Probably no other science website has devoted so much effort in combating biblical creationism as has Scientific American.  I am excluding the NCSE website because I used the qualifier ‘science’ in my statement.  In 2002, they ran an article 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense, in an effort to counter the growing popularity of the creation movement along with the in roads that some of the major creation organizations had been making.  If you go to their home page and type the word ‘creationism’ in the Search box, you will find 78 articles listed as of January 4, 2011.

So it was no surprise when I visited their website this morning to find them promoting a newly released comic book whose purpose is to help indoctrinate our children to the theory of evolution.  The book, Evolution: the Story on Life on Earth was written by Jay Hosler who is a professor of biology as well as a noted comic book author.  Chapter 6 of his comic book is titled Getting a Leg Up on Evolution and features two aliens from outer space, Bloort and Prince Floorsh.  Before visiting Earth, Bloort teaches Prince Floorsh all about evolution, starting with the lobe-finned fish that first venture on to land all the way to modern humans. 

Along the evolutionary trail the characters take, they make a stop along the way to discuss the topic of homology of limbs and how that proves we all have the same common ancestor.  Evolutionists have used this argument since the time of Charles Darwin.   

Homology actually works to the benefit of biblical creation.  Instead of showing common ancestry, it shows common design used by our Creator Designer.  It only makes sense that God would use the same basic design and then make numerous variations based on that design.  We do it all the time.  All cars, computers, refrigerators, furniture and so on, have a common basic design to which we make a number of variations and elaborations to add to it.

A few frames later, the comic begins to explain the evolution from primates to man.  The way it is portrayed, reveals the assumptive jumps made by evolutionists.  It talks about the discovery of Ardipithecus ramidus, nicknamed Ardi and how her foot became stiff, giving rise to walking on 2 feet.  Notice that it says that Ardi’s foot became stiffer, not that Ardi was born with a stiffer foot?  This is typical of evolutionists in general.  A new trait suddenly appears without any explanation of how the new trait came about.

It wasn’t enough to give the impression that Ardi developed a stiff foot, but only two frames later, the author attempts to lead kids into believing that Ardi’s stiff foot soon led to a number of other seemingly simple skeletal modifications.  But are they all that simple?  The author implies that the toes, legs, pelvis, backbone and skull all had to modify to accommodate the upright walking on two legs.  Do you realize that according to this, around 80% of the entire skeleton just simply modified itself because Ardi had a stiff foot?  Another issue is that the author seems to indicate the skeletal modifications were a domino affect meaning that they happened one by one.  Try to picture if you can what the primate would have looked like with a modified foot, toe, legs, pelvis but not the backbone or skull?  Or what if everything but the skull had been modified?  The primate would be walking upright with its head facing the sky, not being able to see anything ahead of it.  A domino effect of these modifications would not have been beneficial in any way, shape or form to the primate.  In fact, this would have been extremely problematic.  Therefore, it seems obvious that this domino effect defies all physiological functionality and that all of these traits would have to be present at the same time for them to be truly functional and advantageous to the primate. 

Now that man’s ancestors were walking upright, they started eating more things like meat.  According to another frame in the comic, they began to eat more meat resulting in higher intakes of protein and fats which in turn possibly leads to larger brains.  If this logic were true, then what about the brains of top predators like lions and tigers?  Their brains should be larger and far more developed than ours.  Cooked meat may be easier for man and our supposed ancestors to digest, but cooked meat is actually less nutritional and if the meat was cooked over open fires as indicated, there would also have been less fat available.  The cooking of the meat would have been less effective in increasing brain size than the author indicates.  I have never followed the logic behind the evolutionary idea that when our ancestors starting eating meat that it made their brains grow larger and they became smarter.  In college, I challenged one of my professors on this topic and his only defense was that the fossil evidence indicates that this is what happened.  I asked him outright if he knew it for certain and he could not answer yes.  I almost failed his class when I replied that there were no real facts to support this hypothesis or any logic behind the conclusion, and that it is all based on a religious belief in evolution.  While the professor could not defend his belief, he stood by it and insisted that we all accepted it.  Then I was instructed to shut up or be removed from his class with a failing grade. 

Following along in the comic, these upright walking, meat eating, hominids eventually evolve into early modern man.  These early men slowly become sophisticated enough to start growing crops, mostly grains.  Interestingly, the author now says that as these humans started eating more grains, they evolved new genes to help digest the carbohydrates from the grains.  As carbohydrates break down, they produce more sugars in the body.  The humans now evolved new genes which produced the insulin necessary to handle the increase in sugar. 

Along with the farming came the keeping of livestock.  With the keeping of livestock, humans started drinking more milk.  Drinking more mild caused them to evolve new genes to produce the enzymes necessary to allow them to digest the lactose in the milk. 

At this point, I can’t help but ask how does he explain the development of so many new genes to handle new behaviors and new diets?  The author gives the impression that the evolution of new genes happens all the time as a response to new lifestyles and diets.  If that is true, then why have we not witnessed any new genes appearing in humans?  There have been many changes to our daily routines, lifestyles and diets that should have resulted in the evolution of new genes to help us handle these changes, that is if we follow the same logic of the author. 

This may only be a comic book to some, but in reality it is obvious that the comic’s intended purpose is to indoctrinate school age kids into believing the lies and falsehoods of evolution.  From what I read of this comic, (only the 6th chapter), it contains some of the worst logic, lies and assumptions that I’ve seen come out of the evolutionary community in some time.  And it is no surprise that Scientific American, with its history of trying to counter creationism, is featuring and promoting this comic and its agenda regardless of its poor quality.

If any of you have kids or grandkids, nieces or nephews, I would be on the watch to make sure they don’t come home from school or the local bookstore with this comic under their arm.  Not only is the science of extremely poor quality, but it serves no other purpose but to undermine the truth of biblical creationism and God’s Word.

References

Hosler, Cannon and Cannon, Getting a Leg Up on Evolution: the Comic-Book Version, Scientific American, Jan. 3, 2011.

Rennie, John, 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense, Scientific American, June 18, 2002.

ScientificAmerican.com, Type in “Creationism” in the Search box.  78 articles listed as of Jan. 4, 2011.

Continue Reading on