Worst Evolution Video Ever?
I came across a video of Kirk Cameron (yes, that Kirk Cameron) and Ray Comfort. Together, they produce videos and run a distasteful evangelical website called The Way of the Master, which sounds suspicously like a bad Kung Fu movie.
Now I’m not trying to succumb to hyperbole, but the video just might be the worst video on evolution I’ve ever seen. It is both humerously bad, but more than that, it’s deceitful, filled with outright lies.
Their idea of showing evolution to be a weak and unfounded theory is to go out and interview people on the street who support the theory, but aren’t educated in it. They splice up the clips to make people look their dumbest and with a straight face present these people as representative of anyone who would accept evolution. As Ed Brayton puts it,
This is a bit like going to an art school and asking them how the internal combustion engine works, edit it down to all the responses where people say things about it based on ignorance, and then saying, “See, it should be obvious that the internal combustion engine is impossible.”
The video only gets worse when they attempt to prove that humans couldn’t have evolved from apes by taking an orangutang to a restaurant and showing that he can’t order off a menu or behave logically. Then they call airlines to see if they can buy a ticket for the ape, and triumphantly declare evolution as impossible when the airlines refuse to sell them a ticket.
But my blood boils when they start telling 100%, verifiable, absolute lies.
Lucy? They tell us that all experts agree she was a 3 foot chimpanzee. An absolute lie. If by expert they mean anthropoligists who study these things, then they can’t find a single person who believes this, much less the entire field of anthropology.
Neanderthals? A old man with arthritis. A complete fallacy.
They quoted Sir Arthur Keith, a British anthropologist as saying in a forward to the 100th anniversary of On the Origin of Species:
Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable.
The whole thing’s a lie, a quote the man never said. He died four years prior to the 100 year anniversary of The Origin.
Perhaps I am dangerously naive and idealistic. I could have sworn that Christians were supposed to be people who actually cared about the truth. If these people need to make a video that advocates for a literal reading of Genesis, a young earth, etc, then they should do it honestly. They should honestly say that they believe in a literal reading of Genesis as a matter of faith.
The logical consequence of that of course is saying that our evidence for an old universe, old earth, and evolution are not trustworthy — that the evidence itself is something built into the fabric of life giving the appearance as something it’s not. I would clearly disagree with that position and speak out against it, but at the very least it is an honest proclamation of their faith.
As is it now, these people are contemptible. There’s no dancing around what they’ve done. When 30 seconds of googling can demonstrate that they’re lying, they have not put forth even the most basic of efforts to care about the truth.
In the video, they ask people if they’ve ever broken any of the 10 commandments. It’s their beautiful way of telling people they deserve death and should burn in hell, unless of course they renounce evolution and come to know Jesus Christ as Kirk and Ray assuredly sell him.
For people who like using the Bible as their code of ethics, they should know precisely what the Christian position on lying is.
Don’t do it.
(and a hattip is due Ed Brayton, from whom I found the video)
Hi, I just noticed that you were wanting to hear of what “experts” made such claims about Lucy and Neandertal man. One such person is David Raup, a renowned paleontologist. You can find his statments on both Lucy and Neandertal man in the following primary source as cited:
David M. Raup, “Evolution and the Fossil Record,” Science, vol. 213, July 1981, 289.
Here is some information on Raup:
David M. Raup is a University of Chicago paleontologist. Raup studied the fossil record and the diversity of life on Earth. Raup contributed to the knowledge of extinction events along with his colleague Jack Sepkoski. They suggested that the extinction of dinosaurs 65 mya was part of a cycle of mass extinctions that may have occurred every 26 million years.
In addition to his time at the University of Chicago, Raup has taught at Caltech, Johns Hopkins, and the University of Rochester. He was also a curator and Dean of Science at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago as well as a visiting professor in Germany at Tübingen and on the faculty of the College of the Virgin Islands. Raup was heavily involved through his career in joint programs with biology and in promoting training of paleontologists in modern marine environments. In 1994, he retired to Washington Island in northern Lake Michigan. Currently, he assists the Santa Fe Institute to develop methods and approaches to dealing with the evolutionary exploration of morphospace.
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Raup
Ok Chelsea, but I don’t see your point. The issue was Lucy being a 3 foot tall chimpanzee and Neanderthals being an old man with arthritis. Both are complete and total lies. Are you saying David Raup believes this and has made such statements? I highly doubt it. If so, some solid sources are in order.
Yes, I am saying that David Raup made such statements regarding both Lucy and Neandertal man. I’m sorry if I did not make this clear in my previous remark. As for your inquiry into the source, I made sure to cite it. (David M. Raup, “Evolution and the Fossil Record,” Science, vol. 213, July 1981, 289.)
