Creationism is a robust little critter, evolving constantly under the pressure of natural selection. It preserves, however, certain favored traits that the keen observer will quickly recognize. Just as the satanic Black Mass is a reverse-recited parody of the Roman Catholic High Mass, creationism is a conclusion-first parody of science. As the King of Hearts in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland says to the jury before any evidence has been presented, “Consider your verdict.” Creationists who pretend to offer scientific arguments have their verdict well in hand. The evidence is immaterial (as is the agency of creation, for that matter). Yet they feel compelled to pay homage to science at least insofar as they brew their mock-science soup.
A particularly hefty helping of mock-science is offered up by James Melton of the Bible Baptist Church in Sharon, Tennessee. While it's a thankless, tedious, and rather futile undertaking to puncture his arguments one after the other, yet it may serve as an object lesson to those who have never seen all the entrails of a creationist argument laid out on a dissecting table. It is a many-headed beast, a mosaic or chimera cobbled together in Frankenstein mode from a bountiful supply of stale religious arguments. Melton's piece carries a 1997 date, but the attentive reader will discern how many of its components remain in active play in the creationist arsenal.
Evolution: Fact or Fiction?In every state university? I presume the separation of church and state is a notion foreign to the Reverend Mr. Melton.
Copyright © 1997 James L. Melton
Published by Bible Baptist Church, Sharon, TN
“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.” (Romans 1:20-23)
These inspired words of God should be posted over the door to every science and biology lab in every state university in America. Every person born into the world is born with enough conscience to tell him that God created the Heaven and the Earth. If you do not believe that God created the Heaven and the Earth, then it is because you've allowed someone to educate you out of your faith in God's word. You have been tricked into forsaking the Bible by placing your faith in a man-made religion called “Evolution.”
Someone says, “Evolution is not a religion.” Evolution IS a religion, because it lacks scientific evidence, thus requiring it's adherents to follow Darwin's theory by FAITH. Evolution is a RELIGIOUS CREED based upon blind faith. There is not in existence one single piece of scientific evidence which proves that man has evolved upward from animals. It is impossible to prove any theory of origins “scientifically,” because the very essence of the scientific method is based upon OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENTATION, and no scientist has ever observed or experimented with the origin of the universe.The infamous plagiarist Ann Coulter said in her latest book that not a shred of evidence can be found to support evolution. As usual, she is borrowing an old argument from those who live in stubborn denial. Note how Melton helpfully explains science to us: If you can't experiment with it directly in the lab, it can't be science. (Yet he also argues that creationism is true science.) This shows both an ignorance of what is really going on in biology laboratories, where evidence for evolution is routinely adduced, and a refusal to understand that “observation” takes many forms. He also conflates the Big Bang with evolution, attacking the origin of the universe while sniping at the origin of species. Someone should tell him, by the way, that the Big Bang has been observed—in the background radiation of the universe.
All scientists know this, including L. Harrison Matthews. In his forward to Darwin's 1971 edition of “Origin of the Species,” Matthews says, “... Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation—both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.” In other words, the theory of evolution is a theory based on FAITH, rather than scientific fact.Pastor Melton cites Darwin's 1971 edition of On the Origin of Species (not Origin of “the” Species), but I think we can be forgiven for doubting that Darwin had much to do with it. Furthermore, the Matthews quote has been lifted out of its context and conveniently omits the professor's statement that “Many naturalists were already convinced of the fact of evolution, but without a plausible theory to show how it might have taken place they were unable to refute their opponents who held to the doctrine of special creation.” Matthews goes on in his preface to explain how a plausible theory had developed and gained almost universal acceptance among scientists. In the end, Matthews was not rejecting evolution at all nor was he really equating it to faith-based creationism.
ANYTHING BUT THE TRUTHI'm pretty sure that “Novel Peace Prize” is a typo for “Nobel Peace Prize,” except that that would be wrong, too. Even if one omits the misplaced “Peace,” there is no Nobel Prize for “Science,” as such. Wald was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1967. The key point, however, is that Wald never said anything like the supposed quote attributed to him. Various versions of the spurious Wald quote have circulated in creationist literature, but they all seem to miss the point that many scientists mean “the order of nature” when they use the word “God.” Wald's actual words appeared in Scientific American and the pertinent passages are quoted in detail at talkorigins.org. This misuse of statements by scientists is sometimes called quote mining, but the Wald example is a particularly egregious example of just making it up.
