It never ceases to amaze me how intellectually condescending evolutionary naturalists can be. Keep in mind, these are folks who believe that a indescribably tiny wad of nothingness exploded into a fully functional, structured, and ordered universe of orbiting planets and complex creatures without any supernatural agency involved. They are the ones who cling to a theory known as spontaneous generation - the notion that dead matter can just suddenly pop to life. They are the ones who champion a man (Charles Darwin) who suggested that Africans were more closely related to gorillas than Caucasians. They are the ones who believe that a wolf-like animal with hooves took to the water, lost its legs, and morphed into a whale (Cetaceans). If anyone should go easy on the intellectual condescension, it's these people. But they don't.
In a recent article for Live Science magazine that attempts to prove Darwin by using the swine flu of all things, author Robert Roy Britt sneers, "Anyone who thinks evolution is for the birds should not be afraid of swine flu.if there's no such thing as evolution, then there's no such thing as a new strain of swine flu infecting people." His supposedly witty remarks were meant to mock creationists, castigating their "junk science."
But the intellectual dishonesty inherent in Britt's statement is almost as obvious as his failed attempt at humor. Britt is using a common ploy of Darwinists: confuse people into believing that their utterly unsubstantiated speculation of species-to-species macro-evolution is synonymous with the universally accepted scientific fact of adaptation and development within a species (sometimes called micro-evolution).
The word "evolve" simply means to change, alter, or develop in some way. Everyone recognizes that changes in gene frequencies happen and are expressed in a population over time. Unfortunately for the Darwinists, that is not anywhere close to the "molecules to man" postulation Charles Darwin made (also known as "goo to you by way of the zoo"). The contention between Darwinists and those of us who believe in a Creator then is about what kind of evolution is possible and observable.
Britt concludes that since swine flu is a mutated form of the influenza virus, it proves that viruses evolve to survive, thus confirming Darwin's theory. The only real problem with Britt's conclusion is that it is utterly absurd. For Darwin to be affirmed, the swine flu would have to demonstrate some new genetic information that hadn't been present in the original influenza strain. It doesn't. No new genetic information is present - just mutated forms of pre-existing material.
Observational science also demonstrates that various strains of flu viruses will blend together their genetic codes, creating a new form that evades our defenses. But again, what we're left with is merely a conglomeration of pre-existing genetic information - nothing new.
Interestingly, when pressed, Britt and other adherents to the Darwinian faith would be forced to admit that they cannot produce a single example of mutations creating new genetic information. But how can this be? In order for a frog to morph into a lizard, it is going to need its genes to do some pretty wild and crazy productive mutations. And when you consider the entire premise of Darwinian macro-evolution states that all creatures (not just frogs) are constantly experiencing these positive mutations, the weight of the evidence crushes evolutionary naturalists. If Darwin was right, we should be able to observe and replicate gene mutations that yield new information nearly everywhere we look. We simply cannot.
Meanwhile, what we can find are innumerable cases of destructive gene mutations, where we end up with less genetic information than what was originally present. Take the recent discovery of perfectly preserved octopus remains. The discovery revealed that these ancient octopi actually had more genetic information than do modern octopi. Call it "Darwin in reverse." Both horizontal and destructive mutations support the creationist model.both devastate Darwin's.
The truth is that the swine flu evolving does nothing to prove Darwin's ridiculous "molecules to man" evolutionary model. That his modern day prophets are so willing to distort and manipulate a flu virus in order to substantiate his wild theory only proves how they are far more rigid in their commitment to their Darwinian faith than the most rabid fundamentalist preacher is to the Bible.
Perhaps in Mr. Britt's next piece, he could lay off the condescension towards creationists and instead enlighten us all as to why he defends a theory whose author proclaimed that blacks were genetically inferior to whites. To me, I think that's the very definition of junk science.
Peter W. Heck