Coronavirus and the microcosmos -
a microcosm of evolutionary lies

The Discovery TV series "How The Universe Works" (HTUW) purports itself to be a science series focusing on cosmology. In actuality it plays the same role for secular scientists that the main stream media plays for the left. That is to say it is a propaganda outlet. It promotes evolution expressed as Big Bang cosmology and Neo-Darwinism - just as the Main Stream Media have become nothing more than a large megaphone for left wing causes and talking points. I tune in to HTUW from time to time because they do manage to show some science in the process, but for the most part I watch to see the latest lies they're using to prop up the failed theories of Darwinian evolution and the Big Bang.

A recent episode was titled "Aliens of the Microcosmos." Since they usually focus on matters pertaining to outer space I tuned in to see what they'd be saying about these micro "aliens." The motivation for this episode was quickly revealed as they showed a detailed depiction of the coronavirus. (above) This was apparently going to be "How the Universe Works explains the coronavirus." But the goal was the same - to apply the same evolutionary lies to the microcosmos - which they succeeded in doing handily, hitting or paralleling all the major lies. For example, just as evolutionists wind up telling us we're descendants of some apelike creature, this episode wound up telling us we're likely descendants of viruses. I know that's a bit hard to believe (at least I found it to be a stretch), so I'll include a clip of planetary scientist Jani Radebaugh, astronomer Michelle Thaller and astrobiologist Kathryn Bywaters all telling us how we might be descendants of viruses.  I'll drop that in below.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Let me try to present in an orderly fashion the evolutionary lies they're telling about the microcosmos and the coronavirus , and how they parallel the lies commonly told to prop up the failed theory of Darwinian evolution. This show covers the gamut of evolutionary storytelling, and so to cover it all would take either a very long single article, or a multipart article. Neither seems appealing at the moment. But to get the drift a comprehensive listing of all the evolutionary mistakes isn't necessary. The included samples of evolutionary misdirection should be sufficient for you to see how deeply wedded to the evolutionary nonsense this show is - to the point that they deny clear evidence, and indeed believe the impossible happened multiple times. (And they chide creationists for believing in miracles. At least we have a miracle maker. They have no way to explain the impossible-which-amounts-to-miracles that they believe.)

Coronavirus , the Micro-cosmos and Evolutionary Story telling

1. Ignoring the Evidence - Origins
 

Big Bang believers and Darwin adherents ignore huge amounts of evidence to maintain their beliefs in those demonstrably wrong theories. Some of that evidence is presented below. Likewise these scientists ignore much evidence concerning the origin of the coronavirus to maintain - as they do for everything else in this show - that the virus evolved naturally. SARS-Cov-2, the virus responsible for Covid-19 disease, did not evolve naturally from bats or anything else in God's creation. It is a man-made virus. How do we know that? The clearest testimony is from a virologist who was one of the earliest people given access to the virus: Dr. Li-Meng Yan. She states the virus was made in a lab in Wuhan China - and she has the evidence to prove it. Some of what she charges:

"This virus, Covid-19/SARS-Cov-2, actually is not from nature. It is a man made virus created in the lab...

"Based on the virus genome, it's basically like our finger print. So you can see the very unusual characters in their genome. Which conveniently, based on the other evidence they [The CCP directed lab] left during the modification, we can say finally this is exactly the one come from their own special bat corona virus and it then targets humans."

"So basically this is very clearly that this virus is like Frankenstein -[what] he created. So things like, basically, like a cow [that] has [a] deer's head, has Rabittus ears and also has monkey hand[s]. So they could never get it from nature."[1]

Yes, I dare say you'd never see a creature with parts from multiple other creatures that occurred naturally. That's a clear, tell-tale sign of genetic manipulation. If you'd like to see her entire testimony given on Tucker Carlson's show on September 23, 2020, I have posted it here.

But Dr. Yan is not the only one who has concluded the virus is man made. Former CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield has drawn the same conclusion. He states:

 "I am of the point of view that I still think the most likely etiology of this pathogen in Wuhan was from a laboratory, you know, escaped... It's not unusual for respiratory pathogens that are being worked on in a laboratory to infect the laboratory worker."[2]

Here is the full clip with the rest of his comments:


Former CDC director - the corona virus is engineered, not natural

Evolutionists refuse to believe that we are created, not evolved. So it's not surprising that they refuse to believe that the Coronavirus was engineered, not evolved.