The articles in Science available online through my school go back to 1983… While I could hop in the car and drive down to the library for the article, I’ve already seen David Raup quoted-mined far and wide across the internet.
If you can quote the exact phrases in this artilce that show Raup believed that 1) Homo neanderthalensis was an old man with arthritis and 2) that Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) was a “chimpanzee”, I’ll go pull up the article at the library myself to read it over.
I do know that very briefly after the discovery of the first Neandertal fossil, it was believed that it was a modern human that was just an “old man.” But this belief has been put to rest over 100 years ago, and with over 400 specimens today, I don’t think any anthropologist buys into it. There is of course disagreement on how to classify Neandertals. Were they a truly seperate species? Or best considered a subspecies of H. sapiens? As this is not my field, I don’t have any opinion on that myself, though I get the sense that they are classified most often as H. neanderthalensis.
As for the claim that Lucy was just a chimpanzee… This I know to be untrue. The position of the foramen magnum — the large hole on the bottom of the skull through which the spinal cord passes — is directly underneath the skull, entirely consistent with bipedal movement. In chimpanzees, its at a clear angle, because they’re “knuckle walkers.”
In short, I am completely skeptical of your claim that Raup thought Lucy was just a chimpanzee, and I challenge you to prove me wrong.
I just stumbled about this site because I’m looking for another Raup quote which in my opinion is cited completely out of context. I looked up the cited article (D.M. Raup, Science (1981) 213: 289), it’s only a 1.5 column letter and it doesn’t contain any of the following words: chimpanzee, Lucy, Neanderthal man.
In contrast, it starts with “As the evolution-creation debate heats up, the amount of misinformation passed back and forth increases.” Fits quite well, I think. And then Raup discusses whether geochronology is dependent on evolutionary theory and concludes: “So, the geological time scale and the basic facts of biological change over time are totally independent of evolutionary theory. It follows that the documentation of evolution does not depend on Darwinian theory or any other theory. Darwinian theory is just one of several biological mechanisms proposed to explain the evolution we observe to have happened.” He goes on: “In the fossil record, we are faced with many sequences of change: modifications over time from A to B to C to D can be documented and plausible Darwinian interpretation can often be made after seeing the sequence.”
Maybe D. M. Raup made statements about Lucy and Neanderthals elsewhere but certainly not in the cited article.
Regards, Sabine
Just stumbled across this post looking for info about the video — you didn’t mention my favorite obvious lie. Kirk and/or Ray baldly state that evolution can’t be true because “transitional forms” would have to exist in order for the theory to make sense, and in the entire history of paleontology, no transitional form has ever been discovered. Of course, “transitional forms” are discovered all the time, and really, every fossil is a transitional form from some species to some other species. I was floored when I heard that one.
“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable.”
This quote seems quite reasonable to me.
The whole theory of evolution totally disregards two fundamental principles of science. Namely, scientific knowledge is acquired through the processes of observation and experimentation.
First, let me qualify what I mean by the theory of evolution. Microevolution occurs when changes in the genetic frequencies, etc. of a population occur. Hence antibiotic resistant bacteria survive because the genes which made them resistant were already present in their gene pool. If they did not have the genes they would not survive! The same applies to roaches, finches, etc.
Macroevolution is evolution that assumes a transition from one species to different species (i.e. the theory that supposes that all life originated from one cell that evolved into other living things and those evolved and so on, until humans, etc.)
Macroevolution clearly violates both scientific principles because no one has ever observed one species evolving into another. Nor can they ever because the process can NEVER be replicated. Scientists have never been able to produce a living cell from non-living things (Miller-Urey’s experiment done in the 1950’s was done in a controlled environment instead of a “natural” one and NO CELLS were ever produced).
In addition, fossils cannot be used to provide evidence for evolution. The fossils were discovered out of their natural context and their origins are subject to interpretation. Those interpretations are constantly being changed (as we can see by the recurring news that scientists now claim that such and such a fossil is now 10 million years old instead of the 5 million as originally thought).
All scientific theories, hypotheses and information are supposed to be subject to analysis, reasoned criticism and questions. Evolution should be no different. Put aside the assumption that evolution must be true. Look at the evidence for evolution from several different perspevtives (i.e. a scientist, detective, lawyer, etc). Can it stand up in a court of law? Test the evidence to see if it makes sense and if it meets the criteria for good scientific work. My assessment gives it a failing grade. How about yours? What do you have to lose?
Check this source out:
Yet Evolution has not been proved. Sir Arthur Keith, a famous British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist, confesses, “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.” In fact, it seems that the Theory of Evolution is contrary to established science. George Wald, another prominent Evolutionist (a Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate), wrote, “When it comes to the Origin of Life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!” (”The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191:48, May 1954).
