Jackson Wheat

January 17, 2016

The Collapse of Atheism
While I was perusing The Friendly Atheists Facebook page, I came across something
in the comment section titled The Collapse of Atheism. I became interested and started
looking up the title, which turns out to be a documentary video. The video was created
by someone named Harun Yahya, who turns out to be an Islamic creationist. Drawn in by
such a provocative title, I investigated further to determine if atheism were indeed
collapsing despite all the polls saying otherwise, and, fortunately, Mr. Yahya has a
website where he breaks down the video. The video has several sections: cosmology,
physics and astronomy, quantum physics, the natural sciences, psychology, medicine,
sociology, The Dawn of the Post-Atheist World, and a conclusion. Since my desired
field is biology, I will not attempt to offer rebuttals to any other sections in the video; I
encourage others to do this. So without further ado, let us look at how the natural sciences
support creationism.
The sections actual title is The Natural Sciences: The Collapse of Darwinism and the
Triumph of Intelligent Design, which is also provocative. By Darwinism I will assume
he means evolutionary biology, even if Darwinism has a larger denotation that merely
evolution. Before I even look at the article, I can say with confidence that intelligent
design (ID) has never triumphed when scrutinized. A quick proof of this is the Kitzmiller
v. Dover School District Trial, where ID was forced into the science class and
immediately rebutted as unconstitutional (according to the First Amendment) and
unscientific. Next, how could evolutionary biology have collapsed if over 98%, according
to the Pew Research Center, of scientists accept evolution? Also according to the Pew
Research Center, around 59% of Americans support evolution with 5% unsure and 31%
creationist. This is also in accordance with the sites statistic that nonreligious people
have increased dramatically, while the religious population has declined (Nones on the
Rise).
So what does the website actually say? The first paragraph asserts that evolution, as
well as atheism, peaked in the 19th century. This is bizarre in that there were very few
people, probably in the thousands, who accepted evolution in the 19th century (since it
was proposed in the last forty years of that century), as opposed to the millions today. The
paragraph is clearly illogical, and the second paragraph does not do any better: But, at
the same time, this greatest support for atheism is the dogma that has received the
greatest blow from scientific discoveries in the 20th century. The discoveries by various
branches of science such as paleontology, biochemistry, anatomy and genetics have
shattered the theory of evolution from various aspects. To fully explain how this quote is
a complete and utter lie would take a book, or several, although I can try to briefly
explain the inanity of it. First, paleontology gives us fossils all the time that clearly depict
the transition of organisms; most modern organisms have relatives that have been found
in the fossil record. Second, biochemistry has shown that all organisms share
characteristics, which points to common ancestry. Third, anatomy shows that no body
parts are irreducibly complex and how many organisms share similar organs or bone
structures (this again shows common ancestry, and an example is the arm structure of all

tetrapods: two bones, one bone, wrist, hand, fingers). Fourth, genetics allows scientists to
trace the lineage of organisms and to create a phylogenetic tree of life. Conclusively,
every aspect of biology clearly supports evolution.
Next, Mr. Yahya moves onto paleontology, and considering that the previous
paragraphs were terribly untrue, I will not hold my breath for his following ones. The
paragraph begins with Darwins theory rests on the assumption that all species come
from one single common ancestor and that they diverged from one another over a long
period of time by small gradual changes. This is no more an assumption than any other
scientific theory; it was proved with flying colors. The paragraph goes on: It is supposed
that the proofs for this will be discovered in the fossil record, the petrified remains of
living things. But fossil research conducted in the course of the 20th century has
presented a totally different picture. The fossil of even a single undoubted intermediate
species that would substantiate the belief in the gradual evolution of species has not been
found. Moreover, every taxon appears suddenly in the fossil record and no trace has been
found of any previous ancestors. First, while the fossil record is not the only proof of
evolution, it is one of the major supporters of evolution. What makes the fossil record
such a great supporter of evolution is the fact that hundreds of thousands of organisms
have been found and not one fossil has ever been proved to be in the wrong strata. No
one has ever found fossil bunnies in the Cambrian or humans in the Cretaceous, which
creationists believe should happen (since they think humans lived with dinosaurs). Need I
remind anyone that the vast majority of discovered fossils were found during the 20th
century--including Australopithecus, Ichthyostega, Panderichthys, Haikouichthys, and
Megazostrodon to name a few? Thus, the second-to-last sentence is a ludicrous lie, but
since he may just be ignorant of the fossils, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. The
last sentence presents another false statement that will be addressed next.
The paragraph continues: The phenomenon known as the Cambrian Explosion is
especially interesting. In this early geological period, nearly all of the phyla (major
groups with significantly different body plans) of the animal kingdom suddenly appeared.
This sudden emergence of many different categories of living things with totally different
body structures and extremely complex organs and systems, including mollusks,
arthropods, echinoderms and (as recently discovered) even vertebrates, is a major blow to
Darwinism. For, as evolutionists also agree, the sudden appearance of a taxon implies
supernatural design and this means creation. Oh boy, the old creationist lie about how no
fossils precede the Cambrian. I have addressed this in previous papers, but I will say
many fossils have been found in the Precambrian strata: Gunflintia, Eoentophysalis,
Torridonophycus, Bangiomorpha, Melanocyrillium, Megasphaera, Protospongia,
Spriggina, Dickinsonia, and the list goes on and on. The Cambrian was also not an early
geological period; it was preceded by four billion years of Earth history, and life had
already existed for about 3.5 billion years. I really get tired of creationists rehashing the
same old arguments. Since the statements about the nonexistence of Precambrian fossils
are lies, they are in no way blows to evolution. Lastly, how could evolutionists agree that,
if there were no Precambrian fossils, that implies creationism? Why would they be
evolutionists if they believed creationism? That makes no sense. The only support for the
last sentence is lies; thus, it can be easily discarded.
We can now move on from Mr. Yahyas dismal arguments concerning paleontology to
his arguments concerning biological observation. A little way through the paragraph we