2. The Basis for everything

"Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of Evolution." You might recognize that grandiose claim from evolutionary hero and biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky. Dutifully, many evolutionists believe you can't do science - especially biology - unless you believe in evolution, even though many scientists and doctors ignore evolution when it comes to the practice of medicine or doing scientific research. Unsurprisingly, this show also starts with a grandiose claim for viruses. It begins with the narrator claiming that, the microcosmos:

"Guided our evolution...and it keeps us alive...and it will influence our future as we venture out into space."[3]

The ellipses in the quote above are of course filled with the featured scientists making the same point. Later of course they will use the common evolutionary tool of equivocation to equate viruses and the microcosmos - making viruses essentially the active ingredient in the microcosmos. Since we now know how they're going to spin this evolutionary tale, let's take a look at some of the favored evolutionary tales included in this mini-volume (or should I call it a micro-volume?) on evolution.

3. Definition of life

Just as scientists have defined science to preclude creation and acts of God, this show points out that NASA has defined life in a manner that precludes God, allowing only naturalistic causes. In the documentary Genesis - Paradise Lost, astronomer Dr. Danny Faulkner points out,

"They've even changed the definition of science from the study of the natural world using the five senses, to be 'the search for natural explanations.'" And he goes on to point out, "That specifically excludes any possibility of God being involved."[4]

When considering whether viruses are alive, they naturally have to define what life is. So naturally they define life to preclude God and only include evolution. The narrator states:

"NASA's definition of life is a self-sustained, chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution. Entities that feed, make energy and reproduce."

If they were trying to prove evolution is true, then logically, this is called a circular argument or begging the question. Because their premise is the same as their conclusion: that evolution is true and involved in the process. My guess however, is that they're not trying to make an overt logical argument. Most people don't think logically these days anyway. No, they're making a surreptitious attack here, one that is another logical fallacy.  They're trying to poison the well. They're trying to make people believe that evolution is naturally a part of life - by precluding any thought of creation or intelligent design. "Well of course evolution is a part of life" the uninitiated would say, "look[,] it's even in the definition of life." Clearly, they (NASA, HTUW , and anyone else holding to this definition of life) are not even trying to hide the fact that they are not objective seekers of truth, but rather promoters of the party line of evolution.

4. Oversimplifying insurmountable initial problems

Both the Big Bang and Darwinian evolution have insurmountable problems at the origin that the willingly blind adherents are faithful to oversimplify and ignore in order to continue to believe the nonsense. For example, the Big Bang states that initially nothing existed, and that nothing exploded into everything that exists. If you have nothing, how can it become anything? We could ask more questions along that line. For example, stars are supposed to be key to everything in the Big Bang. They generate the energy, create the heavy elements necessary for life and form the solar system. The end result is us - made of "star stuff" if you believe Carl Sagan. The problem is scientists have no idea how the first star formed. (Or even subsequent ones.):

"The silent embarrassment of modern astrophysics is that we do not know how even a single one of these stars managed to form."
--Martin Harwit, (astronomer and author) “Star Formation: Naissance et Enfance des Etoiles,” Science 231 (7 March 1986):1201-1202

Or consider Darwinian evolution. Technically, Darwinian evolution doesn't begin until you have two reproducing members. So Darwinian purists will tell you that Darwin never tried to explain the origin of the first life. But clearly all modern Darwinists believe somehow that first life got started, even though they will claim they don't believe in spontaneous generation - which has been thoroughly discredited by the experiments of  ouis Pasteur, and all the relevant experiments that came after him. Yet they clearly do because all Darwinists believe that the initial life came from lifeless chemicals. (Their self-deception apparently knows no bounds.) Again we could take it further. How do you get reproducing cells that grow in complexity from lifeless, unguided, undirected chemicals? Particularly in a "primodial soup that would tend to simply and dissolve things, not make them more complex" as chemist Jonathan Sarfati  points out.

