David Attenborough Thinks Genesis is to Blame for the Exploitation of Nature

Sir David Attenborough. Image courtesy of Wikipedia.



Joel Kontinen

Known for his natural history programmes, Sir David Attenborough has for 50 years been one the principal spokesmen for Darwinian evolution.

Recently the BBC icon stepped into the sphere of religion. In a brief video David Attenborough claimed that we can blame the book of Genesis for the exploitation of nature. Evolution, in contrast, helps us to take care of the environment.

Sounds a bit like Freud. So what does Genesis really say about exploiting nature?

Let's take a closer look.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” (Genesis 1:26-28)

Sir David obviously took issue with the idea of man being placed higher than the animals in God’s hierarchy.

Genesis does not give us the right to spoil the planet and destroy its life. It also has a verse that speaks about the mandate to preserve the earth:

The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. (Genesis 2: 15)

Unlike Neo-Darwinese, the Bible practically never uses Orwellian phrases. More often, it means what it says. Thus, take care of is obviously not a synonym for exploit.

In contrast, Darwinian evolution is supposed to be a Malthusian struggle for existence, with nature being red in tooth and claw. How could this possibly preserve nature?

It seems that Attenborough’s claim had more to do with his naturalistic worldview than with anything else.



Source:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=uz7U4k522Pg

Goodbye, Charles Darwin!

Time to say goodbye to Charlie? Image from Wikipedia.



Joel Kontinen

Amid all the pro-evolution salutations we have so far heard during Charles Darwin's 200th anniversary, the sound of dissenting voices has not been inaudible.

Discovery Institute is sponsoring an Academic Freedom Day on February 12. Creation Ministries International has produced a film critical of Darwin’s ideas. In addition, Answers in Genesis is hosting several Answers for Darwin conferences in the US.

And there is more to come.

Douglas Axe is a molecular biologist who takes a critical approach to Neo-Darwinian evolution. He predicts that an up and coming bold generation of researchers will reject evolution –for lack of evidence.

In an article posted on the Biologic Institute’s webpages, Axe writes:

The truth of the matter, much to the chagrin of contemporary biology, is that Darwin’s theory should have been laid to rest some time ago. It certainly deserved all the interest it generated in its day, but at some later point that interest was transformed from the critical kind to the credulous kind…

…even wrong ideas can make big contributions to the advancement of science. Few biologists want to see Darwin’s theory filed in that category, but if that is its rightful place, then you can be sure that’s exactly where one bold generation of biologists will file it—someday.

Axe is not the only scientist to make such a claim. Professor John Sanford, a pioneer of genetic engineering, revealed that recent discoveries in genetic mutation rates in the human genome clearly falsify the neo-Darwinian mechanism.

Darwin’s dethronement might arrive sooner than you think.

Sources:

Axe, Douglas. 2009. Bold Biology for 2009. http://biologicinstitute.org/2009/02/01/bold-biology-for-2009/

Wieland, Carl. 2009. A truly stunning event. Creation Ministries International. http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6274

Bad News for Darwinists: The Majority of Britons Doubt Darwinian Evolution

Richard Dawkins was not very pleased with the latest evolution survey in Great Britain. Image from Wikipedia.




Joel Kontinen

Charles Darwin is not having much of a heyday in his native UK on the eve of his 200th birthday. In a recent survey of 2,060 adults, 51 per cent stated they believed that evolution is incapable of explaining the complexity of life and a designer is needed.

In addition, almost a third (32%) believed that God created the world under 10 000 years ago.

Commenting on the survey conducted by ComRes, Richard Dawkins said that most people are “pig ignorant” about science.

Science is obviously Dawkinsese for “evolution”.

The world outside Richard Dawkins’ mind appears to see reality in somewhat different terms. Even some prominent British scientists and academics suspect that Darwinian evolution is wrong. They see evidences of design in nature.

There seems to be an interesting trend in Britain and elsewhere: the more Old Darwin is promoted, the less the public trusts his theories. Perhaps it has to do with the clothes emperor Charles is wearing.