Evolutionists have their entire lives and reputations resting upon Darwin's theory. They're committed to their religion, just as any true Christian is committed to his. If an evolutionist changes his views, then he denies and forsakes his fellow scientists and former educators. He becomes a “black sheep,” loses his job, his reputation, and his social standing. Since he has studied and worked his entire life to get where he is, he isn't about to throw it all away. So the committed evolutionist chooses to strive harder and harder in his effort to disprove the Genesis account. He will ignore all facts which support Special Creation. He is not open to anything other than “evidence” to prove his theory. All evidence which proves CONTRARY to his theory is discarded and ignored. A fine example of this behavior can be found in the work of Dr. George Wald, Novel Peace Prize winner for Science in 1967. Dr. Wald says the following:
“When if comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: That of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance.” (Dennis Lindsay, “The Dinosaur Dilemma,” Christ for the Nations, Vol. 35, No. 8, November, 1982, pp. 4-5, 14.)
So Darwin's theory is commonly accepted as a scientific fact, NOT because it can be proven, but rather because it is the ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO BELIEVING THE GENESIS ACCOUNT OF CREATION. The evolutionist has gotten himself into a trap where he must spend the rest of his life running from God.
NOT ALL SCIENTISTS BELIEVE IN EVOLUTIONSir Julian Huxley is basically correct: Acceptance of evolution among scientists is virtually universal. The exceptions are therefore remarkably rare and creationists must cite the same small handful over and over again in making their case that scientists can be creationists. Indeed, Albert Fleischman (1862-1942) is one member of that exceedingly select band. He would be lost in obscurity if creationists were not compelled to turn to him whenever they need to find an actual biologist who would not accept evolution.
The average evolutionist would have us believe that all TRUE scientists accept Darwin's theory as fact. Sir John Huxley, grandson of Thomas Huxley, wrote the following in 1959:
“The point to make about Darwin's theory of evolution is that it is no longer a theory, but a fact. No serious scientist would deny the fact that evolution has occurred, just as he would not deny the fact that the earth goes around the sun.” (Tax, Sol, Ed. “Evolution After Darwin,” Issues in Evolution, Chicago University Press, 1960, Vol. 3, p. 41.)
See how the system works? A scientist cannot be recognized as a SERIOUS scientist unless he REJECTS THE BIBLE and RECEIVES EVOLUTION. Well, there have been, and still are, MANY serious scientists who do not believe in evolution. For example, Dr. Albert Fleischman, Professor of Zoology at the University of Erlangen in Germany, says, ”The Darwinian theory of evolution has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of the imagination.”
Professor L.T. More, of the University of Chicago, says, "Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, everyone of his arguments is contradicted by fact."The truest word in Melton's summary is “few,” which he uses to describe the number of anti-evolutionist scientists. To underscore the desperate nature of their plight, consider that Louis T. More's dates are 1870-1944. If they had a more contemporary scientist, the creationists would undoubtedly cite him. More, by the way, was not a researcher in the life sciences. He was apparently a physicist rather than a biologist. As for Austin Hobart Clark, he lived from 1880 to 1954. For someone writing in the 1990s, Melton sure has trouble finding contemporary sources. I guess all the good scientific creationists are dead scientific creationists.
Professor A.C. Steward, from the Cambridge University, says, “A student who takes an impartial retrospect soon discovers that the fossil record raises more problems than it solves.”
Dr. Austin Clark, F.R.G.S., of the American Geophysical Union, opposes evolution by saying, “The great groups of animal life do not merge into one another. They are and have been fixed from the beginning.”
So the Bible believer must understand that he is not alone in his stand against Darwin's foolish theory. There have always been a few scientists around who were honest and open-minded enough to consider all the facts and take an unpopular stand for the TRUTH, rather than IGNORE the facts and take a POPULAR stand for evolution. We should thank God for them.
WHAT ABOUT THEISTIC EVOLUTION?At last Melton and I find common ground: theistic evolutionists are clearly prepared to throw away the entirety of the Genesis account. We differ, of course, in that I think it's good to throw it out. Melton, instead, despairs of his evolutionary co-religionists.
