Why should we trust creationists?

I recently encountered a forum discussion on MySpace where an individual was attacking Ken Ham, the founder of Answers in Genesis and The Creation Museum in Kentucky. This gentleman pointed out that Ken Ham is simply a science teacher and, therefore, shouldn't be taken seriously. He gave other reasons why Mr. Ham shouldn't be trusted. His Australian education, the time period in which he was educated, etc. His point was that people should take Mr. Ham's teaching with a grain of salt. This individual also made a very poignant statement, "The scientific journals NEVER publish creationism. The stuff never holds up to peer review. These guys are virtual pariahs in the scientific community." Below is a copy of my response to him from that forum:


Phil, you are right. Ken Ham is a science educator, not a scientist. That, however, doesn't mean he is incapable of communicating the fundamental beliefs of both evolution and creation. I've listened to my share of seminars and talks given by Ken Ham and he has never claimed to be an expert on anything, only a disseminator of knowledge. I know for a fact that Mr. Ham believes in the concept of peer review. I know this because he has spoken out against creationists who do not submit their work to the many creation science peer review groups that are out there.

Ken Ham originally went to work for the Institute of Creation Research. If you look at that particular organization, you'll notice that all the staff and faculty are well qualified research scientists who have paid their dues in academia and can claim to know a thing or two about their particular field of study. When Mr. Ham started Answers in Genesis, there were many other qualified scientists in both Australia and Europe who joined with him. Dr. Sarfati is one that comes to mind. Dr. Sarfati and his colleagues have since started a separate organization called Creation Ministries International. He and his team are qualified scientists as well and their goal is to do internationally what AiG does here in the United States. I am currently attending Liberty University and work as a TA in the science department. All of faculty here are ardent Biblical creationists and anti-evolutionists. Many of the faculty members here are published (not just in creation publications), and are doing research in many different fields. Dr. David DeWitt, for example, is doing Alzheimer's research AND he is a guest speaker and author for Answers in Genesis.

If you go to the AiG website, you'll see a link underneath the "Get Answers" tab that says "Creation Scientists". There you'll find a list of qualified scientists that believe in Biblical creation. Now, I bring that up simply to note that Answers in Genesis has a slew of qualified, brilliant scientists who cooperate with them to ensure that the articles and publications that they release are accurate and professionally done. The scientific community, whether evolutionists, intelligent design advocates or creationists, depend greatly on peer review. Answers in Genesis isn't a research institution, they are an educational institution. Now that they have opened the Creation Museum, I have heard that they plan on branching and incorporating research programs by hiring PhD holding scientists. I don't work for them, so don't quote me on that, but the point I'm trying to make is that even though Mr. Ham had the vision for Answers in Genesis, he is not necessarily the scientific brains behind what he and other AiG speakers talk about. In fact, I'm sure he has never made any claims that he himself has done any research. The speakers they hire simply educate on what has been found by the qualified creation scientists around the world. Many, many professionals in many, many different fields work together to ensure accurate and up-to-date information being presented to the public.

Now to your question regarding the lack of creation scientists who publish in scientific journals. You have to realize that the scientific community as a whole are a very prejudice bunch. If atheistic evolutionists manage or run the majority of the scientific journals out there, do you think they are going to allow a creationist to publish something in their journal that either supports Biblical creationism or criticizes evolution? I think not. That also explains why the large TV networks like Discovery Channel, TLC and Animal Planet don't have any such programs on either. He who pays the bills, dictates what kind of subject matter is presented. In 1981, Professor Sir Edmund Leech addressed the annual meeting of the British Association for the advancement of Science. He is quoted as saying the following:

"Many well qualified scientists of the highest standing would today accept many of Wilberforce’s criticism of Darwin … today it is the conventional neo-Darwinians who appear as the conservative bigots.”

Conservative bigots...that's exactly what one faces if he or she doesn't conform to the evolutionary worldview. It doesn't matter how many post doctorate degrees a person has. They will be ostracized by the secular scientific community for not supporting a dogmatic pseudoscience which actually is a religion in scientific clothing. This is why you see organizations like AiG, the Institute for Creation research, the Discovery Institute and others. The scientific community is more like an austere old country club full of prudes who don't want anything to ruffle their intellectual feathers.

