False Correlations of Darwinism

My favourite topic of enquiry regarding creation and the refutation of Darwinism is zoology. Though my studies within it, from a formal perspective, include only an unfinished diploma, I have spent many hours reading, researching and observing the wonder of living things.

One of the fallacies of Darwinism that is rarely mentioned is the supposed correlation between bipedalism and intelligence. In the conventional time-line of human evolution, from monkey to 'modern' man, the assumption is made that increased bipedalism be-gets increased intelligence or vice versa, increased intelligence be-gets increased bipedalism. "Why of course, all four-legged creatures are stupid and all two-legged creatures are smart!", I hear the intellectually neotanised Dawkinites murmur.

That is simply not true. Bears are smarter than kangaroos for one, but it is also not true in view of Darwinian human evolution theory. If the fallacious correlation presented in the pretty pictures of the text books was true then we would find that the more bipedal the ape, the more intelligent. Unfortunately fact, and namely fact by zoological observation, proves otherwise. The smartest ape is not the most bipedal, and the most bipedal is not the most intelligent. Darwinists say "d'oh!


The most intelligent ape, shown by several tests that have included the ability to learn sign language and the ability to grasp gift reciprocity, is the orang utan. The thing about the orang is that it is the most arboreal of the great apes - it spends more time in the trees and is less bipedal than all of the other great apes such as gorillas and chimps. The most bipedal ape is not even a 'great ape', it is the gibbon. The gibbon habitually walks upright when dancing across branches or when on the ground. God made it this way because its long arms that are used for 'brachiating' through the trees are not suitable for the knuckle or wrist walking of the other apes. The gibbon is certainly not the most intelligent ape.

So there we have it, there is no observable relation between bipedalism and intelligence in apes, so how can it be assumed that there was in the fictitious tree of human evolution? Easily, because evolutions are experts at drawing pretty pictures and telling you that something definitely happened, without explaining how. You cannot reasonably posit that Lucy was any more intelligent than her relatives that swung in the trees more than she did.

The other false correlation is brain size and intelligence - inevitably the drawings show the head size increasing from the small head of an ape-like creature to the larger size of homo sapiens. As Dr. Marvin Lubenow, author of Bones of Contention observed, if you blow up a gorilla's brain you simply have a huge gorilla brain - it is the wiring of the brain that matters. In fact, gorillas have larger brains than orangs, but do not display intelligence to the same level. It is nothing to do with their size - chimps are smaller than both but have a larger brain than an orang.

These are just two scientifically verifiable observations made amongst living creatures that we can observe, study and test, not dead bones shoe-horned into a pre-conceived world view - now that's science.

A Most Wonderful Witness Part1

I have had two of my greatest witnesses from a point of view of the presentation of truth over the past few days.

The first was at our usual Saturday street outreach. I met an evolutionary biologist called Dr. Sharma, who I had a fantastic time with. We went through the icons of evolution theory and their fraudulent nature, the insufficiency of natural selection to explain origins or even explain speciation, and many other things.

He took me into a book shop to show me a new book on human evolution theory after I questioned the fallacious time-line of human ancestry. It wasn't there, which was a sweet touch to a talk based on the absence of evidence for Darwinism. He insisted to me that Lucy was a direct human ancestor, yet I pointed to the Laetoli tracks that pre-date the supposed existence of Australopithecus Afarensis as an ape-like human ancestor. The very fact that they are the imprints of a normal modern human of above average height completely flies in the face of standard models of the evolution of bipedalism.

The crux was DNA - after he was surprised to learn that Richard Dawkins admitted to evidence of complexity that could have been created by a transcendent intelligence, he admitted that attributing that design to ET was simply postponing the problem. He then attempted to tell me that DNA is not complex and that it simply evolved from less complex forms that were not quite as good. When I asked if that could be shown to me he said that it couldn't as it was all dead.

When I posited that this did not fall within the parameters of scientific enquiry because it could not be observed, studied or tested and that if he could not prove it ever existed then he was holding to it by religious faith I was filled with joy; I had got to one of those magic moments when a secular humanist is found severely wanting in his attempt to distance himself from faith and dogma.

Even though he refused my invitation to our nativity play as 'propaganda', I immediately prayed for his soul, knowing that showing an evolutionist his zealous faith in Darwinism and the fraudulent icons that he uses to prop up this faith, is the first step towards getting him to consider his own fallibility. Shedding light on his own narcissism is a step closer to his heart being open to the ultimate destroyer of foolish pride that is the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Christopher Hitchens is Dead, Short Live Richard Dawkins

It is sad to hear that Christopher Hitchens has succumbed to cancer and died, because as Ezekiel tells us, God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Another sinner standing before the programmer of his DNA and found seriously wanting is not something to rejoice in.

The militant atheists such as Hitchens, Dawkins et al may rejoice when another creationist is off the scene, but I just couldn't find it in me to dance and sing when Mu'ammar Gaddafi was executed on camera, or even when news came that an unarmed Osama Bin Laden had been killed - in like manner this man may have stood against morality and truth but he was still a man and a soul. When you dig into the history of atheists you often find that others are to be indicted in the forming of their world-views - especially education boards and Christians who weren't ready to give an answer for the hope within them.

I say 'short live' Richard Dawkins not because I desire him to die early, but because life is a vapour and all flesh is as grass - here today and gone tomorrow. I for one don't want to spend 62 adult years using my reason and logic to argue against the only logical source of the ability to think and reason. Hitchens is gone, but Dawkins will be soon too; in 150 years none of us will be here.

Why Dawkins should post a brief, sentimental message on Twitter just doesn't make sense in either of their world-views. If Dawkins has evolved complex emotions and sociological abilities through the convoluted and tedious process of millions of years of random chance, then joy should spring forth as he realises that another conglomerate of chemicals that was competing with him for air, food, sexual partners etc, has expired.

He is completely unwarranted to feel any emotional connection or affection for one who was not a member of his family unit or a sexual partner. Pseudo-intellectual crusades against the God that made their soul certainly didn't do anything for their genome. Hitchens dying of cancer and Dawkins not in the best health points towards being a bitter atheist as not particularly good for your evolutionary survival.

Dawkins finished of his tribute by saying that Hitchens crusaded against 'all tyrants, including God (sic)'. The very fact that the 'Four Horsemen', including Dawkins and Hitchens, could run around spouting trite logical fallacies without immediate judgement points towards a long-suffering and graceful Lord who while they were yet in sin, died for them.

I don't know what it would take for Dawkins to get saved, or even if he is not too far gone to hear truth, but I sure would like to meet him and preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to him. I know how lost these men are, but I also know the power of His Word.