Some have begun to compromise by professing to believe in the Biblical account of creation AND in Darwin's theory. These people call themselves “Theistic Evolutionists.” They belong in the same category as “sober alcoholics” and “liberal conservatives.” In the Bible, God is the Creator of all things (Gen. 1). In evolution, natural chance can account for the existence of all things. In the Bible, all life forms are created in six literal days (Gen. 1). In evolution, life forms evolve over millions of years. In the Bible, creation has been completed (Gen. 2:3). In evolution, a natural creative process continues. In the Bible, oceans appear before land (Gen. 1:9). In evolution, land appears first. In the Bible, life begins on land (Gen. 1:11). In evolution, life began in water. In the Bible, the earth is made before the sun, moon, and stars (Gen. 1:14-19). In evolution, the earth comes later. In the Bible, all stars are made on the fourth day (Gen. 1:16). In evolution, the stars evolve at various times. In the Bible, birds and fishes are created on the fifth day (Gen. 1:20, 21). In evolution, fishes evolve hundreds of millions of years before birds. In the Bible, man appears before rain (Gen. 2:5). In evolution, rain appears before man. In the Bible, man is created before woman (Gen. 2:21-22). In evolution, woman genetically appears before man. In the Bible, light appears before the sun (Gen. 1:3-19; Psa. 74:16). In evolution, the sun appears before any light. In the Bible, plants appear before the sun (Gen. 1:11-19). In evolution, the sun appears first. In the Bible, the human body comes from dirt (Gen. 2:7). In evolution, the human body evolves from monkeys. In the Bible, man exercises dominion over all organisms (Gen. 1:28). In evolution, most organisms become extinct before man evolves. In the Bible, man is originally a vegetarian (Gen. 1:29). In evolution, man is originally a meat eater. In the Bible, life comes in fixed and distinct “kinds” (Gen. 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25; I Cor. 15:38-39). In evolution, life forms are in a continual state of flux. In the Bible, man's sin is the cause of death (Rom. 5:12). In evolution, struggle and death exist long before man evolves.
Evolution is the intellectual basis for two of the biggest devils of the 20th century: Hitler's Naziism and Mark's communism. Secular humanism, atheism, and liberalism are all the evil fruits of Darwin's hellish theory. The Lord Jesus said, “by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matt. 7:20), and the fruit of evolution clearly assures us that Darwin's theory is as far away from Biblical truth as Hell is from Heaven. “Theistic evolution” is too funny for words.
It's interesting to see how Melton beat D. James Kennedy to the punch with his denunciation of Hitler and the supposed role of evolution in the rise of the Nazis. (By the way, I think Melton means the communism of Marx rather than Mark's, but I'm just guessing.)
HAS EVOLUTION BEEN PROVEN?Have you heard anyone call the pineal gland a useless vestige? If so, you must be fairly old, since no one has done so since it was discovered in the 1960s that it has a role in melatonin production. Melton might argue that this clinches his argument, but instead it underscores the rationale that permeates his essay: While science may be self-correcting, every such correction is proof of its unreliability. The development of scientific knowledge is thus an indictment, while biblical knowledge—which may not be questioned or amended—never requires correction. (Verdict first. Trial later.)
Over the years, being hard-pressed for real evidence, the evolutionists have managed to conjure up a number of “proofs” that Darwin's theory is a scientific fact. This so-called “evidence” is worshipped by all evolutionists, while all contrary evidence is ignored. Let's consider some of their evidence.
VESTIGIAL ORGANS are believed by evolutionists to be parts of the human body that are no longer needed. Therefore these useless body parts must be “left-overs” from our ancestors, the monkeys. These “useless” body parts include the appendix, the coccyx (tail bone), the pineal gland, the plica semilunaris, the tonsils, and the ear lobes.
Naturally, the facts are ignored. Many medical doctors agree that all of these organs have important functions in the human body, and aren't “vestigial organs” in any sense. The appendix contains a rich blood supply which serves as some defense against cancer. The tail bone isn't where your monkey tail used to be, as Darwinians believe, but it instead provides support for the muscles which control elimination. The pineal gland contains important hormones which the body needs. The plica semilunaris helps to keep foreign particles out of the eye, and the tonsils help to keep foreign particles out of your child's throat. The tonsils also help to keep infection from spreading. Yes, even the ear lobe has a purpose, for it helps to keep our ears warm during cold weather.
