On November 13, 2007 PBS had a Nova special, "Judgement Day-Intelligent Design on Trial", about a debate and court case in Dover, Pennsylvania involving a battle between believers in intelligent design and believers in evolution at Dover Area High School. The school board was attempting to show that Darwinian evolution was not a lock, and other ideas should be presented to the students. The ID'ers were strongly opposed by evolution believers, who wanted all theories beside evolution to be kept out of school books, and completely out of discussion in science classes. The thing that still amazes me is why can't evolution believers allow alternate ideas to be presented in classrooms? At the very least the evidence that Darwin was wrong should be presented, as there is a massive amount of that. What kind of science is this? Good science requires that all possible theories be studied. The best theories will stand on their own due to good logic and physical evidence. The bad theories will fall by the wayside. The fact is that the evidence for intelligence in nature is overwhelming. Hearts, eyes, and the entire human system (or ANY animal or plant system) cannot be recreated by the greatest minds and engineering firms in the world. Not even close. It is apparent that they will never be able to. So there is the evidence for intelligence. But where is the agent that formed life on earth? Not findable by science, and it is apparent that scientifically, we will never figure this one out. But the evidence for intelligence is overwhelming, and not non-existent like evolutionists would have you believe.
Opposing "intelligence" was Darwinian evolution. In reality, there is no evidence for Darwin's ideas, but the evolutionists pretend that anything they find is evidence. Zero fossils over millions of years of any single specie show the kind of evolution that could form hearts and eyes, nor the kind of evolution that could change one specie into another. No species are currently forming new organs or new anything; supposedly that ended millions of years ago. Evolution scientists try to make you think that a moth that changes color, or a bacteria that becomes drug-resistant is a good example of current evolution, and the followers swoon. Evolution is the greatest example of group psychology imaginable. Believers in evolution throw logic out the window. The psychology of this fake science is really far more interesting than the theory itself. True objective science is non-existent in the world of evolution believers. The case at Dover is the perfect example. Here are a few examples:
(1) A poster showing the steps in human evolution was painted by a student and hung in one of the biology classrooms. The poster was a beautiful work of art, and I’m sure done with great sincerity. The student is obviously a talented artist. It is a shame that the anti-evolutionists did such a dumb thing destroying it. However, that series of evolving man is non-existent in science or the fossil record. The artist copied a drawing that was the complete figment of the imagination of an evolution “scientist”. This unscientific drawing has been, and still is, printed in millions of textbooks and taught as if it is true science. Why don’t we see the same series for elephants and bears? This same series of fossils should certainly exist for them, as well as millions of other species. It doesn’t. Why don’t evolutions believers even question that fact, instead of sweeping it under the rug and playing pretend? To repeat an article in another section of this blog: WASHINGTON AP 8/13/07— Surprising fossils dug up in Africa are creating messy kinks in the iconic straight line of human evolution with its knuckle-dragging ape and briefcase-carrying man. The new research by famed paleontologist Meave Leakey in Kenya shows our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches. The old theory was that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo Habilis evolved into Homo Erectus, which then became us, Homo Sapiens. But those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years, Leakey and colleagues report in a paper published in Thursday's journal London. The two species lived near each other, but probably didn't interact with each other, each having their own "ecological niche," Spoor said. Another evolutionary “Ouch!”.
(2) Tiktaalic is a fossil found recently in northern Canada which is a wide-mouthed fish-like animal with fin bones similar to quadruped animal limbs. This fossil was brought up in the trial as a great example of a transitional species between fish and land animals. The news of this find caused great swooning in the world of evolution. The only problem is that scientists studying the fossil found that this “fishigator” could not support itself on its limbs, and could not have ventured out of water. It didn’t walk. Also, it had eight "fingers" and "toes". It must have "dis-evolved" three? Of course these facts were not brought up in the trial, nor on the Nova program. If Darwinian evolution were real, there should be “fishigators” all over the place both in fossil form and in currently evolving species. Finding one oddball fossil in northern Canada is meaningless. And, isn't it amazing how quickly it is assigned to a major branch on the evolutionary tree? This is really science at its worst.
