The Creation Project

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:05):
Hello, everyone, Welcome to the Creation Podcast, the show where
we discuss the science that confirms scripture. I'm your host,
Trey and I have with me today I see our
as president, doctor Randy Galuza. Thank you so much for
being here.

Speaker 2 (00:17):
Doctor g Oh, thanks for the invite.

Speaker 1 (00:19):
Absolutely, I'm really excited about this particular episode, as I
was just saying, and we just recorded an episode with
doctor Tompkins, and I always think it's really interesting to
talk about the history behind some of these beliefs that
have kind of invaded their way into our culture, and

(00:41):
this is one of those, and I think that it's
amazing to just see where it came from. So we're
gonna be talking about Ernest Haeckel. Won't find many people
named that these days. I don't think he was a
German dude, a zoologist, and he is most famous for
developing a series of images. And can you tell us

(01:04):
a little bit more about maybe who he was, what
he did, etc.

Speaker 2 (01:09):
Well, you're right on and talking about the history of
these ideas, because there's a lot more to it than
just the actual event. And in this particular case, we're
going to be talking about Heckel's embryos as they've been
known as. But you have to go deeper. Why did
we get to the point where we're even talking about
Heckel's embryos along these lines. And Ernst Heckel, as you mentioned, it,

(01:32):
was German, but he was a firm believer in Darwinian evolution,
and we're talking about him today because it looks like
he committed a major fraud on everybody, including myself. I
was pulled into his fraud when I was in high
school all these things, and in eighteen seventy four, and
I hope our viewers can catch this right now, he

(01:55):
came up with a series of drawings comparing all different
kinds of creatures, you know, and he took them through
their embiological development, so you almost have to kind of
visualize or you can see it on the screen here
like a spreadsheet where you have different types of individuals
and then you start from a single egg and you
go all the way through to maturity of development right

(02:17):
for a human being and be like right at birth.
And he compared these different creatures at these different stages
and he said this was proof positive of Darwinian evolution.
And his drawings then were repeated and copied in one
form or another over and over again throughout different textbooks,

(02:38):
and particularly high school textbooks, biology textbooks in nineteen ninety
two when I was in med school. They were even
in my med school textbooks, my textbook on embryology, and
it contributed nothing to the text but there was a
rendition of Heckel's embryos and leading people astray. So hopefully

(03:00):
everybody's had a chance to see what I'm talking about
on the screen by now. And mainly he was making
three major arguments by putting up his embryos. Argument number
one was that life went from simple to complex. It
started out in this simple way and it went to
a more complex form, which is a huge part of

(03:21):
evolutionary Oh yeah, yeah, it's a major part of their
theory as you're talking about. It's a part of the
theory that life goes from simple to complex over time.
And Darwin's mechanism from getting it too simple to complex
was a struggle to survive selection natural selection that there
was this competition for scarce resources, and the ones who

(03:41):
could get the resources survive therefore they were obviously what
better than the others, which put creatures on an upward trajectory.
So life went from simple to complex over time. Second,
he was arguing that humans and these other creatures shared
a common ancestor, shared a common ancestor, and this was

(04:03):
obviously evident by the similarities that people could see between
these embryos, particularly in the very very early stages. They
were like, Wow, these are these are very very similar
to each other. Why would they Why would you have
a turtle embryo being so similar to a human embryo,
Why would you have a chicken embryo being so similar

(04:24):
to a human embryo if they didn't share some remote
common ancestor way way in the past. And then third,
he was saying that as we looked at these embryos
and you would follow them through development, you could see
the actual history of the evolution of life on Earth,

(04:45):
that they went through a primitive stage and then a
little more advanced stage, and then finally the advanced stage.
So you could see that, and therefore it was I
was a phrase that I learned when I was a
kid called phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny.

Speaker 1 (05:03):
Which is that that's a mouthful. Can you kind of
break down what that means.