Melton is apparently speaking of George Nuttall, professor of biology at Cambridge. Although I have not read Dr. Nuttall's research papers, which appear to be about blood types and similarities across species, I dare say the Reverend Mr. Melton hasn't either. Therefore I doubt Melton's unqualified statement that Nuttall came to the claimed conclusions. Still, what if he did? Then Melton is back on his hobby horse of criticizing evolution for shortcomings in old research—over a century old in this case. The clear-cut reality today is that DNA studies have fleshed out the family tree of animal life in remarkable detail. In fact, all of the species cited by Melton in his mocking of Nuttall are related to each other, and we can now gauge the degree of each relationship in amazing detail. Why does Melton talk about 1904 biochemistry instead of 2004 biochemistry?
Another “proof” for evolution is found in the field of BIOCHEMISTRY. This is where scientists mix genes and chromosomes in their effort to prove relation between man and animal.
Is there any conclusive evidence? No there isn't. Any learned scientist should be familiar with the rather embarrassing test conclusions of Dr. Nutall back in 1904. Nutall's tests concluded that baboons and hoofed animals are related to whales, that pigs are related to tigers, and that black people are related to monkeys! There isn't one ounce of real evidence anywhere in the entire field of biochemistry which proves that men and animals are kin—just theories and wishful thinking.
EMBRYOLOGY is another field of study. This is where unborn embryos are studied in order to detect the preformed shape of humans and animals. This is the field where we find Haeckel talking about “ONTOGENY RECAPITULATES PHYLOGENY” This is the belief that every individual passes through the many evolutionary stages while still in the mother's womb. That is, you body took on the shape of an amoeba, then a paramecium, then a jelly fish, then a fish, then a bunch of other creatures during the nine months prior to your birth. Of course, this theory ignores the fact that respiratory systems develop LATE in the human embryo. So how did early mammal life exist without breathing? They've also ignored the fact that the head of an unborn baby is larger than the body, which is NOT the case with fish.You got that? If Haeckel was mistaken, then all of evolutionary theory must be wrong! Poor Haeckel has been reduced from a transitional figure in the early development of evolutionary theory to creationism's favorite punching bag. He deserves better. By the way, I think that “Sumway” is a reference to Waldo Shumway, the author of a textbook on vertebrate embryology, who was simply pointing out that recapitulation is not part of evolutionary theory. I think the main reason recapitulation is still bruited about is the constant references to it by creationists, who either don't know any better or can't bear to relinquish a false argument.
Professor Waldo Sumway, of Stephens Institute of Technology, says that “There is never a time in the development of a mammal when it could have been mistaken for a fish or reptile.”
Now we come to the wonderful world of TAXONOMY, where cartoon charts are used to artificially classify bones in order to “prove” evolution. This is where evolutionists develop a “disneyland” mentally and construct a chart which shows the earth to be about 4.5 billion years old. Then they proceed to divide this chart up into various time frames containing hundreds of millions of years each. As new discoveries are found, the scientists conveniently place them at selected places on the chart.My previous point about DNA studies suffices to counter this claim, but the DNA research does not stand alone. Scientists in many different fields have constructed the synthesis that provides the framework for today's studies in evolution. Melton can't resist returning to his young Earth argument again, but his claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny. There are “many” scientists who believe in a young Earth? No, there aren't. Their numbers are a tiny fraction of the scientific community. And where would the creationists be without if they couldn't pad their numbers with the engineers who pad their réumés by pretending to be scientists?
This would be a dandy little system, except for one minor problem: THEY'VE NEVER PROVEN THE ORIGINAL CHART! It's nothing more than blind guesswork. No one has ever proven that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. The chart is NOT scientific. In fact, many scientists believe that the earth isn't over 6,000 to 10,000 years old! Of course, all opposing views are ignored by evolutionary scientists, for they need a nice big time period in which to place their new findings. You've heard of people “buying time?” Well, evolutionists just DREAM IT UP.
Another “proof” for evolution is COMPARATIVE ANATOMY, the belief that similar bone structures prove animal kin through evolution. That is, if two different animals have similar bone structures, then they must have evolved from the same original ancestors. Of course, this is more nonsense. Any scientist knows perfectly well that many such bone structures are produced by entirely DIFFERENT GENES, thus proving that they are in NO WAY RELATED! In fact, if similar bone structure proves anything, it proves that these animals were created by the same God!Melton is quick to cite what “any scientist” knows about “many such bone structures,” yet he gives not a single example of either. Interestingly enough, he believes that similar bone structures are evidence of divine intervention, when two alternative explanations are much more parsimonious: (a) common descent and (b) convergent evolution—similar structures shaped by natural selection to adapt to similar circumstances. Scientists do not claim that ichthyosaurs are the ancestors of porpoises, but their aquatic environments shaped both animals similarly.