Don't take my word for it or Ken Ham's word for it. Go to websites like www.icr.org and www.creationontheweb.com. Read the technical articles for yourself and see if the authors are doing nothing but spouting scripture and dancing around the real science. Rest assured that there are a multitude of ridiculously brilliant scientists, mathematicians and philosophers out there (whether Christian or not) who are apposed to evolution. Now, there are some retarded clergy out there who think that evolution and the Bible can be reconciled. They, quite frankly, embarrass me. But I don't need the support of clergy or pastors to show that evolution is bunk and Biblical creationism is justifiable and sound, science is on my side.

~THT

12 Myths about the Discovery Channel's Jesus Tomb film.

The following myths about the Jesus Tomb were copied from Dr. Gary Habermas' website regarding the recent film by the Discovery channel and James Cameron. To get the full article, visit Dr. Habermas' website by clicking the link below:

http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus/losttombofjesus_response.htm

The 12 myths about the Jesus Tomb controversy

1.	The Names "Joseph" and "Jesus" were very popular in the 1st century. "Jesus" appears in at least 99 tombs and on 22 ossuaries. "Joseph" appears on 45 ossuaries.
2.	"Mary" is the most common female name in the ancient Jewish world.
3.	The DNA evidence establishes no positive links in this tomb whatsoever.
4.	The statistical comparison to Jesus of Nazareth is severely flawed.
5.	There is no early historical nor tomb connection to Mary Magdalene.
6.	There is no historical evidence anywhere that Jesus ever married or had children.
7.	The "Jesus" in the tomb was known as "Son of Joseph," but the earliest followers of the New Testament Jesus didn't call him that.
8.	It is unlikely that Jesus' family tomb would be located in Jerusalem.
9.	The Talpiot tomb was costly. It apparently belonged to a wealthy family.
10.	The tenth ossuary has been accounted for without recourse to the "James" ossuary.
11.	All ancient sources agree that, very soon afterwards, the burial tomb of Jesus of Nazareth was empty.
12.	The Talpiot tomb data fail to account for Jesus' resurrection appearances.
	Used with permission from a Media Advisory of Christian Newswire February 26, 2007; adapted from the original version written by Ben Witherington and Gary Habermas.

Can a Christian be an Intelligent Design advocate?

by David Asfour

On many occasions in times of war, two opposing sides will make uneasy alliances in order to defeat the common (and usually more threatening) enemy. In World War II, the allied forces comprised of capitalist countries like the U.S. and the U.K. which teamed up with a communist country like the USSR. In the science fiction movie, X2: X-Men United, the opposing mutant forces from the first film joined forces to defend themselves from a common enemy. At the onset of such alliances, both sides acknowledge their differences and are wary of each other because they know that under different circumstances, they’d be opponents. Such uneasy alliances took place in the Bible as well. Canaanite nations in Joshua 9-11 joined forces against the nation of Israel and likewise the Israelites joined with the Gibeonites to counter that alliance. Jehoshaphat and Ahab became allies in 1 Kings 22 in order to defeat Syria. In many such instances in the Bible, the nations or people groups that joined together could have been, or in fact were, enemies under different circumstances. In the battle for science in our culture today, another such alliance has been made – Intelligent Design and creationism.

With the onslaught of humanism and naturalism in today’s mainstream culture, anyone who believes in the supernatural is marked as an intellectual troglodyte. One only need doubt naturalistic evolution to be labeled an outsider in academia. With such hostile environments, its easy to quickly embrace anyone who shares your viewpoint in the matter…even if that’s the only viewpoint shared. In my own personal quest to find allies in this battle, I stumbled upon documentaries like “Unlocking the Mysteries of Life” produced by Illustra media. I was awestruck and a bit star struck with the scientists and philosophers interviewed. Evolutionists would constantly attack the credibility of anyone who doubted the “fact” of evolution and it seemed as though they had all the intellectual heavyweights on their side. The fact that the scientists in this video were so brilliant in their individual fields and also so committed to attacking evolution caused me to become an instant fan of what they called Intelligent Design. The name sounds benign enough to one who has believed in the Bible their whole life and views intelligent design as common knowledge. It wasn’t until a few years after my first introduction to these ID proponents that I began to realize that their anti-evolutionary position on the origin of life was pretty much the only position they had in common with the creationist worldview.