Speaker 2 (05:08):
Yeah, it means that when you're looking at the ontogeny,
this development of these embryos through time. It's actually a
little mirror or it's a picture into the past, a
window into the past, probably a better way of phrasing it,
a window in the past of looking at the evolutionary
development over all of these things. And so that's and

(05:31):
when I picked up textbook. So I found my high
school textbook that was I used in nineteen seventy five,
Long Still Hot Before you Were born. Yeah, And this
is what it said. This was from nineteen seventy two
Keaton in nineteen seventy two. It says, for example, on
these points that I was talking about here, for example,
the early human embryo has a well developed tail and

(05:55):
a series of gill pouches in the frongial region. And
then to the other point that I was making, and
says human and fish embryos resemble each other because human
beings and fish share a common remote ancestry. So right
there in the text, and as you can imagine me
seeing this for the first time, and I went on

(06:17):
to do more science, but many high school students, this
is the only time they'll ever see this first and
only time that you see this, and it seemed to
be so persuasive. I mean, here you have these drawings,
look at this development. Clearly things go from simple to complex.
Clearly we share this common ancestor. And then of course

(06:38):
it did look like they were going through these stages
over time, all right.

Speaker 1 (06:45):
I do recall. So I learned about this particular piece
of artwork, and I went to a private Christian school,
so it was not from an evolutionary standpoint, but they
taught us about this because they knew that we would
experience it, you know, out beyond the walls of the

(07:06):
high school. And they were saying, you know, my teachers
were saying, this is something like you'll look at this
and they'll say, oh, this this baby, this child speaking
about humans in particular, this child is currently only a fish,
or this child currently is only a lizard. And that

(07:28):
to me, I mean, right off the bat, that flies
in the face of what we know from scripture about
humanity being made in God's image and animals in their
entirety are completely separate demographic if you will, of creature
right exactly.

Speaker 2 (07:47):
And I mean you were totally misled. Yeah, I was
misled and everything about this, you know, I don't want
to even mince words. Was totally misleading. The drawings is
I'll read you quotes here in just a second as
we go through this podcast, were faked, and we now
know that they were faked. We now know that they
were exaggerated. We now know that they minimized differences and

(08:11):
exaggerated similarities between all of these things. But even more fundamental,
humans never have gill slits, and humans never go through
a place where they develop a tail, and so even
in these drawings it's misleading. The characterization in my high
school textbook was misleading, and even in my med school

(08:35):
textbook it was somewhat misleading because I eventually began to
realize that, hey, oh no, this isn't a tail on
a human being. This is how little babies developed. They
lay down a backbone first, and it's pretty much the
whole length of the little baby, and then the rest
of the baby grows into it. So there's a period

(08:56):
of time where the backbone is a little bit longer
than the baby, but baby grows into it. It's never
like there's a tail that regresses right along those lines.
And then these pharyngial folds and pouches which I learned
about which I believed at one time had guilt tissue
in them. Never had guilt tissue, never will have guilt tissue.

(09:19):
They develop into important structures your jaw, the lower part
of your face, or as glands in your neck, your thiroid, lampair,
thyroid glands, all of these things. It's like, well, this
was totally wrong and totally wrong.

Speaker 1 (09:33):
And like you said, like in your high school class,
you know some of those students will never look or
think about this again. And it's only through your actual
studies as a medical doctor that you were able to
overcome some of these thought processes. And some people may
even say, I think about the tail the baby grows

(09:57):
into the spinal column right, or the backbone, the it's
not a tail that regresses To someone who's not a
scientist or a medical doctor, that may mean nothing, right,
And so they may be like, it's the same thing, right,
But you know that it's a very different thing, and

(10:18):
that the fact that the backbone is already there and
the baby growing into it makes it a completely different,
like completely negates the idea of a tail. So I
find that interesting, even just like small, the small minutia
of how a baby forms in the womb kind of
negates some of I mean not some of all of

(10:38):
these drawings question about maybe his purpose. So we've talked
about like the three things that he was trying to promote.
But what was the purpose of trying to promote you know,
life evolving from primitive simple animals a common ancestor, and

(11:02):
you know, the synopsis of evolution in a womb? What
was in his mind? Not that you can read his mind,
I mean he's not here anymore, he's long long since
passed away. But what is his purpose do you think
of like trying to do this, What is the reason
behind it?