Professor Dawkins would probably not be able to wash his hands entirely clean of the blame. For instance, he has not always been overly careful with his data, such as the supposed poor design of the human eye, the existence of memes or the selfishness of his own genes.

“Pig ignorant” is a rather interesting adjective phrase. I was unable to find its definition in any of my dictionaries but I suspect that Richard Dawkins did not use it as a compliment.

The expression suggests that theories of language evolution are miserably outdated. English is definitely not evolving; it is devolving, thanks in part to prof. Dawkins.


Source:

Wynne-Jones, Jonathan. 2009. Poll reveals public doubts over Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Telegraphy. co.uk. (31 January 2009). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4410927/Poll-reveals-public-doubts-over-Charles-Darwins-theory-of-evolution.html

Mengele’s Twin Experiments: An Aryan Master Race in Brazil?

Arbeit macht frei? The gate of no return at Auschwitz-Birkenau. Image from Wikipedia.



Joel Kontinen

There are over ten times more twins in a small Brazilian town than elsewhere on average. An Argentinian historian claims that this is the result of Josef Mengele’s genetic experiments.

Josef Mengele (1911-1979) was known as the Angel of Death. The Nazi doctor was notorious for performing medical experiments on concentration camp prisoners at Auschwitz-Birkenau from 1943 to 1945. He was also responsible for sending thousands of hapless Jews, Gypsies and other inmates to a certain death in gas chambers.

After World War II Mengele escaped to South America. Historian Jorge Camarasa interviewed people living in the small Brazilian town of Candido Godoi. He believes that Mengele continued his experiments there with the aim of creating a master race of blue-eyed Aryans. In this farming community, one in five pregnancies resulted in twins. Most of them were blond, blue-eyed “Aryans”.

The twin boom began in 1963, which roughly corresponds to the time when an itinerant medic now thought to be none other than Mengele was first seen in the area.

In his new book Mengele: the Angel of Death in South America Camarasa recounts the post-war odyssey of the chief Nazi eugenicist. He says that Mengele probably found refuge in one of the German enclaves in South America and continued his experiments even after Israeli agents seized his compatriot and fellow war criminal Adolf Eichmann.

The Nazi race ideology owes much to the writings of Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919). A professor of zoology who was the chief spokesman for Darwinian evolution in continental Europe in the late 19th and early 20th century, Haeckel is still remembered for his fraudulent embryo drawings. Less well known are his views on the inferiority of the black “races”. Like Charles Darwin, he thought they were less evolved than the white “races”.

While genetic studies have indicated that the entire concept of race is artificial, the Nazis sought to help natural selection in weeding out the less fit individuals and, probably reflecting the ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), building a new Aryan super race.

The inhabitants of Candido Godoi remember Mengele as a friendly veterinarian and itinerant medic, who used the name Rudolph Weiss.

At Auschwitz, Mengele was known as the White Angel (der weisse Engel. His adopted surname Weiss is the German word for white. While this might be a mere coincidence, it could also be evidence for his deep-seated acceptance of the Nazi race ideology.


Source:

Evans, Nick. 2009. Nazi angel of death Josef Mengele 'created twin town in Brazil'. Telegraph. Co.uk. 23 January. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/brazil/4307262/Nazi-angel-of-death-Josef-Mengele-created-twin-town-in-Brazil.html

Who Is Jesus?

Christ carrying His cross. El Greco (1580). Image from Wikipedia



Joel Kontinen

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
(Matt. 16:13-16)

We still have different views about Jesus. Some secular humanists doubt His historicity although we have strong evidence of His life in early extrabiblical literature as well. Others think that He is just a good teacher. For Muslims He is a sinless prophet called Isa whom God saved from the cross and took alive to heaven. Jehovah’s Witnesses say He is the archangel Michael.

Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven” (Matt. 16:17).

The Bible refutes all non-scriptural views of Jesus. The Gospel of John (1: 1-3) says that He is God who has been in existence from the beginning and through whom all things were created. Paul also calls Him Creator in Colossians 1:16-17:

For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Jesus was also a good teacher and a sinless prophet. But He was much more. After the resurrection, the apostle Thomas finally understood who Jesus was. He acknowledged, "My Lord and my God!" (Gr. ο κυριος μου και ο θεος μου, John 20:28).

