they interpret any structure in terms of adaptation to current utility while failing to acknowledge that current utility need tell us nothing about how a structure evolved, or indeed how the evolutionary history of a structure might itself have influenced the shape and properties of that structure. iii
In order for a hypothesis to be regarded as scientific, it has to be capable of being tested, but the tales in question are devoid of this feature. The tale of human evolution is a good example in this regard. As Gee has admitted:
For example, the evolution of Man is said to have been driven by improvements in posture, brain size, and the coordination between the hand and the eye, which led to technological advancements such as fire, the manufacture of tools and the use of language. But such scenarios are subjective. They can never be tested by experiment, and so they are unscientific. They rely on for their currency not on scientific test but on assertion and the authority of their presentation. iv
Despite being aware of the erroneous nature of these tales, evolutionists still keep them in the professional literature, and see nothing untoward about portraying them as scientific facts. Stephen J. Gould has described this situation as follows:
Evolutionary biology has been severely hampered by a speculative style of argument that records anatomy and ecology and then tries to construct historical or adaptive explanations for why this bone looked like that or why this creature lived here… Scientists know that these tales are stories; unfortunately, they are presented in the professional literature where they are taken too seriously and literally. Then they become “facts” and enter the popular literature… v
In addition, Gould has also stated that these tales prove nothing and that the support they have gathered is based on “mental creativity:”
These tales, in the “just-so story” tradition of evolutionary natural history, do not prove anything. But the weight of these, and many similar cases, wore down my faith in gradualism long ago. More inventive minds may yet save it, but concepts salvaged only by facile speculation do not appeal much to me. vi
The Truth Indicated by Living Things” Useful Structures and Features: Creation
Evolutionists resort to Darwinist tales in describing the benefit provided for the organism by a particular organ and property, but the reason for this is subjective and not scientific. For example, a car”s snow tyres provide the vehicle with an advantage by allowing it to adhere to icy roads more easily, but this does not mean that the tyres or the car itself emerged through the evolution of matter.
The true explanation of structures that comprise part of a system and benefit that system with the function they perform is intelligent design. We see that the same thing applies when we consider forms of life, and that moreover the complexity of life is incomparably greater than that of a motor car. The millions of living species reveal countless examples of this. It is an evident truth that nature, brimming over with design, was created together with all the living things in it. Almighty God, the Creator of all, created living things from nothing, and created these structures in such a way as to meet their needs.
The only reason why evolutionists persist in telling tales of this sort about living things is that they have adopted evolution as a dogma. What they do is just adapting their tales about living things to an even greater fairy story they have accepted right from the outset. In fact, the way they turn a blind eye to these unscientific tales being depicted as “science,” even in the professional literature, represents a powerful confirmation of that dogmatism, and proves that evolution is a myth sought to be kept alive by unscientific methods.
i) Rudyard Kipling, The Elephant’s Child, from Just So Stories, 1902; http://www.familytimes.com/ebooks/the_elephants_child.pdf
ii) “Ultimate Guide: Elephants,” Discovery Channel Turkey, 7 April 2003 (Also see http://www.darwinism-watch.com/disc_channel_030407.php)
iii) Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, The Free Press, A Division fo Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1999, p. 103
iv) Ibid, p. 5
v) Stephen Jay Gould, “Introduction,” in Björn Kurtén, Dance of the Tiger: A Novel of the Ice Age (New York: Random House, 1980), xvii-xviii
vi) Stephen Jay Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” in The Panda”s Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History, , Penguin: London , 1990, reprint, p. 158