Speaker 2 (11:20):
Well, it's clearly to promote the whole concept of evolution.
I don't know whether he has any other purposes, Like
you say, I don't. I can't. I'm not God, so
I can't read his mind, even if we could go back.
But the intent of the drawings were to promote the
idea of evolution, that it was a fact, that this
was a real thing. People should be skeptical of it,

(11:42):
and they were skeptical of it, and people should be
skeptical of it now there. But he clearly had an
agenda which was to get this idea that evolution is
a true thing, and clearly he wasn't it wasn't beyond
him to exaggerate in order to get that point across.
But that's not He's not the only one who has

(12:04):
done that with evolutionary theory in the past. So that
was his that was his purpose. I don't know whether
he had any other agenda's fame or any of those
other kind of things. I don't know, but in this
particular case, I know it is to get the idea
of evolution in people's minds. And he used it because
it's a it's a vehicle which people can understand. You know,

(12:28):
it's not a it's not an incredibly complex scientific thing
to have to drudge through where you're going to lose
half the people and the others that's going over their head.
Nobody's catching it. Everybody knows a chicken and a fish
in this, and they they they know it develops from
an egg to a check in and things like this.
So it was it was an easy way for him

(12:51):
to show something and therefore it was very powerful. And
as you mentioned, you know, this was the only exposure
at some of these high school students will ever ever have.
They don't go on to that. It boom, it locks
in their mind. This is fact, and it goes on.
I guess maybe for a shameless plug for our podcasts.
That's why that's why we do this. That's why we

(13:13):
do these podcasts. Is the last time you saw these
drawings was in a high school textbook. And now we're
telling you that these things are were fraudulent.

Speaker 1 (13:22):
Yeah, and they're recognized in the evolutionary community as fraudulent
also in a lot of ways. I think you know,
even at the time he received criticism for these rights.

Speaker 2 (13:34):
Right he did a fellow embryologists criticized him. They said
he was fake. So it's a perfect time to just
we'll just read some quotes from some evolutionists. You said,
evolutionists have mentioned this while paper and Science come ount
in nineteen ninety seven. Science is probably the leading scientific
journal for the United States, and it was had a quote,

(13:58):
and it had a whole article on drawings. So let
me just read just some summary. I can't read the
whole article by any means, but here's a punchline. Generations
of biology students may have been misled by a famous
set of drawings of embryos published one hundred and twenty
three years ago. This was in nineteen ninety seven by
the German biologist Ernst Heckel, and it goes on to say,

(14:21):
and you know, because there was a debate whether he
actually because there was a debate whether he actually did
these things intentionally or whether he was just maybe a
little bit over zealous or whatever it was. But being
over zealous is still intentional. And so this article went
on to say, Unfortunately Heckel was over zealous. When we
compared his drawings with real embryos, we found that he

(14:43):
showed many details incorrectly. For example, we found variations in
the embrotic size, external form, and segment number which he
did not show. It kind of sums up by saying,
it looks like it's turning out to be one of
the most famous fakes in biology. Another man, Stephen J. Goule,

(15:05):
probably the leading evolutionary theorist up until his death a
couple decades ago. He doesn't really pull any punches either.
Commenting on this where some people noted that Heckel had
used quote artistic license and putting these together, Gould says this,
and this was in two thousand an article he wrote

(15:26):
in two thousand. I do dislike the common phrase artistic license,
especially for its parochially smug connotation when used by scientists,
that creative humanists care little for empirical accuracy. After all,
the best artistic distortions record great skill and conscious intent.

(15:49):
But I don't know how else to describe the work
of Heckel. To cut to the quick of this drama,
Heckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions. He also,
in some cases and a procedure that can only be
called fraudulent, simply copied the same figure over and over again.

(16:11):
Heckel's drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most
impenetrable and prominent of all quasi scientific literatures, standards student
textbook textbooks of biology. Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes
concumbed and effectively permanent, because, as stated above, textbooks copy

(16:34):
from previous texts.

Speaker 1 (16:36):
Yeah, that's yeah, that's that says a lot right there.
Once it's there, it's like you can't get rid of
it because everyone just believes that that's right. If that's
what every person who goes through the school system is taught.
What else is there? Right?

Speaker 2 (16:53):
Right?

Speaker 1 (16:53):
Right?

Speaker 2 (16:54):
So this isn't just you know, us zealot creationists who
are just coming here to hammer and a pound on
Ernst Heckel, Right, and you say, oh, we don't agree
with this, it's fraudulent. No, these other members of his
own community, both Ardent evolutionists Zellis evolutionists themselves, recognize that

(17:15):
these drawings were absolutely and totally faked.