(3) In his testimony, Michael Behe brought up the fact that “irreducibly complexity” of a plethora of animal organs makes evolution not possible. His example was the rotating flagellum of bacteria. This was truly a fascinating part of the program. A small super miniature motor made up of twenty to forty protein molecules rotates a corkscrew-shaped flagellum, allowing the bacteria to travel. The “engine” looks much like a jet engine of today. To think that this “motor” appeared before there was such a thing as a turbine motor anywhere on the planet earth is simply mind boggling. Dr. Behe’s testimony was countered by Dr. David DeRosier from Brandeis University who showed a bacterial injector with a needle mechanism. By removing ten or so proteins from the motor-flagellum system, the injector looks quite similar to the motorized flagellum. The difference is that the “needle” is, of course, hollow, and straight. Dr. DeRosier felt that the needle mechanism is simpler but similar to the motor flagellum, and therefore a step in the evolution of the motor system, proving that irreducible complexity is wrong. In the reenactment, Dr. Behe simply slumped, as if his irreducible complexity idea had collapsed. I can’t believe that in the actual trial Dr. Behe collapsed the way the court re-enactment showed. What the evolutionists proved was that Dr. Behe is absolutely correct. Dr. Behe should have said, “OK, if the injector is a step in the evolution toward the motor, please show me any possible steps in that evolution. Also, how about showing me any possible steps in the evolution of the injector.” Adding one missing protein, or two, or three to the injector would make the injector no closer to a being motor. They would be useless additions until all of the missing proteins are added. Once the proteins were added, the needle would have to evolve into a corkscrew, and close the opening that made it a needle. There are absolutely no possible intermediate steps from injector to motor. Further, removing any single part from the injector would render it completely useless. Remove the needle and what would you have? Nothing; a mini-tumor. Early on, when the needle was short, if it did evolve, it would again be useless, as it would be unable to penetrate the outer cell wall of a specie that it is attacking. It would be useless until it could; a useless miniature tumor. If the base mechanism was missing, of course the “needle” would be unsupported and worthless. If Dr. Behe thought one more level, he could have clobbered the evolutionists. Dr. Behe used a mouse trap as an example of IC. Removing any one part would render it useless as a mouse trap. A pro-evolution witness removed the "trigger", and used it as a tie holder supposedly showing IC to be wrong. Again, wishful "evidence" by the evolutionists. For that matter, you could remove all the metal parts and use the wood base as a bookmark, or kindling for a fire. The "tie holder" example is an example of nothing, and does not at all disprove IC. Think about an eye without a retina, or optic nerve. Would that make a good tie holder, or a good anything? Dr. Behe's thinking on irreducible complexity is really right on the mark, and not disproved at all by the ridiculous negative evidence provided by the evolutionists.
(4)The evolutionists brought up the fact that apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, while humans have 23. This would seem to make the evolutionary connection between humans and apes not possible. Then scientists found that two of the human chromosomes were joined like conjoined twins, making the true human total more similar to that of the apes’. Evolutionists were ecstatic, as if this was just one more piece of evidence that humans evolved from early apes. Have any evolutionists ever taken a course in Logic 1? Here would be possible test question:
1. Homo Sapiens have 23 chromosomes with two joined. Apes have 24. From this we can deduce that:
A. Apes evolved into Homo Sapiens.
B Apes and Homo Sapiens have closely similar chromosomes, and therefore would be expected to be biologically similar.
C. Apes evolved from Homo Sapiens, since they have 24 chromosomes while Homo Sapiens have only 23.5.
The worst choice would be A.
(5) The pro-evolution side presented a spelling error in an early manuscripts of the anti-evolution textbook “Of Pandas and Man” to show that intelligent design is really creationism in disguise. This “evidence of a conspiracy” is beyond absurd. The misspelled “cdesign proponentsists” in the manuscript came from the writer attempting to substitute “intelligence proponents” for the word “creationists”. There are many people that are not religious but believe that nature has some kind of intelligence that is beyond anything we can comprehend at this time. This kind of thinking started way before the Bible was a book, and can be traced back to writings of Plato and Aristotle. Albert Einstein was a believer in an intelligent universe. Believing in an “intelligent universe” has nothing to do with Biblical creationism, Adam and Eve, and a 4,000 year old earth. Because both ID’ers and Biblical Creationists think that Darwinian evolution is nothing more than fake science, pro-evolutionists try, disingenuously, to lump both together in an attempt to make both look foolish. In doing so, they make themselves look like uneducated fools. And because one creationist writer substituted intelligence for creationism does not at all mean that the two different viewpoints are connected, or that there is a conspiracy to disguise ID as Creationism. They are both allied against evolution, but they are not one and the same. And those that think they are need to take that Logic 1 class mentioned above.
(6) Vertical lines were displayed in a segment showing how IDers feel the biological timeline for the existence of different species should look. Species appeared then most went extinct. They were shown as straight lines in time, with different species starting at different times, instead of the tree with connected branches as visualized by Darwin. As each line was shown, a little "bing" sound and lighted cross was added to the beginning of the line. Of course this makes the ID timeline look silly. In reality, that is exactly how the appearance and extinction of species looks. All species appeared, with no precursors gradually evolving into that specie. This is also absolutely the case today, which seems very strange. There are precursor species for humans, according to evolutionists, but there are no precursors for modern animals. Where are the posters showing the evolution of elephants and bears? They don’t exist because no precursor fossils have been found. Nova then added links to put the lines together and form a “tree” to show how it “really” happened. The links were: “tiktaalik” for quadrapeds, with its eight “fingers” and lack of ability to walk, making it not a transition at all; and archeoptryx, for birds, with no precursors or “post-cursors” showing it evolving to birds. Archeoptryx also had a rather vicious set of teeth, which had to dis-evolve, then the toothless bird had to evolve beaks. You would think that some very interesting fossil birds with some sort of beak/tooth system would be dug up, but of course, none have been. Also, Darwin’s tree was completely incorrect, as it didn’t account for the massive Cambrian explosion when 95% of species appeared. The tree was just another cartoon image like the “evolution of man” cartoons.
(7) Possibly the most ridiculous part of this Nova was the last, where scenes were shown of vaccines, and other medical procedures which the announcer credited to the study of Darwinian evolution. Nova was actually inferring that discontinuing the study of evolution could damage or terminate the many "modern miracle" medical advances that were brought about by Charles Darwin's theory. This is nothing more than fear mongering at its worst. In reality, zero advances in anything have been brought about by this flawed theory. The study of the origin of species is really for a relatively few interested persons, (like me) and nothing else. Actually, very few people even think about it at all after finishing their school studies. The subject is not as all out important as evolutionists and creationists would have you think.