Big Daddy Refuted
The original tract can be found here:
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp
Some of the material in this critique was drawn from the TalkOrigins archive:
The “Big Daddy?” tract takes the form of a cartoon, with pictures in panels rather than numbered pages. I’ve therefore used panel numbers to refer to the relevant parts of the tract.
The lecturer is rude, yelling at the Creationist student, who is always portrayed as calm and polite. Can it be that the author wants us to sympathize with the young man, and hate the lecturer, instead of actually examining the evidence for ourselves?
Notice the picture of the banana-holding ape labelled "Our Father”. This misrepresents evolution. People did not evolve from modern-day apes; people and modern-day apes are both descended from a common ancestor.
The lecturer quite correctly points out that “kind” isn’t a scientific term, and insists that scientific terms should be used. The pamphlet counters with “It has never been against the law to teach the Bible or Creation in public schools”. Maybe that’s true, but since the lecturer never claimed otherwise, it’s another misrepresentation and is entirely beside the point! “Kinds” is an unscientific term, and for that reason (and many others) biblical creation should not be taught in a science class (which is the setting here). As a matter of fact, it has never been illegal to use the Bible in comparative religion and social studies classes. It has, however, been illegal in the United States to teach Young Earth Creation Science in science classes.
“Carbon-14 proves evolution”
No, it doesn’t. Carbon-14 dating is used to estimate how old certain things are. It frequently yields dates inconsistent with a young earth, and dates that are compatible with an old earth [and evolution]. It disproves a young earth [“Young Earth” creationists believe the Earth to be about 6000 years old]. Old dates don’t prove evolution – they are merely consistent with it. Carbon-14 decays so rapidly that it can only be used to date objects that are very recent (“recent” on a geological timescale). The application of Carbon-14 to geology, palaeontology and evolution is therefore very limited.
“6 basic concepts of evolution”
Scientists usually use the term “evolution” in a narrow sense to refer only to biological evolution - changes that take place over time in living things. The pamphlet uses a far broader definition, which includes cosmological changes and chemical changes too. Why adopt such non-standard terminology? Possibly because it allows Creationists to assert that Creation is in conflict with ideas in the scientific field of “evolution”. In truth, however, Creation is in conflict with theories in many different fields, namely Archaeology, Biology, Chemistry, Cosmology and Physics.
These 6 basic concepts of evolution come not from scientists but from the Creationist “Dr”. Kent Hovind (he uses them in his “$250,000 Challenge” to evolutionists). One of the “six basic concepts” Hovind describes is “life from rocks”. That’s a barefaced lie. Scientists believe that life arose from numerous simple compounds such as water, methane and amino acids - not from rocks.
One of the “6 basic concepts of evolution” is stated as “the Evolution of stars and planets from gas". But this is only partially correct – there were some stars before planets evolved, since it takes stars to synthesize heavier elements. We now have many pictures, thanks to the Hubble space telescope, of "disks" of gas and dust collapsing to form suns and planets.
The pamphlet draws a distinction between macroevolution (changes between kinds) and microevolution (changes within kinds). However, that distinction is meaningless from a scientific perspective because Creationists don’t define “kind” in a rigid scientific way. Until they do, it is impossible to know where microevolution ends and where macroevolution begins.
The pamphlet falsely implies that if something has not been directly observed, it has to be taken on faith, and cannot, therefore, be scientific. In science, a large amount of indirect evidence is just as valid as a smaller amount of indirect evidence. Similarly, a court of law may convict someone in the absence of any direct evidence. (The accused was not seen pulling the trigger, but he did have a motive, he was in the area, and his fingerprints were found on the gun). Science doesn’t deal in absolute truths, but it can, like a court of law, prove things “beyond reasonable doubt” on the basis of the evidence available - even in the absence of direct evidence. Archaeologists have never met the people they study, but have ample evidence that they existed.
The Neanderthal skullcap is “the first and most famous clue to early man”
“Early man” is an ambiguous phrase, since Neanderthals were the most recent archaic humans and the represent the immediate predecessors of early modern humans.
“Modern dating methods show man to be older than Darwin could have imagined”
And far, far older than the writers of the Bible could have imagined as well! So this is evidence against biblical Creation, not against Evolution! The idea of evolutionary change actually becomes more plausible in the light of Man’s antiquity; the greater timescales allowed for lower rates of evolution than Darwin thought necessary. So in summary this evidence actually favours evolution and contradicts biblical creation.
“Richard Leakey found a normal human skull under a layer of rock dated at 212 million years”
Leakey found all of Lucy under a volcanic tuft, which was thought to be around 200 million years old. Further dating showed it to be much younger. There was no "normal skull".