Speaker 1 (17:19):
Okay, well that's I mean, that seems to me like
and again like I can't read his mind, but listening
to the quote from Gould, you know there's intentionality there
of even artistic license, because there are like, there's two

(17:40):
options here, right, He's either over zealous or he's a liar. Right,
there's only two options there, or he was just completely mistaken,
in which case, why are we taking his word to
begin with? Right, So it gets three options. And so
the fact that other evolutionists are saying like, hey, this
is do not listen to this. Yeah, okay, so I'd

(18:06):
like to take a step back just a little bit.
This leads to a larger question at hand, and we'll
label this here our random science question of the day.
It's not so random today. It's very related. It's very
much a part of the greater issue, especially as we
look back at some of the old theories and some

(18:29):
of the old beliefs. So here's the question. Why is
the history the scientific history of evolution all the way
from we'll say, beginning with Darwin, but there were some before, right,
but essentially starting with Darwin? Why is the history of
evolutionary science and science of courses in quotes so full

(18:51):
of fraud and deception and misdirection? What is going on there?

Speaker 2 (18:58):
Wow, that's a great question, and you're right, there is
a lot in evolutionary science. So I would I recognize
them When I point a finger at somebody else, fingers
are pointing back at me. And then so nobody is
without fraud. But in evolutionary science there appears to be
a history of these frauds. And so we're talking about

(19:22):
Heckel's embryos, fraud, built down man fraud, gill slits, fraud,
tails fraud, archaeo raptor fraud, junk DNA fraud, fastigial organs,
vestigial organs fraud. These are all frauds. And why I
say they're fraud is because people discovered. Oh this is

(19:43):
this is not really right, but it gets perpetuated to
advance the narrative anyway. And so when you're doing that,
you're doing something totally fraudulent. Now built them man was discovered,
but it wasn't for forty years, so it'd already done
its damage. People even got night hood over studying piltdown
man our geeraptor. Yeah, I was discovered, but you know,

(20:05):
it made its way in the National geographic and in
many people's minds showed a connection between dinosaurs and birds.
Junk DNA. I don't know how many complaints I have
from parents who said, you know, my kid went off
to college and he learned that ninety some percent of
all of his DNA was junk, some evolutionary left over.
How in the world do you explain that? And you've

(20:26):
got broken genes that you find in chimps and humans,
and chimps and all in humans as well, how do
you explain that? So these these frauds do their damage. So,
without attributing ill motives per se to anybody else, I'll
tell you one of the main reasons that frauds are

(20:47):
so prevalent and evolutionary theory is because the theory is
so heavily and I mean heavily dependent upon imagination. They
fill in the gaps with major runs a very very
fertile imagination. And Darwin started it. He could imagine a
simple light spot evolving into an eye by pure imagination.

(21:12):
He could imagine a creature like a bear floating in
the water over time morphing into a whale. And so
you have this process and evolutionary which is look, imagine,
and then you see it in your mind's eye. You
see exactly what you're looking for. So when people are

(21:32):
studying a human brain case on Piltdown Man, they can imagine,
they clearly see, but it's really only in their mind's
eye primitive ape like features on it, and they describe
them in the journal Science, Oh, we see these things,
look imagine, see and that captures them over and over again,

(21:56):
so that they make these major blunders.

Speaker 1 (21:59):
In the imagination is affecting what they see, right, it's influencing.
It's influencing their mental like all sort of logic goes
out the window. Then at that point, because you're like, well,
this is what I want to see, so therefore I
see it exactly.

Speaker 2 (22:19):
And imagination fills in the gaps. Even Stephen J. Gould
he mentions this. He calls it extrapolation as part of
the theory. In fact, it's one of the pillars of
evolutionary theories, extrapolation. Because you can't go back in time
to see actually see these things. You have to extrapolate,

(22:39):
or I would just say, you have to imagine. And
the amount of imagination that you must invoke is proportional
to the amount of time you have to go. You
have to travel backwards in so you have to invoke
tremendous amounts of imagination through all of these things, which
can never be very it's not real science. I don't

(23:02):
know why more creationists aren't shouting this problem of imagination
driving evolutionary theory. Imaginations leading them into blunders like pilt
down Man, leading them into blunders like archaeoaptor blunders about
the appendix vestigial organs as you match, as you mentioned,
blunders like Heckel's embryos. It leads them into these blunders

(23:26):
and it makes them susceptible to these frauds.