I later read a book titled The Case for a Creator written by Lee Strobel, a proclaiming Bible believing Christian of The Case for Christ fame. In his book, he interviews many of the same scholars from the Illustra media documentary. Stephan C. Meyer is one such scholar. Dr. Meyer is a Philosopher of Science and the Program Director at the Discovery Institute, the “flagship” of the ID movement. In chapter 4, Strobel interviews Dr. Meyer. They discuss science, philosophy and a little bit of theology, but before the interview was over, Strobel wanted to delve more into Dr. Meyer’s personal spiritual life. On page 90 and 91 of the book, Strobel comments regarding Dr. Meyers’ mention of the word God. He writes:

“[Meyer] stopped at that. It was a safe answer, but I could tell he was weighing whether he should risk more. I sensed he would be the kind of person who would be more comfortable extolling the virtues of microbiology than opening up about something as personal as his own relationship with God. But as I sat quietly and listened, he was about to prove me wrong.”¹

Meyer went on to mention how his own struggle with submitting to the will of God was like the “intellectual rebellion” that the apostle Paul spoke of.

“Even in my Christian thinking today, I find a tendency to slide back into what Paul refers to as the natural mind. And here’s what the scientific evidence for God does for me: it realigns me.”¹

Meyer professes to be a committed follower of Jesus Christ and makes a statement which I believe to be very similar with my own spiritual walk:

“I remember thinking at one point that if the Jesus of the Bible weren’t real, I would need to worship the person who created the character. Jesus is so beyond what I can comprehend! And the evidence for God in nature constantly challenges me to a deeper and fuller relationship with him. My study of the scientific evidence isn’t separate from my life as a Christian; it’s marbled throughout that experience.”¹

“Looking at the evidence – in nature and in Scripture – reminds me over and over again of who he is. And it reminds me of who I am too – someone in need of Him.”¹

Wow! I was seriously impressed that one of the men who I truly admired confirmed his belief and submission to Christ as Lord and Savior. In my opinion, he was a Bible believing Christian soldier in a field that I thought was devoid of any strong spiritual presence. I thought that if any more men in the ID field felt and believed what Dr. Meyer believed, it was only a matter of time before ID (and thus, Biblical creationism) totally ousted Darwinian evolution from its throne of power. One uncertainty still plagued my mind though – not one time in Strobel’s book did I ever hear him defend the first eleven chapters of Genesis. I’ve scoured his website reading and watching every resource he has to offer. I’ve heard him valiantly and brilliantly defend every aspect of Christ’s life, from the virgin birth to the resurrection. He defended the validity of Scripture and the fact that Jesus wasn’t just a good prophet, but the Lord God Himself in human flesh. Still, I was not and am not satisfied until I know where Strobel and Meyer stand on the issue of the first words spoken by “The Word made flesh”. As of yet, I have not found any evidence to support that Strobel, Meyer or any other ID proponent claiming to be a Christian believes in a literal six day creation and a global catastrophic flood. That is my litmus test. If someone takes the Bible literally in the first eleven chapters, they will most likely believe every chapter from that point to be literal and infallible. If anyone does not take the first eleven chapters as literal truth, it doesn’t matter how intelligent they are; they are still susceptible to heretical teaching that will damage their witness, testimony and even their faith.

Evidence of this can be found in a later quote by Dr. Meyer from the video adaptation of The Case for Christ bearing the same name. The video is produced by Illustra media as well and uses many of the same interviews and even some of the same footage as the “Unlocking the Mysteries of Life” video produced a few years before. In one of the topical discussions found in the special features segment of the DVD, there is a clip defining the word Intelligent Design. Dr. Meyer again is the scholar of choice used and is quoted as saying:

“Intelligent Design is not opposed to the idea of evolution per se in the sense of change over time or modest adaptational variations; things we see taking place in living systems all the time. But it is opposed to the strictly Darwinian view of evolution which says that life is the result of purely indirect processes and that the appearance of design in living organisms is illusory or merely an appearance. That’s where we part company with evolutionary biologists.”²

Even though creation scientists hold that change over time and, in Dr. Meyers’ words, “modest adaptational variations” are not evidence of “goo to you” evolution, it’s still unsettling that a man who in one interview states his need of Jesus as Savior, doesn’t assert his total belief that his Savior’s words regarding the origin of the universe as recorded in Scripture are infallible. Until I find evidence otherwise, I can only categorize Strobel and Meyer as old earth creationists for the time being. I hope and pray that such great intellectuals in the battle over science are also scholars and believers of God’s Word from the very first verse to the very last.