Many theologians believe that in Old Testament times Jesus appeared as the Angel of the Lord. But this does not mean that He is the archangel Michael, who is a created being.

Christianity is a paradox in many ways. The Creator of the entire universe was born in Bethlehem as a human being and suffered a horrible death for man’s sin on a cross in Jerusalem.

But He rose from His grave and lives forever.



Scripture references are from the New International Version (NIV).

Criticizing Darwin

The controversy over this man’s views has not abated. Image from Wikipedia.



Joel Kontinen

With Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday approaching, there seems to be no end in sight for the praise heaped upon him in both science and popular publications.

Darwin’s supporters have not taken kindly to any criticism of the man’s ideas.

A decade ago, Phillip E. Johnson, now retired UC Berkeley law professor known for his criticism of Darwinism, recounted the experience of Jian Yuan Chan, a Chinese paleontologist, who said, “In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin.”

America and the West have not become any less tolerant of the criticism of Darwinism. The recent attempt by the pro-Darwin people to suppress any dissent of evolution in Texas schools provides a classical example of the lack of tolerance in science education. The Texas Board of Education voted 8-7 to discontinue the use of discussing the “strengths and weaknesses” of the theory of evolution.

Eugenie Scott, CEO of the National Center for Science Education, said the removal was “a huge step forward”. Scott’s Orwellianese was no surprise. She has characterised herself as an evolution evangelist.

For the uninitiated this title does not exactly weaken the religious underpinnings of Darwinism.

But evolutionists were not very pleased with some of the amendments that the Texas Board of Education approved. Students will be expected to analyse and evaluate key aspects of Darwinism, such as the validity of proposed transitional fossils and the existence of common descent.

If Evolutionists were convinced of the merits of Darwinian explanations, they would welcome the opportunity to discuss their strengths and weaknesses.

Obviously they aren’t.


Sources:

Budziszewski, J. 2000. Just the facts, please. World Magazine. Republished on True. Origin. http://www.trueorigin.org/kansas8.asp

Coghlan, Andy. 2009. Creationism defeated in Texas. New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16485-creationism-defeated-in-texas.html?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=dn16485

McKinley, James. C. 2009. Split Outcome in Texas Battle on Teaching of Evolution. New York Times A11. (24 January). http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/24/education/24texas.html?_r=1&ref=us

Goodbye, Tree of Life!

Joel Kontinen

In November 2004 National Geographic coyly asked, “Was Darwin Wrong?” David Quammen, who wrote the cover story, was quick to point out that Darwin was definitely Not wrong.

The latest issue of New Scientist is no longer so coy. It says bluntly: Darwin was wrong.

So what was he wrong about?

The Tree of Life was one of Charles Darwin’s key concepts and one of the phenomena that Dr. Jonathan Wells criticised in Icons of Evolution. The only illustration in The Origin of Species was about this very tree. (It’s on page 91 in my paperback copy of Origins).

Now New Scientist is willing to say goodbye to the Darwinian tree of life and replace it with a bush and horizontal gene transfer (HGT) between species.

Some Darwinists might remember that I called into question the existence of the tree of life in April 2008 when I wrote about a little sea creature that upset this very concept. They were not exactly reluctant to claim that I misinterpreted Darwin.

Perhaps they will now acknowledge that I did not misinterpret Darwin but that he was simply wrong about one of the key concepts of his theory.

However, in spite of the sensational headline (which has already drawn some fire on Richard Dawkins' site), New Scientist is not about to say goodbye to Darwin.

But it would be honest to admit that for years creation-believing scientists have been saying that an orchard is a more accurate description of the development of life than the tree of life.


Sources:

Darwin, Charles. 1859 (1998). The Origin of Species. Ware: Wordsworth.

Lawton, Graham. 2009. Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life. New Scientist 2692 (24 January), 34-39. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html