Speaker 1 (23:28):
Yeah, speaking of we do have a book by you
called twenty Evolutionary Blunders. So I'll figure I'll plug that
now if you want to, if our listeners and viewers
want to learn more about some of those blunders that
this does end up leading them into. There's a good
series of examples right there. So yeah, that's a good one.
And not only are the blunders, but they're failed predictions.

(23:51):
If you have a robust theory, you should be able
to make some predictions and they should be testable. But
evolutionary theory all their predictions like say, vestigial organs and
all these things, these these predictions fail one right after
the other, which is another.

Speaker 2 (24:10):
Example and reason why we should be highly suspect of
evolutionary thinking and the whole theory altogether.

Speaker 1 (24:18):
Yeah. Absolutely, Okay, well, thank you. That was in my
opinion for what that's worth, that is a very solid answer,
and I'm I'm glad to hear it, and it is
as we do these podcasts, it's something that I tend
to hear like more and more, especially as we talk
about some of the historical stuff. It's like, why is

(24:39):
it so full of fraud? Because someone needed it to
be true, right, Someone just desperately wanted it to be true,
so they said it was true. It is. Yeah, Okay,
all right, Well, let's come back to heckel And and
his his series of artwork, and so it's wrong, like

(25:03):
we know it's wrong. The evolutionists there have have stated that, hey,
this is not an accurate depiction of what actually happens
artistic license? Is it a fraud? Is the overzealous who knows?
But it's not right. But it has still gripped the
collective mind of of humanity, like ever since it was introduced,

(25:28):
and it's undoubtedly done damage. It's undoubtedly caused problems. What
are what are some of the issues that have arisen
from this general belief in these you know, the recapitulation theory.
Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Is that good? Right, that's right? Okay,

(25:49):
there you go. That's hard to say. All right, So
what are some what are some negatives that have just
impacted the world because of this?

Speaker 2 (25:57):
Well, let's start with just the one you just mentioned.
That whole idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny misled people and
so it misled scientific research for decades. Most recently, I
could point out the quote another scientist said that whole

(26:17):
idea is effectively quote dead as a doornail, So it
was never right to begin with. So the fact that
you misled scientists is one of the implications too. You
misled millions of students worldwide that they could that they
thought they were seeing solid evidence for revolution like I

(26:40):
thought I was seeing there. And therefore what's happened to
me is now I have less trust than I certainly
did when I was in high school. So when I
was in high school, teachers told me something, I believed
it and why they're teachers they tell me the truth
that now I know realize that teachers have agendas too,

(27:04):
and they're pushing an agenda. So it damaged my faith
once I found it started, oh this was wrong. I
was misled on this, I was lied to and up
to right now, scientists are facing a crisis of trust
by the general public. It was most recently exacerbated by

(27:26):
the COVID crisis, where they were telling you to follow
the science, follow the science. But then you public was
beginning to realize, well, what science you're talking about last
week's science or this week's science, which will probably be
different from next week's science. So you're pounding me on
the head to follow the science, and the science is

(27:48):
a is a moving target all the time. And not
only that, there was such a disagreement amongst some of
the scientists do this. No, No, that's the exact opposite
what you need to do. So now you have a
crisis in the public trust of scientists in general, which.

Speaker 1 (28:05):
Can be very negative overall.

Speaker 2 (28:07):
I can again because there's times when you know, I
want you to trust me to take this medication, it
will help you. We have studies to demonstrate that, and
then they say, well, are they the same studies that
you had about this vaccine that you're telling me about.
So it can be very very negative. In our particular case,

(28:27):
I think it's it's useful because when it comes to evolution,
people seem to like just swallow it down very gullibly
without really really examining the science. So here's a case
where people were completely misled on that. And then of
course there's the problem where the uniqueness of humanity and

(28:50):
the specialness of humanity was minimized. People who were made
in the image of God, human beings, which are so
obviously front than animals, were made to be seen as
nothing more than just a more highly evolved animal, and

(29:11):
therefore all the atrocities and everything that can follow on
with that, where the value of a human being is minimized,
and the whole idea that humans are special and they're
not to be abused or misused in any way is minimized,
which led to as you and I had a talk

(29:31):
a few months ago on eugenics, and then by extension abortion,
by extension euthanasia and auto on, it goes where you
begin to view human beings as nothing more than just
an animal plus time.