This example of Strobel and Meyer’s discussion presents both the positive and negative aspects of the ID movement. The potential of the ID movement to take back mainstream science and academia from the secularist, humanist religion is encouraging, but the apparent inconsistencies in each individual ID advocate’s beliefs could prove dangerous not only to the ID movement itself, but to any worldview that aligns itself with them in this battle. There is no consensus in the ID movement as to the identity of the creator and, in fact, it almost seems taboo to even delve into the topic. The Discovery Institute is an organization that is the front runner in the ID movement. Their website defines their organization as “a secular think tank”. On their Q&A page, they come right out and state that ID not founded on the Bible and is not the same as creationism. They state that, “unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text”³. Based on this definition of ID from proponents themselves, the Bible believing Christian should take note and be mindful when using and referring to ID promoters and scholars. When a group of scholars ranging from mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, and agnostic belief systems come together to discus teleological evidences of nature and how they could have originated, their differing views are bound to butt heads. In most academic circles, such differing views are encouraged because they promote new ideas and are the essence of science and philosophy. But if your goal is to be light and salt to a dying world, a unifying and spiritually fulfilling message is required. Such a unified message is absent from the ID movement.

This is not to say that Biblical creationists and Christians should completely slight ID arguments in our defense of Biblical creationism. As a Christian and creationist, I view ID as a tool against humanism, methodological naturalism and evolution. It can be used to convince an atheist or agnostic that the evidence for design is all around us. Michael Behe is an ID advocate who is, at best, an agnostic. His research on the bacterial flagellum coined a phrase and a concept that has been a weapon of choice to many a creationist – irreducible complexity. Using this and other ID arguments, we can bring an atheist, agnostic or skeptic to an understanding that it is more intellectually sound to believe in a supernatural creator than it is not to. However, to stop there leaves your argument and Christian message vulnerable to questions regarding dysteleology, or “the apparent purposelessness in natural structures”⁴. Examples of dysteleology are pathogenic microbes, carnivorous animals, disease and death. ID is helpless to explain why such things exist if nature is the result of intelligence. Either the creator is incompetent or he/she/it is malicious. In fact, other aspects of the universe besides biological systems show sign of decay and destruction. How is all of this explained? More often than not, once a skeptic’s scientific attacks against ID or Creationism are batted down, the inevitable question is posed: “how could a loving and/or intelligent God ____?” Any number of examples of disease and suffering of the helpless and innocent are used to fill in the blank. If one doesn’t have a literal view of Genesis, they are helpless to explain the reason why such things exist. The God of the Bible becomes a malicious boy with a magnifying glass standing over an ant hill. The explanation of the origin of the universe and living systems is not complete without the explanation of the origin of death and suffering – sin.

The Discovery Institute’s Q&A web page states that, “Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism”³. I believe this to be something a Creationist must make clear as well. If this is done, I believe that the arguments posed by ID can be powerful tools in pointing out the examples of design that are found in biological systems. Such arguments and examples should be supplemental with Genesis as one explains the history of our world from the Biblical vantage point. ID is insufficient by itself to answer our world’s greatest questions about who we are, where we come from and why things are the way they are. So, can a Christian be an advocate of Intelligent Design? They most definitely should be; but only if the identity of the designer is discussed and how we can have a personal relationship with Him. Without such discussion, ID isn’t “Christian beliefs in a scientific disguise” as evolutionists would claim, but rather “pluralistic beliefs in a Biblical creationist disguise”.

References

1. Strobel, Lee, The Case for a Creator, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, p. 90, 91, 2004.

2. The Case for a Creator. Dir. Lad Allen. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer. Illustra Media in association with Carmel Entertainment Group, LLC, 2006.

3. Center for Science and Culture, Q&A. Discovery Institute. 06 Jan. 2007

4. The Free Dictionary. Farlex. 06 Jan. 2007

TIME Equates Christians, Creationists with 9/11 Terrorists

by Lawrence Ford

After Democrats seized Congress in the mid-term elections this month, the mainstream media grabbed the opportunity to gloat over Republican losses. Conservatism, personified, in their opinion, by President Bush, and supported by evangelical voters, bore the brunt of defeat. Pro-life representatives were ousted. Pro-abortion candidates and legislation, such as Missouri..s Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative aka embryonic cloning, were elevated to legitimacy. It is predicted that the conservative agenda will be slowed, if not halted on issues like gay marriage, partial-birth abortion, judicial nominees, tax cuts, and many others.

How did it happen? Many pundits believe it was because desperate Republicans tried to peddle a diluted message to voters. Compromise is the word some use.

