Charles Darwin commented that in North America
bears had been seen swimming in the water for hours with their mouths open,
swallowing insects which lived in the water. He wrote: “I can see no great
difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more
and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths,
till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.”* What do you think
of that idea? Modern-day evolutionists have different theories about the
origin of whales.
*The Origin of Species (first edition)
Evolutionists disagree because the fossil evidence — and the way scientists
interpret it — is very unclear. Evolutionists have to believe whales evolved
from something, and since whales are mammals, they have to believe their ancestors
were land-dwelling creatures. Many artists’ reconstructions of whale evolution
are based on a very small amount of fossil evidence.
The first fossils of Pakicetus, found in Pakistan in the early 1980s, were
just part of a skull and jaw (coloured blue, above left). Pictures like the
one o the left, showing a half-whale animal diving for fish, were based on
this. In 2001 a complete fossil skeleton of Pakicetus was found (below, left),
and later reconstructions (below, centre) show a very different animal. We
don’t know whether it went anywhere near the sea, but it certainly looks nothing
like a whale.
Many scientists believe
that whales and dolphins descended from mesonychids (above) This is how one
website article explained it: “The mesonychidslived at the edge of the sea.
After millions of years the descendants of mesonychids spent most of their
time in the water, until finally they became amphibious. As they adapted to
their new way of life, their bodies changed. Their forelimbs became short
broad paddles. Their body became more streamlined because their ears, hind
limbs and hair became less and less obvious. Their tails flattened and their
nostrils or blowholes moved higher on the skull so that they could breath
without totally surfacing.”1
Really? Natural selection wouldn’t favour such changes, because transitional
forms wouldn’t be viable. Is this science — or just a story?
1. "Ancestors and Relatives." Oracle ThinkQuest
ALSO
IN ORIGINAL VIEW No. 67:
Gen and Ev cartoon strip
Tale of a "walking whale's" tail
In the News: Fossil whale graveyard
in a desert!
Dorsal fin dilemma
Well Designed: The Cannonball Tree
CHECK IT OUT!
The idea that scientists are unbiased is a myth. Many modern scientists are biased towards naturalism — the view that everything must be explained in terms of natural processes. So they assume evolution to be a fact, search for evidence to support it — as in the case of whale origins — and reject the alternative of creation by an intelligent Creator. This approach would have puzzled the pioneers of modern science, who saw no conflict between doing science and believing in a Creator. We believe the evidence favours the creation view, but we are biased too! So we recommend that you check the facts yourself. There are many ways you can do this. The latest is a “Creation app” (see panel above). Or you can contact us for more information. The implications of evolution not being true are so serious that many people would rather not consider it. But if all of life is the result of creation by an all-powerful God, surely it makes sense to find out more about Him? We believe the Creator stepped into history 2,000 years ago in the Person of Jesus Christ. “Through him all things were made.” (John 1: 3). Our experience is that faith in Jesus brings forgiveness, purpose and hope because of His death and resurrection. But don’t take our word for it: check it out for yourself! His promise to all who believe is: “I have come in order that you might have life—life in all its fullness.” (John 10: 10, Good News Version). What a contrast to the purposelessness and despair offered by evolutionary humanism!