Skip to main content

Famous Frauds in Evolution Part 3: Finches' Beaks


Most people remember that Charles Darwin supposedly based his theory of evolution on his findings on the Galapagos Islands (although Icontend that he adopted his grandfather’s ideas from his book Zoonomia). On these islands Darwin observed the beaks of finches, and what he saw led to his groundbreaking theory.



He noticed that different finches had different beaks, varying in size and shape. More specifically, he noted that during times of drought the finch would grow a larger beak. This beak growth became necessary for the bird to find food in a drought.

But the foundation upon which Darwin built his theory is cracked at best. Like the biblical foolish builder, Darwin chose sand as the base for his theory; the winds have blown and the rains descended, and his theory has been destroyed.

What textbooks and professors like to ignore is the fact that after a drought these finches’ beaks will return to their normal size. Like the previously mentioned fruit flies and peppered moths, this is not one species evolving into another. This is not evolution.

When a dog grows a winter coat and sheds it in the summer, no one says, “This dog is evolving!” For when he sheds his coat he is the same dog he was in autumn. This is known as adaptation, not evolution. And how does a dog know to grow a winter coat? How does a hungry finch grow a bigger beak? How does a bird know to fly south for the winter?

Animals have instinctive behavior. Instincts are not tangible and could not have evolved. If they needed to evolve then the first animals would have starved to death, froze to death, and so on, and they never could have reproduced after their kind. If they were born with instincts, then they are too smart to be accounted for by random chance.

Instincts are a gift from the Creator, and they are one of the clearest pictures of an Intelligent Designer. Darwin looked at finches’ beaks and chose to glorify the creation rather than the Creator.

The beaks that he drew so much attention to have become the Rosetta Stone to showing us an Intelligent Designer—the one who created “in the beginning.”   

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The “Christians Hate Gays” Myth

During these Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) hearings before the Supreme Court I keep hearing how much Christians hate gay people. This was news to me since I am a Christian and I don’t hate gay people. I also go to church with over 1000 other Christians, and if any of them hate gay people, they sure haven’t told me. Before moving to South Carolina I worked at or attended several churches in Texas; prior to that I spent a decade going to church in Florida. Guess what? No one hated gay people. In fact, I don’t know any Christians who hate anybody. The very uniform of a believer is his love, and if a person does not show consistent love, then he is not actually a believer. Are there non-believers who hate gay people and claim to be Christian? Of course. But that doesn’t represent Jesus or His church. Equating  hateful sign-wavers with Christianity is like equating a kindergarten baseball team to the New York Yankees. They may claim to be playing the same

Famous Frauds in Homosexual Science Part 2: Twin Studies

A second piece of shoddy science has been heralded as proving people are born gay. This time, instead of cadavers, living twins were studied. This study compared male identical twins to male fraternal twins; in each set of twins, at least one man was homosexual. 22% of the fraternal twins showed both brothers to be gay, compared to 52% of the identical twins. Since identical twins are closer genetically than fraternal twins, this study claimed that genetics play in to homosexuality, or that people are born gay. But an obvious question that arose from this study is, why did 48% of the identical twins only have one gay brother? If they are so close genetically, then 100% of the identical twins should have two gay brothers. This study does more harm than good to the argument from genetics. There are other factors to be considered. One is that the men doing the study (Richard Pillard and Michael Bailey) could have intentionally picked fraternal twins that the

The Rose of Sharon and Lily of the Valley

If you have spent much time in church you have probably sung some songs with lyrics like these: “He leads me to his banqueting table, his banner over me is love… Jesus is the rock of my salvation, his banner over me is love.” “Sweetest rose of Sharon, come to set us free.” “He’s the lily of the valley, the bright and morning star…” But are those songs biblical? They come out of the writings of the Song of Solomon, but are we to understand those lines as describing Christ? The Song of Solomon is a collection of love poems that were written between two people who were deeply in love and about to be married. While we know that King Solomon is one of the writers, the other’s name has escaped us, and we know her today simply as the Shulamite woman. Some people believe that since this woman is not named then she never existed; some teach that this book is pure allegory, only existing to serve as symbolism. King Solomon, they say, represents