Both Time and Newsweek took aim at the losers--namely, the "religious right"--last week with their cover stories. "God vs. Science" on the cover of Time attempted to relegate religion, and particularly creationists, to the status of a struggling, fringe institution. Newsweek employed the "divide and conquer" strategy with their cover piece titled "The Politics of Jesus," in which they predict the demise of conservative Christian influence in the political arena. Of course, it didn..t help that a prominent and politically-outspoken Christian leader named Ted Haggard publicly confessed to homosexual adultery.

The message: Bible-believing Christians have lost their influence and need to either get with the program or shut up.

Marketing Christianity as Myth

Within Newsweek was an almost overlooked article by Sam Harris titled "A Dissent: The Case Against Faith," in which he opens with this statement:

Despite a full century of scientific insights attesting to the antiquity of life and the greater antiquity of the Earth, more than half the American population believes that the entire cosmos was created 6,000 years ago. This is, incidentally, about a thousand years after the Sumerians invented glue. Those with the power to elect presidents and congressmen..and many who themselves get elected..believe that dinosaurs lived two by two upon Noah's Ark, that light from distant galaxies was created en route to the Earth and that the first members of our species were fashioned out of dirt and divine breath, in a garden with a talking snake, by the hand of an invisible God.

Harris, author of The End of Faith, attempts to make the case for embryonic stem cell research, excoriating President Bush and the religious right for interfering in science. He laments that "religious dogmatism impedes genuine wisdom and compassion".

His conclusion?

"In a world brimming with increasingly destructive technology, our infatuation with religious myths now poses a tremendous danger. And it is not a danger for which more religious faith is a remedy".

Christians go home.

God vs. Time

In setting up his argument, writer David Van Biema of Time turned the question of faith and science upside down.

"Can Darwinian evolution withstand the criticisms of Christians who believe that it contradicts the creation account in the Book of Genesis?" became "Can religion stand up to the progress of science?" Clearly he believes that Christianity is on the way out.

Citing the ecstatic fervor of scientists today involved in genetic mapping and engineering, brain imaging, and other advances, Van Biema writes that these gifted men of modern science have now become victims of intolerant Christians:

...a growing proportion of the profession is experiencing what one major researcher calls "unprecedented outrage" at perceived insults to research and rationality, ranging from the alleged influence of the Christian right on Bush Administration science policy to the fanatic faith of the 9/11 terrorists to intelligent design's ongoing claims. Some are radicalized enough to publicly pick an ancient scab: the idea that science and religion, far from being complementary responses to the unknown, are at utter odds...

The Christian right. President Bush. Saudi 9/11 terrorists. Creationists. All in one sentence. All radical. All responsible for "unprecedented outrage" against rational researchers.

To make the case against creationists, Time hosted a "debate" between Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, and Francis Collins, Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, a professing evangelical Christian.

A fair match? Atheist vs. Christian? Yes. Evolutionist vs. Creationist? Not really. Dr. Collins, while acknowledging God as Creator, sees evolution and the Big Bang as the means by which the world came to be. He states:

There are sincere believers who interpret Genesis 1 and 2 in a very literal way that is inconsistent, frankly, with our knowledge of the universe's age or how living organisms are related to each other. St. Augustine wrote that basically it is not possible to understand what was being described in Genesis. It was not intended as a science textbook.

There it is. The slam is made. And out of the mouth of a prominent evangelical scientist. Time has made its point.

Professor Dawkins, riding a wave of celebrity publishing and never one to withhold his criticism of creationists, suggested that Collins could "save himself an awful lot of trouble if he just simply ceased to give them the time of day. Why bother with these clowns?"

Little was discussed about the facts of science--a bit about universal constants such as gravity. Rather, the clash between faith and science was the topic Time wanted to probe.

But there's no convincing Dawkins, who does not even acknowledge the existence of good and evil. "I don't believe that there is hanging out there, anywhere, something called good and something called evil," he said. Dawkins labels God's involvement in evolution, as Collins offers, "a tremendous cop-out." And he has a good point.

If God wanted to create life and create humans, it would be slightly odd that he should choose the extraordinarily roundabout way of waiting for 10 billion years before life got started and then waiting for another 4 billion years until you got human beings capable of worshipping and sinning and all the other things religious people are interested in.

If God is really God, He would have immediately created the world and mankind as He desired. And that's exactly what the Bible states God did.

