For those of you who are not aware, one of the leading proponents and advocate of evolution, who also attempts to use evolution as a tool against the Bible in order to try and sway people in another direction, his name of course is none other than Richard Dawkins.
He has written such books as “The God Delusion” and “The Blind Watchmaker” and his latest, “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution.” Dawkins was asked if he would debate another author who wrote a book “Signature of the Cell” by Stephen Meyer which is a book that proposes evidence for intelligent design. Dawkins a guest on Fox News who has debated O’Reily a few times on a show called; “The Factor” refused to debate Stephen Meyer’s book. He claimed it held “no water.” A shallow response, did that mean he really believed O’Reily held a stronger argument with water? Nope! In reality, Fox News has huge ratings, so much so, Dawkins couldn’t resist the publicity it would bring to his books so he goes on there.
What about this new book? It holds too many straw-man arguments while missing some points about creationism. For example, Dawkin attempts to prove a “bad design” in nature as evidence for evolution. …He points out this so-called; example…
“But all flightless birds including ostriches and their kind, which lost their wings a very long time ago, are clearly descended from ancestors that used them to fly. No reasonable observer should doubt the truth of that, which means that anyone who thinks about it should find it very hard — why not impossible — to doubt the fact of evolution.” (p. 345)
How can anyone doubt evolution by observing flightless birds? Wow, pretty weak evidence! For one thing, Dawkins is pointing out an example of an animal loosing information (wings). What Dawkins fails to prove is an animal gaining brand new information which is at the core of the evolutionary debate! Flightless birds isn’t contrary to the creationist model! In fact, it’s still a bird! The creationist model disagrees with one animal mutating into a totally different animal, not loosing an ability or part. This might impress Dawkins’ gullible choir but it’s not really indisputable evidence for evolution as he claims it is.
Dawkins once again points out a bad example which turned out to be more of a problem with new evidence after he wrote the book, the early pterosaur, Rhamphorhynchus, with a long tail “with the ping-pong bat at the end.” A new pterosaur fossil does damage to the Maynard Smith hypothesis as well as Dawkin’s claims in the book. The pterosaur fossils, Darwinopterus modularis being the latest discovery with a claim of being 160 million years old which is on the young side of Rhamphorhynchus, both of these fossils have a long tail with “advanced” features in the head and neck. The evolution story now looks like the latter features arose without being driven by selection for compensation for loss of stability.
This has puzzled evolutionists as the evidence is not matching up with their story as it was reported in the BBC, McGrath states;“But the strange thing about Darwinopterus is that it has a head and neck just like that of advanced pterosaurs, while the rest of the skeleton, including a very long tail, is identical to that of primitive forms.” So now Darwinian gradualism which Dawkins proposes in his book as evidence is replaced by a new slant to the story.
“This pattern supports the idea that modules, tightly integrated complexes of characters with discrete, semi-independent and temporally persistent histories, were the principal focus of natural selection and played a leading role in evolutionary transitions.”
The pattern points to an intelligent designer, namely God not to this “idea” which is nothing more than a story based on evidence that doesn’t hold to any pattern in evolution whether it be with Darwinian gradualism or this new line of story telling. More on this particular subject matter located in the biotic message theory, as proposed by Walter ReMine who wrote The Biotic Message.
So we see the example of flightless birds is just one of many examples which doesn’t really prove evolution at all, Dawkins was right, it’s a show but not the greatest one and it’s without the substance!