“Most experts now agree that Lucy [an example of Australopithicus] was only an unusual chimpanzee not a missing link”
That’s simply a lie.
Probably the most vocal defender of the
resemblances between Lucy and pygmy chimps is a scientist called Zihlman. Even he has never
said that Lucy is a chimp, and points out differences, the most obvious being
that Lucy has a bipedal pelvis rather than a quadrupedal one:
Zihlman A.L. (1984): Pygmy chimps, people, and the pundits. New Scientist, (15 November 1984) 39-40.
In it’s article on Australopithicus, Encyclopaedia Britannica (2005 edition) notes
“The fossil evidence of the australopithecines has been seen by some scholars as merely representing temporal stages within a single evolving hominid lineage leading to Homo erectus and thence to Homo sapiens. Others have stressed the extent of the adaptive differences between the various fossils and have suggested that there may have been two, or even three, lineages evolving in parallel, only one of which led to the later species of Homo. Whatever the details of their interpretations, however, most hominid palaeontologists are agreed that the australopithecines represent a link—direct or indirect—between the fossil apes and human beings. Thus, the study of the australopithecines is regarded as the study of one of the most important stages in the emergence of modern H. sapiens.”
“With wonderful names like proconsul-australopithicus afarensis to homo habilis to homo erectus and an and on to modern man”
The names of genera always start with a capital letter (Homo habilis, for example). Such sloppy scholarship is common in Creationist literature, but would hardly be expected of a university lecturer.
Panel 16
“Science always has the answers”
No it doesn’t – and to portray scientists as so arrogant is frankly an insult to scientists. If science “always has the answers”, there would be no need to look for more, and scientific research would grind to a halt.
“LUCY: Nearly all experts agree Lucy was just a 3 foot tall chimpanzee”.
No they don’t – they see her as a link between humans and ape-like ancestors. See notes on Panel 12.
“HEIDELBERG MAN Built from a jaw bone that was conceded by many to be quite human”.
Also known as the "Mauer Jaw". It’s thought to be a relatively recent ancestor of humans - either a Homo erectus or an early Homo sapiens. Its position in the sequence (on the left hand side of the page, right next to Lucy and a long way from Homo sapiens) is therefore wrong and highly misleading. It sets up the Creationist argument implied here – that it can’t be a [distant] ancestor because it is so human-like. When one is made aware of its correct position in the sequence, however, the problem vanishes. One would expect quite a recent human ancestor to have a jaw that is “quite human”! Yet again the pamphlet misrepresents the evidence in an attempt to discredit evolution.
“NEBRASKA MAN Scientifically built up from one tooth, later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig”.
Nebraska Man was "built up" by the media, not the scientific community. It was an honest mistake and the error in identification of the tooth was discovered by the same person who made the original find.
“PILTDOWN MAN The jawbone turned out to belong to a modern ape”.
Piltdown Man was a hoax exposed in the 1950's. The modern ape’s jaw had been filed down to make it look more human-like, making the fraud harder to spot than it would otherwise have been. Piltdown man was a hindrance to the evidence that other hominid specimens were indicating. Piltdown appeared to indicate a European branch of hominid history while all other specimens pointed towards Africa. Exposure of this hoax cleared away the contradiction. The hoax was exposed by scientists, showing how science can correct its errors.
One hoax cannot indicate the inferiority of conventional archaeology, because creationists have several hoaxes of their own, including Paluxy footprints, the Calaveras skull, Moab and Malachite Man, and others. More telling is how people deal with these hoaxes. When Piltdown was exposed, it stopped being used as evidence. The creationist hoaxes, however, can still be found cited as if they were real. Piltdown has been over and done with for decades, but the dishonesty of creationist hoaxes continues.
“PEKING MAN Supposedly 500,000 years old, but all the evidence has disappeared”.
The original specimen was lost, but not before accurate replicas were made. So the evidence (or some of it, at least) still survives.
NEANDERTHAL MAN At the Int'l Congress of Zoology (1958) Dr. A.J.E. Cave said his examination showed this famous skeleton found in France over 50 years ago is that of an old man who suffered from arthritis.
“This famous skeleton”? Several Neanderthal skeletons have been found and it is unlikely that all of them had arthritis. But so what if one Neanderthal did? Some modern humans have arthritis, so why shouldn’t some Neanderthals have had it?
Although the author concerned (Cave) showed that the posture
of Neanderthals was human, he went on to show that Neanderthals
posess distinctive features that separate them from modern humans. Some of
these features -- powerful bones and muscles, in particular -- cannot plausibly
be attributed to pathology or injury:
Straus, W. L. Jr. and A. J. E. Cave, 1957. Pathology and the posture of Neanderthal man. Quarterly Review of Biology 32(4): 348-363.
