 |
| courtesy of freeimages.com |
Foxnews.com recently
posted an article entitled, Kraken rises:New fossil evidence of ‘sea monster’.
Written by Stephanie Pappas and published on November 1, 2013, the
article reports on a debate between two scientists concerning the existence of
a giant squid (kraken) large enough to kill an ichthyosaur. What I want to do in referencing this debate
is to draw attention to some statements made by both scientists, who are most
probably evolutionists. Their own
statements point out some logical flaws of the belief in macro evolution.
The proponent of the
kraken theory is Mark McMenamin, a paleontologist who found what he describes
as the fossilized beak from a giant squid near an unusual arrangement of the
fossilized bones of an ichthyosaur. McMenamin
suggests that the ichthyosaur’s bones are arranged in a pattern that indicates
intentional placement by an intelligent being.
McMenamin thinks that a kraken arranged the bones of its ichthyosaur
victim and notes that modern octopuses are known to manipulate bones around
their dens.
That the bones seem
to be arranged into a pattern tells McMenamin that they couldn’t have ended up
in their final position by chance. The article
quotes him as saying that the chance that the bones were to arrange themselves
in a pattern by natural means, i.e. the movement of the ocean currents, is “virtually
zero”. To emphasize his point that the patterned
arrangement of bones must be the result of an intelligent being capable of
pattern-making, he says, “You always go from a more ordered to a less ordered
state, not the other way around.”
This is an amazing
statement from an evolutionist! Let me
explain. Mr. McMenamin, as a good
scientist, observes nature. What he
encounters in nature is what seems to be an ordered arrangement of bones- a
pattern so to speak. Using logic, he deduces
that the probability that this ordered pattern of bones he has observed could
be the result of unguided natural processes such as ocean currents etc. is so
slim as to be “virtually zero.” He
astutely observes that, because of the law of entropy, disorder never leads to
order, but instead the opposite is true.
Things go from a more ordered state to a less ordered state. [1] What
does this have to do with evolution? It
has a lot to do with evolution. In the
above quotes, McMenamin uses two sciences, mathematics and physics, to inadvertently
challenge evolution.
First of all,
evolution is contrary to the law of physics known as the law of entropy. McMenamin evokes this law to prove that the
order he observed in the bone pattern requires a more ordered intelligent being
to create it. But this is contrary to
the foundation of evolution. Evolution
requires that the chaos of an explosion in space eventually resulted in the ordered
universe that we observe today.
Evolution posits that less ordered, less complex organisms developed
into the unimaginably complex living organisms that we have today. Creationism, on the other hand says that an
all intelligent, all powerful Creator made everything that we see. The patterns that are all around us in nature
are the result of an intelligent Designer and are not the accidents of nature. The cause must be greater than the
result. Carried back to its logical
conclusion, there must be one eternal uncaused Cause, i.e. God.
Evolution is also
contrary to the mathematical laws of probability. When he observed the shape of the bones and
the design they lay in, McMenamin evoked the law of probability and concluded
that it was highly improbable for the bones to have ended up that way without intelligent
intervention. In fact, he said the
probability was “virtually zero”.
Patterns require pattern makers. Humans
require the patterns found in our DNA. Buildings require builders. That a completed house could come together
without a builder placing the various components in the proper location and
order is unthinkable even in 14 billion years.
Most life is much more complex than a house, yet evolution ignores the
law of probability and suggests that all the complexity in the universe is the
result of unguided random processes over billions of years.
Other scientists do
not agree with McMenamin’s conclusion that he found evidence for a kraken. David Fastovsky, also a paleontologist,
disagrees with McMenamin concerning the pattern of ichthyosaur bones. Fastovsky apparently believes that the
pattern could have resulted as the ichthyosaur died and decayed. He theorizes that the vertebrae of the spinal
column would naturally fall into the pattern found when the connecting tissue
decayed away. He apparently thinks that
McMenamin is making claims about a kraken that don’t seem warranted. In Fox’s article, Fastovsky is quoted as
saying:
“A perfectly reasonable, pedestrian, coherant [sic] story emerges that doesn’t require wholesale invention of what
is unknown or unprecedented.”
While what Fastovsky
said was directed at McMenamin and his kraken theory, one could also apply
Fastovsky’s words to Darwin’s evolution theory.
When one examines all of the order in the universe and all of its
complexity; when one recognizes that all we observe in biology suggests that kind
begets kind; when one realizes that for one kind to change into another kind
would require new genetic information; when one understands that the code found
in DNA requires a code giver; when one notices the glaring omission of
transitional fossils in the fossil record where there should be millions- the
only conclusion that can logically be drawn from the evidence is that the
theory of evolution requires “wholesale invention of what is unknown and
unprecedented.”
Endnotes:
[1] For a definition
of the law of entropy see http://www.livescience.com/34083-entropy-explanation.html