Cherryann - I appreciate that you did a bit more digging than the ‘Way of the Master’ producers did , but your ‘research’ is misleading. While the theory of ’spontaneous generation’ has indeed been disproven, this in no way relates to evolutionary theory (google spontaneous generation).
Because it relies on a ’supernatural’ force, science cannot disprove creationism (or anything else that is faith-based). What it can comment on is natural physical processes. Both macro and microevolution are within these limits, although the former by its very nature is more difficult to verify by the rigorous standards set. Faith by definition is something that can’t be proven, so it defies any rational (read scientific) explaination. Science talks only in terms that can be verified and scrutinized. Why is it that creationists are allowed to support their claims with something that isn’t testable while scientists test, retest, publish, verify, falsify, retest, publish….etc. and then have to anwer to a public that conveniently misinterprets their data to maintain their own beliefs?
A big problem is that many people don’t seem to invest the time it takes to understand what science is and why evolution is considered highly plausible. I’m not trying to be elitest here; I have been interested in this topic for quite some time now and am embarrassed by the little that I have actually retained. To understand the science behind the evidence for evolution takes an investment into learning about the scientific method itself. One thing science doesn’t deal in is absolutes. Doubt is a key ingredient in the scientific processes, and that is something that faith-led people (who ironically posses a great deal of certainty) have a hard time accepting.
“When it comes to the Origin of Life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation.”
Not really. Abiogensis isn’t spontanous generation. The evolution of very simple life form from non living material isn’t the same as the belief that flys’ were created from slabs of rotting meat. Clearly you lack understanding of science.
Chris- Simple? To postulate that prokaryotes, with their cytoplasmic membranes, able to reproduce through the complex process of mitosis, accurately replicating their chromasomes, is indeed to propose spontaneous generation.
While I realize this is an old post, I had to comment on two creationist lies being further spread by “Cherryann” above: they’re complete bull.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote81
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote57
“Look at the evidence for evolution from several different perspevtives (i.e. a scientist, detective, lawyer, etc). Can it stand up in a court of law? Test the evidence to see if it makes sense and if it meets the criteria for good scientific work. My assessment gives it a failing grade. How about yours? What do you have to lose?”
Actually DNA evidence is now key in many cases in courts. So we can actually trace a person’s ancestry using DNA and it’s been proven to work time and time again. If someone is your mother or grandmother or sister or distant cousin, then DNA evidence will prove it. Now if that’s the case, then lets take this to court and test chimp DNA to see if there’s any common ancestry with humans in general. You’d find that they are nearly identical and much closer than any other species out there, so that alone could prove that they are our very very distant cousins. If DNA evidence works for common ancestry in humans, why should it not work for common ancestry for all animals? That’s just part of the proof too. Often in court you also need to provide bones of the deceased. Well again, we have found thousands of fossilized pre-humans, some that look closer to being human while others are closer to being ape-like. These fossils appear at a certain level in sentiments representing millions of years. This can be proven using various dating methods too. Just like with CSI that can be used to find the time of death, they have found many ways of dating fossils. So now you have bones and DNA that both conform to evolutionary theory. If that’s not enough just use simple mathematics and biological chemistry. Everytime a person is born, test how much micro-evolution (what creationists will admit) or in other words mutation has occured and do this in many different people getting an average of how much mutation occurs at each birth. It’s about 0.001%… now times that by 500,000 generations (or roughly the amount over 3 million years) to see how much genetic drift would happen. They’ve done this too and the dates of how much mutation has occured since humans were descended from an ape-like ancestor match the dating of the fossil record. Why do creationists ignore the incredible amount of evidence and then tell people lies that there is none at all? It is YOUR argument that would fail in court because your only evidence would be the bible and trying desperately to poke holes in the evidence provided by the opposition.
After all this said, evolution doesn’t disprove God at all. It disproves the “young Earth” theory, unless as stated before all this evidence is an elaborate hoax by the creator. Then that would make God himself the one who fooled scientists into accepting evolutionary theory because he’s the one who’s left evidence in DNA and fossils. Besides, if God is trully intelligent creator then I’d say evolution would have been the best way of creating us anyway. It allows our biological systems to utilize the environment to its full extent and we’re more robust than any machine that we’ve created to this day. I mean do you think it would make more sense for this giant old man with a white beard to sit down on this planet creating animals and humans from clay like some kid in a sandbox? No if anything, I’d say our creation started at the big bang when the universal laws were put in place that allow evolution to take place in the right environments. Since the origin of the universe’s laws cannot be proven by science, then why not start there as to what God created?