Speaker 1 (29:47):
And that's actually that's interesting because one of my first
thoughts here is, you know, if a mother is going
through a pregnancy and you know they're considering some form
of abortion, and then they're told by their doctor or

(30:08):
they remember in high school that like, oh, before a
child is born, it's not actually human, it's just a salamander.
At this point, I imagine that that affected the thinking
of a lot of a lot of people at the time.

Speaker 2 (30:22):
Oh, I know, it did, Yeah, and affected my thinking
in high school, and I grew up younger thinking that
humans were special. But I guarantee you I wasn't a
believer at that time. By the time I finished high school,
I wasn't seeing humans as special as something unique. Just animals,
just animals.

Speaker 1 (30:43):
Wow, that is a pretty big effect, maybe one of
the largest effects that this could have had, you know,
because humans are made in the image of God and
they have you know, just a little lower than the angels,
you know. Okay, So a bunch of negatives here, a

(31:04):
bunch of negatives from Heckel's embryos. Why is it important
that we even talk about this again? I know that, Well,
we'll get comments and I'll just nip those in the bud.
We'll get comments to be like, oh well, Ernstuckle, he
was one hundred years ago. Nobody listens to him anymore anyway,
And so why are you bringing it up? And that's

(31:25):
my Internet commenter voice. Why is it important that we
discussed this now?

Speaker 2 (31:32):
Because the history is important?

Speaker 1 (31:35):
One.

Speaker 2 (31:36):
They were wrong, and you shouldn't just sweep the history
onto the rug because this was supposedly a strong evidence
that you were predicting and it was totally wrong. And
when all of the blunders that have been on the
trail of evolutionary theory are swept under the rug, then

(31:56):
people don't realize how bad of a theory it has been.
So you need to know some of the history in
order to get the feeling that, wow, this theory has
been consistently wrong. It's talking about vestigial organs totally wrong.
It makes these predictions wrong. It's been wrong over and over. Second,

(32:21):
the major problem, which is look imagine, c is still
dominant in evolutionary theory, and it shuts down scientific research.

Speaker 1 (32:32):
I was about to saying that does not sound like
the scientific method, I know.

Speaker 2 (32:36):
Right, but it's there, and it shuts down research. Junk DNA,
Oh we find DNA, it's not coding for specific proteins.
Instead of asking questions, well, what is it doing? Could
it be serving a purpose? It was labeled decades ago
as junk, and then it took on a life of

(32:59):
its own, and some evolutionists will not let go of it,
and they're gonna You're gonna have to pry junk DNA
from their cold dead fingers on this. They will not
let these things go, even when study after study shows, oh,
this DNA what you thought was drunk, it's regulatory, it
does other things. It's it's it's not wreckage and carnage

(33:22):
that's left over from our evolutionary past. I mean, even
Francis Collins was writing about it in one of his
books that it's the jetsam and flotsam of our evolutionary
past and clearly evidence for evolution because no intelligent designer
whatever build this junk in So the legacy of what

(33:44):
Heckel was doing lives on in modern day counterparts like
junk DNA. That's why it's important. The underlying problem, the
root cause, still goes on and unless you make the
correct diagnosis, you cannot treat it effectively. So why are
we talking about Heckel's problem? Wow, you're right, it was

(34:05):
over well over one hundred and some years ago. But
what led him astray, aside from his fraudulent behaviors, was
this belief that this was true and he would look
and see exactly what he wanted to see.

Speaker 1 (34:19):
It sounds more and more like it's not just Heckel's problem,
it's evolution's problem. Like the theory is problematic, and which,
of course we know we know that we know that
it is problematic. This is just one of many examples.
We will continue to bring these examples to light because

(34:39):
they lead to negative things, like we talked about eugenics,
like one of the most negative things that can happen
on our planet happened because of a strong belief in
evolutionary theory. So yeah, wow, Okay, do you have any
other thoughts or any final bits of wisdom for our

(35:02):
listeners and viewers.

Speaker 2 (35:03):
Sure, Since probably some creationists are watching this as well
as evolutionists, we as creationists need to examine everything we're
talking about very very carefully and make sure that we
have not imported poor evolutionary thinking into our own thinking

(35:24):
and into our own explanations. It creeps in all the time,
and therefore we need to examine are we explaining things
like an evolutionist might explain them. You know, ICR has
just done a complete about face on our cavefish, and
I've mentioned this in several of my talks and at conferences.

