How can one argue that a process cannot account for something if one does not understand the process?
Creationists, such as Dr. Jobe Martin, argue that many "creatures" are too beautiful and intricate to have evolved, and must have been created. But that assertion rests upon an inferior understanding of evolution:
Could time and chance come together and give us all the beauty we see in the world? Hi! I'm David Hames, and in the next few minutes we are going to take a close look at some animals that are going to shatter that very idea.Yeah, but, the theory of evolution does not describe a process of time and chance alone. There's lots more, without which I'd agree that evolution would not be possible.
Dr. Martin starts by telling us that according to what he was taught about evolution, it started with the big bang. In my first post about Dr. Martin I argued that he didn't have enough education to understand evolution, and him saying that the big bang has anything to do with evolution confirms that right there. "Volcanic activity produced the water." Then lightning, x-rays, or something zapped these inorganic chemicals, and all of a sudden you have this little speck of life, he says that the scientists say. And the after about 3 billion years that speck of life became the first cell, which was somewhere around 600 billion years ago. I have listened to that sentence some ten times now, and I swear he says billion, rather than million, but even if he meant million, that's totally wrong. The first cell is way older that 600 million years, and there is no "speck of life" that isn't a cell, and oh my god it's already a total misrepresentation of what we actually know about cosmology, geology, abiogenesis, and evolution.
[Funny scene where Dr. Martin reads a page in a book from bottom to top.]
He then mentions The Assumptions... I know not yet what exactly he is referring to, but I trust he'll spill it soon. (At the end he never said, but perhaps at the end of number II or III in the series?)
Case #1: The bombardier beetle. It's quite a remarkable creature, and "there is no way a slow, gradual process is going to produce this bug". Not even if you include the newest additions to the theory, like punctuated equilibrium. How could this bug evolve? It need all of its parts all at once, or you just don't have the animal. So there.
[If you laughed at the remark about PE, then we're two.]
Case #2: The giraffe. It's an amazing system that enables the giraffe to lower its head to get a drink of water. And the giraffe can tell the difference between a zebra and a lion, which evolutionists can't explain either. At this point the narrative succumbs to an extreme parody of an evolutionary explanation: the giraffe runs away from the lion, but then passes out because it suddenly doesn't get enough oxygen to the brain. And while it's lying there being eaten by the lion, it thinks "oh, I better evolve something for this problem." Except the giraffe doesn't pass out, and that's another clever system, and how would that evolve? Ergo a designer.
Case #3: The woodpecker. Special beak. Special feet. Special tail feathers. The woodpecker doesn't get a headache from all that pecking at wood because God designed the woodpecker skull to be very thick. And the woodpecker has a very long tongue. The tongue has barbs, which God made. And glue. Just right. God made him that way. Dr. Martin could not find any evolutionists (that he asked) to tell him how the very long tongue of the European Green Woodpecker could have evolved. Not only does he then conclude that God must have done it, but that God did that to "challenge the evolutionary community".
Dr. Martin then explains how finding information about these cases that evolutionary biologists cannot explain is very hard, because they don't put them in textbooks. He says that when the scientists are faced with something they cannot explain the evolutionary history of, they fail to make the obvious conclusion that a designer did it, but instead suppress the evidence. But this is completely wrongheaded. Scientists look for natural explanations, and while they sometimes fail to explain something, that evidence is not suppressed, nor is it evidence of a designer. This is the typical age old god-of-the-gaps argument over and over again. If we can't explain it now, then God must have made it.
Case #4: The Australian incubator bird. Incredible. Evolution impossible. Only God can do that. [Dr. Martin tells us that its egg is almost a half pound in weight, which is almost as much as that of an ostrich - except that ostrich eggs are 3.1 pounds on average.]
Case #5: The beaver. It's an engineer! Ditto.
Case #6: The platypus. Electricity! "That's a miracle."
Case #7: The garden spider.
Case #8: The gecko. How? Why?
Case #9: The eye....
This was very painful to watch. The many interesting facts about these animals are completely ruined by the incessant mantra of "how could this evolve?" It's not even an attempt at some fancy explanation for how these animals could necessarily not evolve, a lá Dembski and Behe, but just incredible creatures that defy evolutionary explanations by scientists right now. Dr. Martin is just asking questions, and when he doesn't find an answer, then he concludes that God made them.
Very disappointing. I hesitate to watch the next two in the series.
Lastly, if I were to answer my question in the beginning the way Dr. Martin does, I might say that one in fact cannot argue that a process cannot account for something if one does not understand the process. In other words, Dr. Martin's query is completely vacuous, and merely rests upon ignorance.