run into issues: [D]ecades of observation and experimentation on various species of

animals have shown that variation in living things has never gone beyond certain genetic
boundary. Darwins assertions, like I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being
rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their habits, with larger and
larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale, actually
demonstrates his great ignorance. On the other hand, observations and experiments have
shown that mutations defined by Neo- Darwinism as an evolutionary mechanism add no
new genetic information to living creatures. What certain genetic boundary? What is he
saying? He provides no explanation of this, so I do not understand what he means.
Second, that quote comes directly from On the Origin of Species, and anyone who
actually read the book would know that Darwin was simply using the bear as an example
of how natural selection COULD, NOT WOULD, result in a whale-sized bear. In fact this
very process occurred in animals like Pakicetus and Indohyus, which were more dog-like
and evolved into whales. How could Darwin be ignorant of evolution? He wrote the first
book on the idea! Sure, Darwin got some things wrong, but his two major ideas, natural
selection and common ancestry, have been proved. Lastly, what does the author define as
genetic information? I can easily show that any mutation--whether frame-shift,
deletion, or insertion--changes the genetic sequence of nucleotides, so that alters the
effects of codons and production of proteins. I think creationists believe that DNA
actually contains some computer-like information, and that is why they keep saying no
new information is added to the organism.
Then, Mr. Yahya discusses the origin of life: [D]arwin spoke about a common
ancestor but he never mentioned how this first common ancestor came to be. His only
conjecture was that the first cell could have formed as a result of random chemical
reactions in some small warm little pond. But evolutionary biochemists who undertook
[the attempt (?)] to close this hole in Darwinism [were] met with frustration. All
observations and experiments showed that it was, in a word, impossible for a living cell
to arise within inanimate matter by random chemical reactions. Darwin did not have to
explain the origin of life; evolution simply explains how to go from organism A to B, not
how these organisms originally arose. It was, however, a logical step to reach the
conclusion that since organisms evolve through natural means, they originally formed
due to natural means. I, for once, agree with Mr. Yahya: it is probably virtually
impossible to form life from a series of random chemical reactions. That is why life did
not form from random chemical reactions; it probably formed due to very specific
reactions. Basically, Mr. Yahya does not provide any arguments against evolution from a
common ancestor. Everything he says in this quote is essentially true, which is humorous
because it does not provide arguments against common ancestry. However, the paragraph
finishes with a partial quote from British astronomer Fred Hoyle about how abiogenesis
is impossible, even if he did later support panspermia but never mind that. This quote is
often flaunted by creationists as evidence against evolution and abiogenesis, although I
must tentatively remind them that this is merely a quotation. Saying evolution is a lie is
no more evidence against evolution than saying creationism is a lie is evidence against
creationism. I must also point out that Fred Hoyle was an astronomer, not a biologist.
The paragraph then says, Scientists studying cells, the molecules that compose the
cells, their remarkable organization within the body and the delicate order and plan in the
organs are faced with proof of the fact that evolutionists strongly wish to reject: The

world of living things is permeated by designs too complex to be found in any

technological equipment. Prove that just one single organism is irreducibly complex.
Just one. Do that and he should get the Nobel Prize for overturning evolution; however,
since neither he nor any other creationist has proved this, evolution stands. Second, just
because scientists cannot technologically replicate the complex systems of an organism,
evolution is disproved? How does that make any sense?
Mr. Yahya finishes the paragraph: Intricate examples of design, including our eyes
that are too superior to be compared to any camera, the wings of birds that have inspired
flight technology, the complexly integrated system of the cells of living things and the
remarkable information stored in DNA have vitiated the theory of evolution which
regards living things as the product of blind chance. Sure, our eyes are better than any
camera created so far, but what about the eyes of a flatworm or a rhinoceros? Their
eyesight is terrible. Again, Mr. Yahya has this notion in his head that if humans cannot
construct a technological equivalent of some natural thing, then evolution is disproved.
This is ridiculously illogical. Second, I do not understand how wings inspiring humans to
attain the power of flight is evidence of divine design. Third, he basically says that cells
and DNA are complex; therefore, they are the result of divine design. This is unsupported
by any evidence. There is no way to logically tie complexity in the natural world to a god
when the god has not even been shown to exist. Lastly, Mr. Yahya gives himself away
when he throws out the phrase blind chance. No biologist describes evolution as blind
chance, but all creationists seem to regard evolution as blind chance. So Mr. Yahya shoots
himself in the foot: after trying to demonstrate how evolution is impossible, he makes
clear the fact that he has no idea what evolution actually states.
All in all, I am not surprised by this poor attempt to discredit over one hundred years of
scientific work. Mr. Yahyas false arguments, quote-mines, and possibly straight-up lies
culminate inabsolutely nothing. He has proved nothing other than the fact that he tries
to fight something he does not understand.