“NEW GUINEA MAN Dates way back to 1970. This species has been found in the region just north of Australia”.
As far as I know, no one has ever proposed this as any sort of transitional form. It presumably refers to fragments of a fossil modern human skull thought to be about 5000 years old. The fossil was found in 1970, but “dates back” much earlier. The Creationist use of language here, saying that the fossil “dates way back to 1970” is highly misleading.
“CRO-MAGNON MAN One of the earliest and best established fossils is at best equal in physique and brain capacity to modern man ... so what's the difference?”
Physically, nothing significant. Which is why they are considered to be anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens). Cro-Magnon Man isn’t considered to be ancestral to Homo sapiens, contrary to the impression given in the pamphlet. The importance of Cro-Magnon Man lies not in their physique but in their great age (35,000 years, which is, of course, far too great for a young earth).
“MODERN MAN This genius thinks we came from a monkey”.
No it doesn’t – this is yet another misrepresentation of evolution. Humans and monkeys are descended from a common ancestor, which resembled a monkey in some respects.
“We can tell the age of these layers from the fossils they contain…. We can tell the age of the fossils since we know the age of the rock….. isn’t that circular reasoning?”
No, since many strata are not dated from fossils. Relative dates of strata (whether layers are older or younger than others) are determined mainly by which strata are above others. Some strata are dated absolutely via radiometric dating. These methods are sufficient to determine a great deal of stratigraphy.
Some fossils are seen to occur only in certain strata. Such fossils can be used as index fossils. When these fossils exist, they can be used to determine the age of the strata, because the fossils show that the strata correspond to strata that have already been dated by other means.
The geological column, including the relative ages of the strata and dominant fossils within various strata, was determined before the theory of evolution, and, to the extent that they held any publicly expressed opinions on the subject, the geologists who established the basic sequence of divisions of geological time back then were Creationists!
“How can you say the layers are different ages? Petrified trees are often found going through many of the layers”
On average, over long periods of geological time, deposition is slow. However, individual beds can be deposited rapidly (sands and mud during a levee breach, for example), and then little deposition can occur for a long time (the formation of a soil horizon, for example). We observe these kinds of pattern today in the modern river floodplain environments where these trees commonly occur. So the trees aren’t a problem for modern geology, and their presence was accounted for in the 19th century:
Dawson, J.W., 1868.
Acadian Geology. The Geological Structure, Organic Remains, and Mineral
Resources of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, 2nd edition.
MacMillan and Co.: London, 694pp.
Young Earth Creationists assert that these petrified forests are proof of a sudden catastrophic flood (Noah’s Flood). However, at some sites, several layers of forest are found one above the other. The successive layers of forest must have been caused by successive periods of deposition, and could not have been deposited all in one go as a result of one flood.
“Human embryos have gill slits proving men evolved through the fish stage….. Earnst Haeckel made up the drawings… these folds of skin are not gills. They grow into bones in the ear and glands in the throat”
Haeckel’s drawings were faked in some respects. His ideas have been rejected and are
certainly no longer taught in textbooks.
He believed that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," (also called the
biogenetic law). What that means is that development (ontogeny) repeats the
evolutionary history (phylogeny) of the organism - that if we evolved from a
fish that evolved into a reptile that evolved into us, our embryos physically
echo that history, passing through a fish-like stage and then into a reptile-like
stage.
Correctly-drawn embryos refute Haeckel’s own ideas - but they are still consistent with evolution. Evolutionary textbooks today don’t rely on the faked drawings – they rely on accurate drawings, and some actually rely on photographs. Vertebrate embryos don’t have gills or gill slits, but they do have structures called pharangeal arches. In humans the pharangeal arches develop into bones in the ear and glands in the throat; in fish they develop into gill slits. For this reason, pharangeal arches are sometimes colloquially referred to as “gill slits” even when seen in human embryos.
It’s a fact that adult structures that are radically different (ears in humans, gill slits in fish) have their developmental origins in very similar embryological structures (pharangeal arches). There is no obvious reason for this arrangement, other than that it reflects a shared morphological foundation and a common ancestry. This similarity (homology) is therefore evidence for evolution - which is why it is still mentioned in science textbooks today.
“Vestigial – a shrunken part of the body that is no longer used”
That’s a layman’s definition of the term, and is scientifically incorrect – yet another misrepresentation. Vestigial organs can have functions, and Darwin was quite clear on that point:
"An organ, serving for two purposes, may become
rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and
remain perfectly efficient for the other. Thus, in plants, the office of
the pistil is to allow the pollen-tubes to reach the ovules protected in the
ovarium at its base. The pistil consists of a stigma supported on the style;
but in some Compositae, the male florets, which of course cannot be fecundated,
have a pistil, which is in a rudimentary state, for it is not crowned with a
stigma; but the style remains well developed, and is clothed with hairs as in
other compositae, for the purpose of brushing the pollen out of the surrounding
anthers. Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be
used for a distinct object: in certain fish the swim-bladder seems to be
rudimentary for its proper function of giving buoyancy, but has become
converted into a nascent breathing organ or lung. Other similar instances could
be given." Darwin, C. (1859) The Origin of Species. First Edition.
