New Scientist, Old Darwinian propaganda

Last week’s New Scientist carried a feature on evolution with a front cover illustration of a multi component animal (sorry I can’t show it) that represented a fish turning into a man. The tail was fishy and still in the water, the body made up of several parts from different animals, the head of a lemur and a human hand holding on to a branch. Evolutionists have always made much use of animations; they have to, especially when brainwashing children, because of the lack of evidence for the things they assert. Visual aids to help us overcome our natural scepticism when told to believe in things we can't see.

The article was supposed to be about how new evidence showed that evolution could occur much faster than was previously thought. Evolution (for example, reptiles changing into birds, fish changing onto amphibians etc) as you will recall, has to be deemed to have taken place over very long periods of time since it can’t be observed during recorded human history. But the item didn’t offer anything new, just more spin, and not even original spin, on old stories. Was the ridiculous evolutionary chimera artwork (reminiscent of the designs on the pillar at the Darwin Temple (sorry, Natural History Museum) on the front cover triumphalism, or nervousness?

A look inside at the article revealed a re-hashed mix up of several familiar tales. Peppered moths, spiny sticklebacks, ‘Darwin’s’ finches…..minor cyclical changes due to shuffling previously existing alleles. There were more animations depicting animals morphing onto completely different animals, like what we don’t observe in the real world. Walt Disney (I think) was right when he said ‘if its possible, it isn’t animation’.

Yet again, the oldest trick in the Darwinists’ book, going right back to the master of sophistry and non sequitur himself-taking minor cyclical variations within a species and calling them evolution. Fraud and fiddling. Still, people continue to be taken in by it. If we are going to call minor cyclical changes such as colour in the peppered moth or beak size and shape in Galapagos finches evolution, we need a different term for the supposed (and unobserved) process whereby animals and plants (having spontaneously emerged from non-life without a designer) change into completely different animals and plants by information-adding mutations, like the ones that don’t occur except in the imaginations of Evolutionists. Which takes us back to animations and art work. Anything is possible if you will only believe.