And so, when it comes to the microcosmos, we likewise have the oversimplification of viruses. Concerning viruses, the narrator tells us:

"most (viruses) are just a strand of genetic material, sometimes encased in a shell of protein."

Talk about over simplifications! What is genetic material? Genetic material is coded information, coded in a chemical language. Both codes and information can only come from an intelligent source. And again we can take it a step further. Where did the protein come from? We looked at the impossibility of even a simple protein occurring naturally - without an intelligent source in Mt. Improbable and other impossible evolutionary dreams. So true to form the evolutionists try to make the impossible look possible, the improbable common. The deception never ends with them.

5. Made-up stories

Made-up stories feature prominently in "sciences" whose goal is to remove God from the picture. Big Bang believers look at scientific data like that from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and realize they have a problem: the temperature of the universe's cosmic background microwave radiation is too uniform. It varies less than 1/50,000 of a degree overall. That shouldn't be, because the only way that could happen is if light were able to traverse the distance from one end of the universe to the other within the supposed age of the universe (13.8 billion years). The problem is, light can't traverse that distance in that amount of time. So the temperatures should not be so smooth and even. There should be hot spots and cold spots but there aren't. And that's a problem. It's called the horizon problem. So how did they fix it? They made up a story. It's called the theory of cosmic inflation. The only "evidence" they have of the theory is the fact that it solves a number of big bang problems. But there's no evidence the event ever actually happened. And there's no evidence of the supposed "inflaton" particle that supposedly drove it.

Taking it further, evolution can't explain how something as complex as sight evolved multiple times - much less even one time. No matter. They made up a story to cover it. It's called "convergent evolution." And presto! - no more problem.

They've come up with a theory similar to "convergent evolution" to rescue another failed evolutionary theory. Evolutionists want to put viruses at the root of the evolutionary tree so that humans, along with all things, can be descendants of viruses. There's a problem with that theory though. It's a which is first - chicken or the egg - type of problem. The problem is this:

In order for viruses to be at the root of the evolutionary tree, they would need to be able to reproduce by themselves. But viruses can't do that. The only way they can do that is by taking over the machinery of a living cell and hijacking the equipment to make the cell produce more virus material. But you can't hijack a living cell - unless living cells exist. And if viruses are at the base of the evolutionary tree, living cells at that point don't exist. So the theory is really dead in the water from the start.

But evolutionists won't let such trivial things as impossibilities stop them from making up their stories - I mean theories. So of course, they've made up with a theory to handle this situation. And you've got to give someone credit for the sheer audacity to present such nonsense. Here's the theory: viruses and cells "co-evolved" together. They evolved at the same time - of course by unguided, un-designed, materialistic processes. The two formed a sort of symbiotic evolutionary duo, allowing both to evolve together. Didn't I tell you it was bold? Of course given the information and complexity of a cell - and of genetic material - the whole idea is ludicrous. Think of it like this: you and I are going to design a jet engine. You do half, I'll do half. You don't know what I'm doing. I don't know what you're doing. And neither one of us is using plans. (Nothing is designed, remember?) Yet at every step of the way, the pieces must fit together, work together perfectly, the first time, without destroying each other, and ultimately work as a unified whole. Otherwise it's crash and burn and no jet engine or, in the case of viruses and cells, no cells, so no viral replication, and no people, since, as stated earlier, we're supposedly descendants of early viruses.

6. Miraculous Fortuitous Events

Both the Big Bang and Darwinian evolution rely on a large number of fortuitous events to allow them to remain even remotely feasible. The problem is these "fortuitous events" are essentially impossible. So what the theories wind up saying is that events known to be impossible actually happened.

Starting again with the Big Bang, we can look at the problem of the ratio of matter to anti-matter in the universe. According to the BB theory, equal amounts of matter and anti-matter should have been created in the supposed singularity that started everything. Of course, had that happened, that would have been a problem because matter and anti-matter annihilate each other upon contact. So it's likely there would be nothing left to develop into the visible universe we see if the ratio of matter and anti-matter were actually what the theory predicts. Like other items they can't find (inflatons, dark matter, aliens, etc.) the search for the reason for  the missing anti-matter continues.