The sixth argument used to support evolution is the so-called FOSSIL EVIDENCE. The evolutionist believes that the fossil record proves a progressive evolution of the species over millions of years, beginning with non-living matter. This non-living matter supposedly evolves into protozoans, and the protozoans evolve into metazoan invertebrates, which evolve into vertebrate fishes. The fishes evolve into amphibians, which evolve into reptiles, which evolve into birds. The birds then evolve into fur-bearing quadrupeds (animals with 4 legs), and these quadrupeds evolve into apes, and the apes evolve into man.Oh, but this is just sad. Melton's caricature of evolution is trivial to refute, and he promptly does so. Let us help him. No one argues that birds are ancestral to humans. Our friendly creationist also repeats Darwin's concerns about the state of the fossil record nearly 150 years ago as if it is still a valid description of today's situation. Many transitional forms have been uncovered. We'll never find all of them because the fossil record is inherently incomplete, but the reptile-mammal transition and the return of the whale to the sea are now understood in remarkable detail. This, of course, will not deter Mr. Melton, even if he knows about them. He is an exponent of “Gish's Law,” which says that newly discovered transitional fossils do not plug gaps; rather, they create more of them! After all, if you discover that fossil B appears to fit in the gap between fossils A and C, then the one gap between A and C has been transformed into two gaps: one between A and B and another between B and C.
Now for those who actually believe such a fable, we have a question: WHERE ARE THE TRANSITIONAL FORMS? If all of those life forms survived by changing into higher life forms, then would someone please show us one living example of this today? Where can we observe a reptile who is slowly changing into a bird? How about a bird who is turning into a four-legged animal? This is one of the strongest arguments against evolution: NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS. Even Darwin realized this in his “Origin of the Species” when he said that “this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be argued against it.” (Vol. 2, 6th Ed. p. 49)
Melton quickly moves on to deny the possibility of finding transitional fossils (so he must be ignoring those that have been discovered) and then invokes catastrophism and Noah's famous flood.
Yes, it certainly is. The more the fossil record builds, the weaker the theory of evolution becomes, because the needed transitional forms are NOT BEING FOUND to link the species! They never will be found, because the species are NOT LINKED (I Cor. 15:38-39).Is Melton complaining that wooly mammoths are found in the midst of the freezing environments to which they were adapted? I thought he was talking about fossils in incompatible climates. Strange. And it sure is cheeky of mammoths to die and get frozen in the ice. Evolution claims they should live forever, you know.
The evolutionist also runs into another problem when he considers WHERE and HOW many fossils are found. The devout evolutionist subscribes to the belief that things are pretty much the same as always. He believes that there have been no major world catastrophes to wipe out animal life, but that various species have become extinct as a result of failing to adapt to their environment. The problem with this is the stubborn fact that there are many burial sites around the world which are literally paved with fossils! Often times such fossils are found in a totally different climate from that in which they once lived. Mammoths have been found frozen, preserved perfectly in ice in Northern Siberia and Alaska. Many of these are very large and strong animals, which evolutionists claim should have survived and overcame any obstacles. BUT THEY DIDN'T! What happened? Why did they die out? How can evolution explain this? Evolution CAN'T explain it. Evolution IGNORES it. It is explained in Genesis chapters 6, 7 and 8—the Flood.
Before moving on to our next section, a few words should be said about the various "ape men" that have been found and placed neatly on the fictional cartoon chart in standard text books. A few simple cases will be more than enough to show the reader that Anthropology is not without it's humor.And quick-witted creationists jumped up to point out the error! Uh, no. As usual, scientists took care of tidying up their own mistakes. And the mistakes were much less than Mr. Melton imagines. Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man) was not seized upon by scientists as an undeniable human ancestor. In fact, paleontologist Henry Osborn, who looked at the human-like tooth and made the first tentative identification, actually said, “I have not stated that Hesperopithecus was either an Ape-man or in the direct line of human ancestry.” Osborn thought that the tooth belonged to a primate, but was not willing to commit to the notion that it was from a human species. Nebraska man's career lasted only about five years before scientists unraveled the tooth's true origin. Unlike creationists, scientists abandon their hypotheses when they are found wanting.
