Sunday, 10 November 2013

More BBC disinformation, hype and lies about evolution

At the airport on my way to a professional conference I picked up a BBC Science and Technology Focus magazine as it had a bold evolutionist cover and several inside stories. On the front page under a bold headline ‘THE FUTURE OF US’ was the legend ‘how evolution will conquer disease, boost intelligence and prepare us for space travel.’ Bold claims, I thought, let’s see what substance there is to them. As it turned out, it was very much the usual.

 Nick Bostrom, director of the Future of Humanity Institute at the university of Oxford stated ‘ I think the rate of human evolution is faster than perhaps at any other time in the past.’ What evidence did he offer to support this bold assertion? Guess.

Lactose intolerance, that’s what. Being able to get food from milking cattle amounts to a great evolutionary leap forward. Never mind that lactose intolerant people can still digest milk reasonably well even if with some flatulence and can also evidently develop civilisations without dairy produce. Pretty pathetic in view of the bold assertion that 'evolution will conquer disease'.
 Is this all? No, the item also cited , wait for it, sickle cell disease.   

Sickle cell disease. Unbelievable.

In this DISEASE, a mutation leads to an inefficiently constructed protein (haemoglobin) which makes deformed red blood cells that clump in the arteries causing painful infarction and sometimes premature  death. Oh but it also confers limited resistance to malaria. Oddly enough, there was no reference to professor Michael Behe’s discussion on this particular issue in his book ‘Edge of Evolution’ in which he showed that sickle cell gene versus malaria was an excellent example of a ‘blunted or broken gene’ conferring limited situational benefit at heavy cost, and that this appeared to exemplify the most that Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms could do.

And this is used as 'evidence' to support the claim that 'evolution will conquer disease'. How absolutely pathetic.

Oh, and Craig Venter, he of the ‘life created in a laboratory ‘ hype, suggested that we could modify humans with the DNA of bacteria which are resistant to radiation to fit them better for space travel. The idea sounds as implausible and dangerous as it is unnecessary, but even if it could be achieved it would be, like Venter’s exploits with Chlamydia, intelligent design, not evolution.

The rest of the article is padded out by tired repetitions of the usual banal evolutionist drivel such as the speculation that peacocks tails are as long as they are because long tails are more attractive to females, but no longer as then they would be easier for foxes to catch. So whether the tails are short or long, bright or dull, pretty or ugly, its due to evolution.

It was speculated that ‘We might soon be able to enhance complex body parts like the human eye’. Maybe so, we can already enhance the eye when it goes wrong to some extent e.g. with spectacles and lens implants, but once again that is intelligent design, not evolution, and thousands of orders of magnitudes simpler than making the eye in the first place. Cave fish have lost sight through atrophy, but it has never been seen to arise.

The front page assertion (see photo) that ‘Evolution will conquer disease’ is an absolute total lie and is not supported by a single fact or argument in the item. I’ll say it again, this is not simple misinformation or hyperbole, it is a LIE, something stated as fact while known to be untrue.

I have noted before that if evolutionists had a better example of a beneficial mutation than sickle cell disease they would use it. I don’t know which is more shocking, to see a very nasty disease trotted out as an example of how natural selection is creating better organisms or to see people so easily fooled they let the BBC get away with it. They won’t even acknowledge that there are educated people bringing rational science based criticisms against the theory.

 The piece ends with the paragraph

 ‘And when you can speculate, why not imagine a future where humans have uploaded their brains to computers, effectively making evolution-and biology-obsolete? Nick Bostrom does.’

Note the use of the beloved Darwinian terms ‘Speculate’ and ‘Imagine’. Who pays Nick Bostrom to sit there imagining bizarre fantasy scenarios and calling it science? I read a sci-fi short story about people uploading their brains to computers 30 years ago, it was called ‘Atrophy’, I forget the author’s name. It didn’t sound a very nice prospect, but in any event the prospect is beyond laughable given the extreme organised complexity of the brain and the pronounced tendency of computers to go wrong, wear out, break down or be hacked.  The biggest computers in the world don’t even come close. Is there no limit to these so called scientists’ arrogant triumphalism?

Incidentally, I assume that Bostrom cannot have read C S Lewis's fantasy horror novel 'That Hideous Strength' in which a human brain is (apparently) preserved by scientific means after being severed from the body. The chief scientist involved, Filostrato, envisages a future in which men will have developed beyond the need for a body. I won't spoil the plot with any more detail but the scenario that Lewis imagines is not pretty.

That this sort of ‘not even wrong’ daydreaming and propaganda is uncritically published as science in the BBC science journal as public education demonstrates the sacred status of evolutionist dogma. It truly is an evidence free zone where the normal rules of questioning and falsification do not apply. No wonder evolutionists avoid debates with educated Darwin dissenters and the BBC never interviews intelligent design advocates or creationists.

I'll tell Bostrom and the BBC something about 'The Future of Humanity'. Jesus Christ is returning, bringing His rewards and judgments with Him. Better be ready. Materialists mislead us about our past so they can mislead us about our future. We are going to meet our Maker and it might be, probably will be, much sooner than we think. Then we will answer for what we have done and what we have failed to do. Read Matthew's Gospel chapter 24-25, read the letter of Jude, read the book of Revelation.
Theistic evolutionists, repent. Colossians 2.8 says 'Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.'
If evolutionism was good science supported by evidence we Christ-honouring, bible believing Christians would have to modify or adapt our understanding of our faith accordingly (as with Galileo and geocentricism). But it isn't, so we don't. The relentless propaganda tactics and hyperbole used by the BBC-just look up sickle cell disease and ask yourself if this process could build a man from a bacillus over however much time- show how weak Evolutionism is as science and why it has to be protected from honest criticism.


No comments:

Post a Comment

feel free to comment, good manners and lucidity are appreciated.