If we turn to Darwinian evolution, Darwinists can't explain the solely left-handed chirality we find in amino acids. We discussed this problem in Chirality, An Evolutionary Nightmare, so I won't go into detail here. But here's another item to add to the list of fortuitous (but unexplainable) events required for evolution. Things like the origin of life, the origin of multi-cellular complex creatures, the origin of sexual reproduction, the origin of language, etc., etc.

Naturally, in order for secular theories about how viruses are at the root of evolution to be true, such theories also need a number of fortuitous - but impossible - events. Events such as:

1. A "glitch"[5] that allowed cyanobacteria to perform photosynthesis and thus create oxygen. That's on the order of saying you accidently dropped a wrench in your garage. It hit your bicycle, and the interaction mutated your bicycle into a turbo-charged race car. Very fortuitous indeed.
    

Another "glitch" is needed to use the oxygen. According to the theory the introduction of photosynthesis was a watershed event, transforming the atmosphere but also killing millions of microbes used to living in an oxygen-free environment:

"This was an unprecedented environmental disaster. Probably in the entire history of the earth up to that point. And I'm not sure it's been paralleled even up to today. This may be the single biggest disaster in our planet's history"[6]
Phil Plait

"This was the great oxidation event. And it changed our atmosphere, it changed our planet, and it didn't just end there."[7]
Kathryn Bywaters

"Something changed again. Another mutation allowed some of these bacteria to use that oxygen in their own metabolism. And that was a huge change."[8]
Phil Plait

So there you have it: "another mutation." Like a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat, evolutionists say the equivalent of "abracadabra" and whatever new feature they need magically materializes out of a single mutation. (It can't be a series of mutations in the one event  because that would require planning and a design.) In this case they need bacteria to metabolize oxygen, so presto! A mutation and an evolutionary moment later, and they have it. I wonder why drowning people never acquire a mutation to breathe under water. Or falling people never acquire a mutation to grow wings and fly. Probably because there is not enough time to fix the problem in the small amount of time you're faced with the problem before it kills you. No chance to mutate. No chance for complex structures and processes to grow. No chance for the trial and error process of survival of the fittest. The same problems exist for cells acquiring the ability to use oxygen. But you're not supposed to think of any of such practical matters. They need a magical mutation, so stop thinking logically and get with the program.

Of course the whole point of all these magical mutations was so that cells could survive so they could continue the fantastic tale of co-evolution mentioned above - required since viruses need cells to reproduce. So after many miraculous fortuitous events, the evolutionists have gotten viruses and cells to co-evolve together. No more questions from the peanut gallery please.

7. Miraculous Attribution of Unexplained Features

What do you call using one unknown process to explain another unknown process? You could call it a false cause fallacy. But at its root it's an argument from ignorance. In such cases since they cannot scientifically state the connection (since they don't know it), and the connection looks dubious at best, one can only conclude the connection is another fortuitous miracle. The same type of miracle that defies the laws of physics to explode a universe into existence out of nothingness; the same type that causes lifeless chemicals to spontaneously start living.

This is essentially what they do concerning viruses and consciousness. Scientists have no idea how to explain consciousness, where it came from, or why we have it as I discuss here. Nevertheless this show tries to make viruses at least partially responsible for consciousness:

"In our brains, we actually have relic viral DNA. So DNA that came from a virus. But this helps us. Without this, we don't think we would have consciousness."[9]
Kathryn Bywaters

So again, they don't understand where consciousness comes from, or where the information in DNA comes from, yet they want you to believe that there are relics of viral DNA in the human genome, and these relics are at least partially responsible for you being conscious enough to read this article. And they accuse Christians and creationists of being irrational and taking leaps of faith!

Conclusion

As I said, there are too many evolutionary stories to discuss here, but this covered most of the favored (but obviously incorrect) ones. But just to give you a sample of the extent they went to to paint their evolutionary picture, they also discussed panspermia, the age of the earth, creation of the moon, and the primordial soup. Instead of going on about each of these topics, let me end with the above-promised video of scientists claiming we're descendants of viruses. I hope it gives you a chuckle.