More generally it can be stated: "Vestigial organs are sometimes pressed into a secondary use when their original function has been lost." (The Story of Evolution, Joseph McCabe, 1912, p.264).
As an example, the primary function of the membranous hind wings of insects is flight. In some ground beetles these wings are retained beneath hard wing cases that are fused shut, rendering flight impossible. If the hind wings have any function at all it certainly isn’t flight, and they are therefore vestigial. If they do have a function, Creationists have to explain what that function is, and why it should be performed by structures that resemble wings in key respects.
“Isn’t losing something the opposite of evolution”?
No. Evolution involves an increase in adaptation - and if an organism is handicapped by a certain structure, losing that structure results in an increase in adaptation. Consider snakes. As they evolved the burrowing habit, their protruding hind limbs (a handicap for their particular method of locomotion), became smaller (an increase in adaptation). The legs persist as vestigial structures in some snakes today.
“Gluons are a made-up pipe dream. No-one has seen or even measured them… they don’t exist!”
Gluons, like electrons, are smaller than the wavelength of light, making them too small to be seen, even in principle!
Gluons are the hypothetical elementary particles that carry the strong force. The strong force is testable and provable, and gluons are a hypothesis to explain it. The concept of gluons does lead to testable predictions – predictions that have been validated by experiment. So gluons are far from a “pipe dream”.
“Christ the Creator is before all things”
But according to the Bible he couldn’t have been before Melchizedek, as Melchizedek didn’t even have a beginning:
Melchizedek was without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever." (Hebrews 7:1-3).
‘By him [Christ] all things consist (are held together). Also it says, “All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.”
Using this verse to argue that nuclear particles are held together by Jesus rather than gluons is laughable! If all things really are held together by Jesus, nuclear fission (the process by which a large nucleus splits into smaller ones) ought to be impossible! The process is certainly possible though, and was notoriously used to devastating effect in the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in World War II. If it is argued that Jesus holds some things together but not others – well, that’s a useless “explanation” unless we have a sound understanding of why some things are held together and not others. Nuclear physics provides us with such an understanding. Stating that “Jesus holds things together at some times and not at others” does not – but that’s the only kind of “explanation” that “Creation Science” can provide!
Jesus said, “Swear not at all; neither by Heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the Earth, for it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is his holy city”. As Robert Ingersoll satirically remarked, “Here we find the astronomy and geology of Christ. Heaven is the throne of God, the monarch; the earth is his footstool. A footstool that turns over at the rate of a thousand miles an hour, and sweeps through space at the rate of over a thousand miles a minute!”
Given that the Bible errs in simple matters of geology and astronomy, it hardly makes sense to trust it when it on more advanced matters of nuclear physics.
“The system has been feeding us one big lie”
No, it hasn’t. As this review has shown, it’s the Big Daddy pamphlet [and “Creation Science” in general] that feeds “one big lie”, by making copious use of misrepresentations, half-truths and outright falsehoods.
“Nobody else can save you. Trust Jesus today”
If Jesus died for our sins, he must have been mortal, yet the Bible cautions against trusting in such a person: “Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men who cannot save” (Psalm 146:3).
The pamphlet refers to “Dr.” Kent Hovind (footnotes in Panels 14 and 21),
who is the source of much of the material in the pamphlet. Hovind has a religious-based PhD in "Christian Education" from Patriot
University. “Christian Education"
is an evangelism course, and Patriot University is an unaccredited
correspondence school. Under Florida
State law, Hovind can only claim his title if he "clearly identifies the
religious character of the educational program":
The 2003 Florida Statutes: 817.567 Making false claims of academic degree or title
Hovind, however, actively calls himself “Dr. Dino”, and even his website is called drdino.com. The website describes him in glowing terms as “Dr. Kent Hovind…. one of the most requested speakers on the Creation and Evolution topic in churches and Universities all over the world….. an educator for many years teaching Biology, Anatomy, Physical Science, Mathematics, Earth Science, and many other sciences….”
Not surprisingly, these references to a “Dr. Hovind”, an educator who has taught biology and who commonly speaks about evolution in universities, leads unwary people to conclude that he actually has some kind of scientific qualification that relates to dinosaurs or evolution. But he hasn’t - and the vast majority of people who have reject his ideas as dishonest nonsense.