Collins, while defending God's existence, long ago adopted the notion that modern science interprets the Bible, rather than acknowledge the Bible's absolute authority over science. And that's where he puts himself and the other evangelicals who follow his dogma into the category of fools.

Was there a winner between Dawkins and Collins?

Yes. Time Magazine.

______________________________________________________

Interested in more? Read the following ICR perspectives:Stem Cell Research: Greasing the "Slippery Slope" to Godlessness by Dr. Dan Criswell.

The Splendid Faith of the Evolutionist by Dr. Henry M. Morris

Four flippered dolphin??

The following article was copied from ICR.org. It is discussing the dolphin that was found recently with a set of small "hind" flippers. The URL source for this article is, http://www.icr.org/article/3117/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Flipper: Man's Best Friend?

by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D
Abstract

Science headlines today in the mainstream media have become stereotypical and, frankly, tiresome. The evolutionary spin of reporters and editors routinely elevates speculation to the level of hard evidence and proof. Take, for instance, the announcement this week that a dolphin with "legs" was caught off the coast of Japan. The headlines explain everything:

"Dolphin reveals an extra set of 'legs.'"

"Japanese Researchers Find Dolphin With 'Remains of Legs.'"

"Four-finned Japanese dolphin an evolutionary throwback, researchers say."

"Dolphin With Four Fins May Prove Terrestrial Origins."

Flipper with legs?

In her article titled "Dolphin with four-wheel drive stuns the scientists," Fiona Macrae, science reporter for London's The Daily Mail, writes:

"Experts believe that the dolphin's ancestor was a dog-like creature which roamed the earth many millions of years ago. And now the extraordinary discovery of a bottlenose dolphin with an extra set of flippers has provided living proof of the theory."

Fido with fins?

Associated Press reporter Hiroko Tabuchi described the alleged evolutionary connection to this unusual dolphin:

"Fossil remains show dolphins and whales were four-footed land animals about 50 million years ago and share the same common ancestor as hippos and deer. Scientists believe they later transitioned to an aquatic lifestyle and their hind limbs disappeared."

What Japanese fishermen actually found on October 28 was a five-year-old, nine-foot bottlenose dolphin with an extra set of fins, not a set of legs with hooves or even leg remnants. According to Katsuki Hayashi, director of the Taiji Whaling Museum, the dolphin has a well-developed set of symmetrical fins. It is premature to speculate beyond this.

After anatomical studies are done by qualified researchers, we should expect the results to be peer-reviewed. Only then can we determine in more detail the significance of this find. Researchers are now planning to do X-ray and DNA tests.

Possible sources of the hind fins include mutations, such as the Hox gene that produces flies with an extra set of wings or a child recently born with a third arm. Also, this dolphin could be a cross with, or somehow related to, dolphins that have two front and two rear non-dorsal fins. In support of this, some cetacean embryos do initiate hind-limb bud development which, in dolphins, degenerates during about the fifth week (see Thewissen et al., 2006).

In fact, today's two-finned dolphins may have the genetic information for generating all four fins. All dolphins could have once had two rear fins, and lost the information. The fins are not used for propulsion but for steering, and for this reason, one pair may be adequate for survival.

The conclusion by Darwinists that these fins could be vestigial hind legs is based on the fact that dolphins are air-breathing sea mammals, which they believe descended from land-dwelling mammals having four legs designed for terrestrial life. This theory is postulated because all other theories of dolphin evolution are even less plausible.

The most popular Darwinist view is that fish evolved into amphibians, which left the sea to live on dry land, later evolved into reptiles, and eventually became mammals. Some of those mammals, such as whales and dolphins, returned to the sea to avoid predators or for a more robust supply of food, evolving so as to once again adapt to sea life.

However, the fossil record does not support either the fish or the terrestrial mammal evolution theory.

It is also important to stress that even if dolphins lost their hind limbs, loss of information is not what is required for progressive evolution to occur. Loss of information has been well documented in nature. Rather, a gain of information is the chief problem Darwinists need to solve to support their theory.

And so far, they have not.

Whatever "discovery" the media bombard us with next will require more than a cursory glance. Careful analysis demands a look behind the headlines to discern fact from fiction, truth from theory, science from speculation.

References

Thewissen J. G. et al. "Developmental Basis for Hind-limb Loss in Dolphins and Origin of the Cetacean Bodyplan." PNAC 103, no. 22 (May 30, 2006): 8414–8.

See also "When is a Whale a Whale?" by Dr. Duane Gish.