On 3 September I asked CMI's Calvin Smith the following by a wide circulation email (they block me from making any comments under their actual articles):
"Below are 10 instances where the biblical creation based explanation of the observations were so much more reasonable than the previous evolutionary ones that evolutionists have actually adopted the creationist explanation to a great degree (even though they still hold to evolution)."
What the liar Smith means is that 'evolutionists' are REFUSING to fully embrace biblical creation based 'explanations' as more 'reasonable' but are refusing to do so for no valid scientific reason. But can he show this is the case? NO.
(1) "At one time any mention of catastrophism pertaining to geologic processes was mocked and ridiculed as religious and unscientific in the mainstream geologic community, which almost unanimously conformed to Charles Lyell’s uniformitarian views". Young earth creationist ideologues like Smith reject ALL uniformitarianism because this disproves a 'young' Earth. Scientists have simply accepted SOME catastrophism. But they reject a 'recent global flood' because there is NO evidence for it whatsoever.
(2) "So evolutionists now accept the creationist position that fossils can form quickly." So what? The ones in question still formed quickly a very very long time ago.
(3) "The long held evolutionary belief that because all living things supposedly have the same genetic code we are all linked back to one original life form has been shattered by recent research however." This - alluded to by evolutionist Craig Venter in the quoted exchange with evolutionist Paul Davies - is hardly earth shattering or a falsification of the so-called universal or standard genetic code within life on Earth. According to Wikipedia, researchers have uncovered slight variations of the code within human and other mitochondrial (not nuclear) genes, as well as variations such as the translation of the codon UGA as tryptophan in various mycoplasma bacterial species and the translation of CUG as a serine rather than a leucine in some yeasts such as Candida albicans.
And in the world of liar Smith these two diagrams presumably show the 'same' thing ie in the latter diagram 'evolutionists' have now 'adopted' the creationist 'explanation' shown in the former diagram:https://www.pinterest.com/pin/353391901983280146/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_(biology
[second link appears to now be broken - but see the diagram at 'The Tree of Life today' here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_(biology
(4) "Rapid speciation has recently been observed in different varieties of mosquitoes, mice, daisies, flies, finches, finches, lizards, butterflies and many other creatures." Maybe. But NOT so rapid that in the words of Smith "approximately 8,000 ... kinds of creatures that were on board Noah’s Ark [less than 5,000 years ago] could account for the millions of species we see around the world today". That is utter fiction. And if that is also the 'creationist position' that Smith is referring to, which it assuredly is, then NO - evolutionists have NOT 'conceded' it. Because it is utter fiction and make-believe (and not even biblical since Genesis speaks of animals multiplying as they spread across the Earth rather than rapidly changing into similar but different new species that would no longer interbreed).
(5) "Once again the evolutionists have adopted the creationist’s position, insofar that they now concede that the vast majority of the human genome isn’t ‘junk’." The ENCODE Project team suggested that about 80% of DNA (not 100%) has a biochemical function; other scientists dispute this saying that just because a piece of DNA has biological activity that does not demonstrate that it has an important function in a cell.
(6) "'Vestigial' organs have function." In the world of Calvin Smith that is reason enough for a Christian or non-Christian to immediately embrace young earth creationism.
(7) Smith is attacking one of young earth creationism's favourite bogeyman, Ernst Haeckel - who of course is not around to defend himself. Smith should of course know that although SOME other human species once existed but they are all now extinct, evolutionary theory does not preclude the possibility that some of them might still have been around at the start of the 20th century. The idea that because we now know that this is not the case, therefore scientists should reject evolution and embrace young earth creationism instead is laughable. And whilst it was long suspected that all of us alive today belong to the same human species, the only one that is still extant, we have been aware of the results of the Human Genome Project for just 15 years.
(8) Smith's religiously-motivated claim that Neanderthals were 'fully human' (what about eg Homo erectus) is only supported by a minority of genuine scientists. "The variances in body structure fall within the normal range of humans." Prove it.http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/19/scien ... .html?_r=0
(never mind the morphological differences between us and Neanderthals)
"And to top it all off DNA studies have shown that Neanderthals bred with modern humans, meaning they themselves must have been fully human." What a stupid statement. Is Smith really denying that hybridisation can never [ever] happen in nature? "Once again the honest evolutionist must concede that the creationist position was correct all along." That is a lie. If the Bible was infallible, no other human species should EVER have lived.
(9) "However, there is abundant evidence now agreed upon by evolutionary scientists that the entire human race on the planet today originated from two people just a few thousand years ago." Calvin Smith is a Liar. "The majority of evolutionists have adopted the biblical creationist position." Calvin Smith is a Liar.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
(the 'creationist position'?)
(10) "Today, the majority of evolutionists believe in the ‘Out of Africa’ theory, where people came from a small founding group a short (for them) time ago and dispersed across the planet. So except for the more southern dispersion point, most evolutionists now hold to a much more creationist viewpoint." At this point words fail me.
Of course the CMI Facebook zealots will lap this up. Ten more nails in the 'coffin' of 'evolutionism'! From the dishonest 'creationist position'. "There is no reason to fear challenges from the scientific community." There would be if you stopped lying and making absurd claims Mr Smith.
Science is not infallible. Whereas Smith clearly believes that the Bible IS infallible. Which is behind his opening comment that the Bible (NOT evidence from the natural world) is the 'best' starting point when conducting origins science.
I am submitting this comment to CMI in the UK by email using their website. It will of course NEVER be published on their website and they will NEVER reply to my points either."