In 1922, a bunch of bones were found in Nebraska by a man named Harold Cook. After studying the upper and lower jaws and the teeth of some thirty animals, a complete ape known as Ramapithecus was constructed on the basis of ONE TOOTH! Years later, the entire skeleton from which the tooth came was found. It turned out to be an extinct species of pig.
By the way, what was all that stuff Melton was saying about Ramapithecus? He's confusing the story of Nebraska man with an entirely different species. Ramapithecus was discovered in Asia (in northern India). For a time it was considered a probable hominid, but later was classified as related to orang-utans rather than humans. Mr. Melton needs a good fact checker to help him with his essays.
Dr. Eugene Dubois discovered the famous Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus) in 1891. This “great discovery” consisted of a small piece of the top of a skull, a fragment of a left thigh bone, and three molar teeth. But, instead of being found all together, these remains were found in an area of about seventy feet, and they were found over about a year's time. They were also found in an old river bed with other assorted extinct animal bones. This, of course, presents a number of problems for Java Man. How can the “experts” be so sure that these remains all came from the same being? Better yet, how do such bones survive for 750,000 years without decaying? Where's the EVIDENCE to PROVE these theories? We know what the scientists want to believe about these findings, but WHERE'S THE PROOF?The species now known as Homo erectus is represented by many fossils scattered across Africa and Asia. Erectus was a well-traveled and very successful human ancestor, whose reputation does not rest solely on Dubois's original discovery.
Piltdown man was discovered by Charles Dawson in 1912. Dawson claimed to have found some bones, some teeth, and even some primitive implements in a gravel pit in Piltdown, Sussex, England. He took them to a British museum where anthropologists claimed that they were 500,000 years old. Textbooks throughout the world then proclaimed Piltdown Man as the greatest find to date. Then in October of 1956, Reader's Digest EXPOSED this finding as “The Great Piltdown Hoax.” The bones where found to be fraudulent. The jaw bone was proven to have belonged to an ape which had died only FIFTY YEARS before (not 500,000). The teeth had been filed down, and both, teeth and bones, had been discovered with bichromate of potash to cover up their true identity! So much for Piltdown Man.Yes, evolutionists would have gotten away with their little hoax if not for the intrepid reporting of Reader's Digest! Is it too difficult for Melton to discover that the Piltdown hoax was uncovered by scientists in 1953, three years before Reader's Digest got around to writing a story about it?
The so-called Neanderthal Man was discovered around 1900 in a cave in the Neanderthal Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany. Naturally, he was hailed as another great “missing link.” Since that time, it has been proven that Neanderthal wasn't an ape-man at all. He turned out to be a fully erect human being with a cranial capacity of over 13% more than that of normal man. Today, he is classified as “Homo Sapiens” (completely human). The “missing link” is still missing.This is undoubtedly good news for fans of Neanderthal man, who might have been thinking that the name Homo sapiens neanderthalensis relegates him to the status of a subspecies of human being. Some scientists won't even give Neanderthal that much credit and prefer the designation Homo neanderthalensis, considering him to be an entirely distinct species within the genus Homo. Either way, Neanderthal is not exactly considered just plain folks.
I noticed something interesting while checking on Melton's claim about Neanderthal. He apparently cribbed his argument, words and all, from an earlier essay by a fellow names Huse, who in 1983 wrote “Nowadays, Neanderthal Man is classified as Homo sapiens, completely human.” Fortunately, the change in the first word and the parentheses at the end preserve the Reverend Mr. Melton from the sin of plagiarism. Or so he may think.
Finally, we come to Lucy, a 40% skeleton found in Ethiopia by D.C. Johanson in the 70's. Johanson claimed that “Lucy” had walked on two legs, because of the “angle of the thigh bone and the flattened surface at its knee joint” (National Geographic, December, 1976). However, the knee joint was badly crushed; so Johanson's conclusion is mere speculation. Anatomist Charles Oxnard said the “Lucy” did NOT walk upright, at least not in the same manner as humans. The chimpanzee DOES spend some time walking upright, so this was probably just another ape.The Charles Oxnard cited by Mr. Melton is a genuine scientist who published a paper on the bipedalism of Lucy and her species. However, as usual, creationists exaggerate what Oxnard said. As noted by Jim Foley at www.talkorigins.org, “Oxnard also claims that, while probably bipedal, australopithecines did not walk identically to modern humans. Creationists sometimes quote this conclusion in a highly misleading manner, saying Oxnard proved that australopithecines did not walk upright.” At least Melton gives us a fig leaf (“at least not in the same manner as humans”) to cover the embarrassment of his argument. The point is that Lucy was bipedal, not that she went loping along like a modern human.