(35:46):
I mentioned at the International Conference on Creation this summer,
I read our original explanation for cavefish. Oh, that these
fish were swimming around this I'm not quoting us exactly,
but paraphrasing us pretty close. That these wish you know,
when they have eyes, it's a big advantage in the sunlight,
but when you get into the cave there are a
big disadvantage. You can swim around, you can scrape and

(36:08):
scratch your eyes against the wall, you can get diseases.
And therefore random genetic mutations over time led to the
eventual loss of eyes, and the selective pressure of the
cave drove them all eventually to blindness. And as you
then begin to examine, what were we telling people, Oh,

(36:29):
we were telling people random genetic mutations was the cause
of this. It was a negative in that environment. Selective
pressures drove them all along until they are eventually all blind.
And then you ask yourself, well, how was that really
different than how an evolutionist would explain it. It wasn't

(36:49):
random mutations being fractioned out by a struggle to survive,
driven along by selective pressures.

Speaker 1 (36:55):
Just a shorter amount of time, just a shorter.

Speaker 2 (36:57):
Amount of time. And we would put the caveat well,
that shows how you break an eye but not make
an eye, or put some of these little, these little
trite comments on there when we should have been thinking,
wait a second, here, these fish they have eyes and
now they have no eyes. They're still alive in the cave,
and it hasn't been a long period of time. I mean, actually,

(37:17):
how in the world would you explain it in any
evolutionary fashion to gradually lose your eyes over time. They're thriving,
they're doing they have all kinds of changes in behaviors
and anatomy and physiology to go along with these eyes.
And it's happening not just in fish, but in crustaceans, salamanders, insects.
I mean, they're all losing their pigmentation, losing their eyes.

(37:43):
Maybe maybe maybe they were designed to do something like this,
Maybe we should explain it from an engineering perspective. So
we were even led astray because we were not skeptical
enough of the things that we were hearing in school,
hearing in high school, hearing in cop and really examining

(38:03):
them not just within scripture, but even with other science
and logic. So a word of advice to all of
us creationists, examine ourselves see if we've imported any evolutionary
thinking into our own explanations.

Speaker 1 (38:17):
Absolutely, and we'll link to We have three podcast episodes
that kind of discuss kind of the idea that you're
talking about with the capefish, you know, what's the issue
with natural selection? And then we have a couple of
episodes on CET. So I'll link those so that our
viewers and listeners if you didn't see those, those are
some early Those are some early podcasts. Those are some

(38:39):
of the first ones we did, so if you if
you haven't seen those, you should go watch them. All right, well,
thank you so much for being here. This is I really,
as I was telling doctor Tompkins, you know, we just
filmed another episode before this, I think talking about the
history of evolution is just one of the most fascinating

(39:04):
in kind of like a weird way, not like, oh
it's great, because it's not great, but it is interesting
to see where it all comes from. So thank you
for shedding light and any other final thoughts. No, that
was it.

Speaker 2 (39:17):
I think I think we've covered all the bases. It's
an important topic. It's old, but it's important. I wouldn't
be surprised if I could go out there today and
find a high school textbook that still has these fraudulent
drawings in it. Right now, so young people watch these
podcasts and until we do another podcast together, yeah that

(39:39):
I have another important topic. Yeah, I'm just pray the
Lord's blessing as you as you interview so many of
our other fellow scientists.

Speaker 1 (39:46):
Yes, yeah, yeah, we love having you on here, of course,
and someday, someday, we'll be back, all right, And thank
you to all of our viewers and listeners. We really
appreciate you watching this episode with us. This a particularly
interesting topic, at least to me. If you want to
get the Creation Podcast a week early, or you want
to get Creation dot Live two weeks early, we recommend

(40:10):
that you become a member here on YouTube, or you
can become a patron over on Patreon. The links are
in the description below. We do have a couple of
tears that allow you to see these podcasts early, as
well as some other perks and goodies, and we encourage
you to do that. I make sure to like, subscribe, share,
and just I mean, really think about the information that

(40:32):
you're consuming. There's a lot of information out there on
the Internet, and you've been taught a lot of information
growing up, whatever your age is. You've learned a lot
from culture. So just make sure that you're viewing those
things with a critical eye so that you know what
you're actually consuming. And so we'll see you next time

(40:52):
on the Creation Podcast

Speaker 2 (41:00):
And