On 23 December, 2005, the BBC carried a report on its web site titled “Evolution Takes Science Honors.” The report announced that the well-known scientific magazine Science, published in the USA, had given its 2005 science award to evolution. The article said that certain studies into the alleged workings of evolution had been described as the most important scientific development in 2005, and it was claimed in comments by a number of evolutionist scientists that evolution constituted the basis of modern biology.
This BBC propaganda, based on the scientific magazine’s prestige, is invalid. The studies in question in no way support the claim that all forms of live are descended from a single cell. Furthermore, the claim that the theory of evolution constitutes the basis of the modern biological sciences is merely an attempt to provide a scientific guise for a theory supported for ideological reasons, and goes no further than being a claim.
The BBC report lists among the scientific advances regarding evolution such examples as the reconstruction of the 1918 flu virus in a laboratory and the sequencing of the chimpanzee genome. Yet it is clear that the studies in question provide no backing for the theory of evolution. Supposed evolution requires the emergence of new proteins, organs and systems by way of the addition of new information to a living thing’s DNA. Yet the “reconstruction” of a virus that already exists involves none of these stages. This is not evolution, but “reconstruction” as the name makes clear. Another example: Scientists consider that, based on DNA specimens from the Tasmanian wolf, an extinct species, that they can clone the animal and thus reintroduce it to the animal world. Yet even if they succeed and a Tasmanian wolf can be reproduced, this will still provide no support for the theory of evolution. Because no new genetic information will be formed, and no new proteins, systems and organs will emerge from nothing by way of alleged evolution. The study involves genetic information that already exists, and this provides no information and evidence that new genetic data emerge by chance.
The description of the sequencing of the chimpanzee genome as a scientific step to be related with the theory of evolution is equally meaningless. Indeed, not only does the study provide no support for the theory, it also raises problems for evolutionists. The genome study in question showed that the levels of genetic similarity between human beings and chimpanzees previously claimed by evolutionists did not in fact square with the facts, and evolutionists had to admit that the earlier figures were sadly incorrect.
An article published by Nature news service and containing comments by Evan Eichler from the University of Washington School of Medicine included the following statements:
…humans and chimps are not quite the close cousins we thought. Crude past comparisons of our DNA showed that our sequences were between 98.5% and 99% identical. That is indeed the case when considering single-letter differences in the DNA code, of which there are 35 million, adding up to about 1.2% of the total sequence. But there are other differences, Eichler says. The two sequences are littered with duplicated segments that are scattered in different ways in the two species, he reports in a separate analysis. These regions add another 2.7% of difference to the tally. "So the 1.2% figure is woefully inaccurate," says Eichler. (Michael Hopkin, "Chimpanzee joins the genome club", email@example.com, 31 August 2005, http://npg.nature.com/news/2005/050829/full/050829-9.html )
For further details, see
If evolutionists wish to present this as a finding in support of their theories, then they have to document that new genetic information are added to a living thing’s DNA and that it evolved by way of the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection. However, it is a known solid fact, in the wake of a great many experiments and observations, that these two mechanisms cannot give rise to evolution. Molecular biologists have not a single example they can put forward in this regard. For example, Lynn Margulis, a professor of biology at the University of Massachusetts, is one of the most eminent present-day researchers into evolution. At the end of one of the many conference she has given, Margulis asked the molecular biologists among the audience to cite a single example of a new species emerging by means of an accumulation of mutations. Her challenge went unanswered. (Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Free press, 1996, p. 26)
The claim that the theory of evolution represents the basis of the biological sciences is an unrealistic comment based solely on preconceptions. A survey carried out by Philip Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor of chemistry at the Pennsylvania State University, among biologists in his university is a very good example of this. Skell is a renowned expert on the subject of carbon-chemistry and a member of the American Academy of Sciences. Skell asked Darwinist scientists carrying out non-historical biological research: “Would you have done the work any differently if you believed Darwin"s theory was wrong?” The majority replied “in my work it would have made no difference.” (Jerry Bergman, "Does Nothing in Biology Make Sense Except in the Light of Evolution?" http://www.rae.org/nothing.html )
Evolutionists in fact support the theory of evolution as a belief. In an article published in Nature, the researchers Ehrlich and Birch set out the unscientific aspects of the theory, and then wrote how the theory’s prevalence among scientists stemmed from their education that offered it as the only alternative:
Our theory of evolution has become… one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus "outside of empirical science" but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. (L.C. Birch and P.R. Ehrlich, "Evolutionary History and Population Biology," Nature, Vol. 214, 22 April 1967, p. 352)
As demonstrated above, the theory of evolution is one that makes no particular contribution to studies in the field of biology, and the scientific nature of which is even doubted by evolutionists themselves. In short, the development described in the BBC report is not based on scientific reasons. Therefore, it needs to be known that this award, like the theory of evolution itself, was given for ideological reasons. We advise the BBC to abandon its efforts to endow this theory, worked up to oppose the existence of God and kept on its feet with lies and deceptions, with a scientific guise.