Now this is the kind of “evidence” which supports evolution. This is what a child is taught in the public school system and in the state universities as “scientific fact.” This is what the Bible labels as “science falsely so called” (I Tim. 6:20).
For his big finish, Melton tries to burnish his Young Earth credentials by single-handedly refuting all of the scientific measures that demonstrate the billions of years of existence of our planet and the universe.
HOW OLD IS THE UNIVERSE?As you can see, Mr. Melton has trouble with the concept of “half life,” skipping merrily from radioactive isotopes to magnetic fields. He thinks that scientists don't pay attention to half-lives, an assertion he makes without any particular evidence. Perhaps he said that because they ignore the creationist argument about magnetic fields. In the middle of it all, Melton mixes in some speculation about the shrinking sun. He cites a creationist scientist (Melvin Cook), calling him a “nominee” for a Nobel prize (not a very meaningful characterization, since being nominated by someone is not the same as being seriously considered for the award); in fact, he was never even nominated. Melton digs up old arguments about dust deposition without realizing they depend on long-discredited estimates of deposition rates.
Evolutionists generally use five different methods in determining the age of matter: salt content in the oceans, deposition of sediments, rate of soil erosion, disintegration of radioactive materials, and Libby's Carbon 14 experiment. Problems can be found with all of these methods, but the biggest problem of all is the method that they've chosen to ignore—the study of Half Lives.
This is where one figures the current rate of decay or deterioration of something and then figures backwards to see how long this process has been going. For example, if one fills his gas tank up with gas and drives for 100 miles, you can figure that he's driven 100 miles if you know how may miles his car will travel per gallon.
The dating of matter works the same way, except in science this is called the study of Half Lives. Evolutionists tend to steer away from this field of study, for it is very capable of demolishing their religious conviction that the universe and the earth is billions of years old. Let's look at a few examples:
The sun is continuously burning out at a rate of 5 feet per hour. This means that the sun would have been TWICE the size that it is now only 100,000 years ago! Only 20,000,000 years ago, the sun would have been so large that it would be touching the earth! Yet evolutionists insist that the universe, including the sun, is billions of years old.
Because of meteors and meteorites, interplanetary dust falls upon the earth at a rate of at least 14 million tons per year. The evolutionists claim that the earth, the moon, and the various planets are at least 4.5 billion years old. This means that there should be a layer of space dust on the moon over 500 feet thick. However, when the astronauts landed on the moon, LESS THAN THREE INCHES of dust were found. Three inches could have accumulated in less than 8000 years.
Radioactive helium is generated by decaying uranium atoms. Dr. Melvin Cook, a former Nobel-prize nominee, says that this helium is constantly being released into our atmosphere, and that there are currently about a million-billion grams of this helium in our atmosphere. Yet, this is a very small number compared to what it would be if the earth were over 4.5 billion years old. According to Cook's measurements, the earth can't be over 10,000 to 15,000 years old.
The half life of the earth's magnetic field is believed to be less than 1400 years. That is, 1400 years ago, the earth's magnetic field would have been twice as strong as it is today. Only 10,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field as strong as the sun! WHO KNOWS what it would have been like 4.5 billion years ago!?
You see, these are the things that are commonly ignored by “serious scientists.” The theory of evolution is an UNSCIENTIFIC theory, which is made up of blind guesswork and outright lying. It cannot be proven by the scientific laws of observation and experimentation. Darwin's theory is nothing more than a religious faith for high-minded people who think they're too smart for God. The Lord Jesus Christ was a Creationist (Matt. 19:4; Mark 13:19), and when we compare His life work to the life work of Darwin and his followers, we find a much better Way in Jesus Christ and in the written word of God.Evolution is unscientific because creationists say so. That's really all they have, since their evidentiary offerings are so paltry.
What a mess all of this has been! Yet even a non-biologist, with just a bit of diligence and discernment, can knock over these flimsy creationist arguments. Mr. Melton's essay is a nice example of its species: a cobbled-together paste-up of hoary arguments—many long known to be false—sprinkled with misinterpretations as well as outright errors of fact.
Will Mr. Melton repent of the error of his ways? Unfortunately, creationists rarely do.