UnMasking Mistakes in Memes of Evolution - Part 1
If you spend any amount of time on social media you will inevitably come across memes. The concept of the meme has been around for some time, but has been rediscovered and adapted for use on the internet. In it's current incarnation, a meme, as defined by Google is:
Memes are perfectly suited for the internet and social media, where attention spans are short and tolerance for reading an entire article (like this one) on a topic is even shorter. Memes tend to be very visual, and therefore memorable, perhaps leaving a lasting impression. But when the meme expresses a false idea, you now have the problem of a falsehood being re-enforced by a false, but perhaps memorable meme.
Another problem is that since memes are short, the idea they express is almost never backed by sources you can consult to affirm or deny what is being expressed in the meme. And being short, as a rule they leave out critical detail and context and thus are prone to the fallacy of suppressed evidence - failing to give all the information needed to come to the correct conclusion. All these problems are particularly true of memes that are propagated in support of evolution.
So given that:
A. Memes have become a popular way of expressing support for evolutionary ideas;
B. Memes lend themselves to the reader adopting faulty conclusions without considering the entire picture or doing any cross checks on the matter;
C. Memes for evolution are almost always either outright wrong, misleading, or contain some logical fallacy (aside from the ones which simply insult your intelligence or faith)
D. It seemed appropriate to give a short, paragraph or 2 response to these various memes to demonstrate their mistakes, and why ultimately their claims fail to support the failed theory of evolution. So here's the plan:
Busting the Myths of the Memes of Evolution
This series of
articles will present various memes in use on the internet and then
expose why they are fallacious and misleading. The goals will be:
So without further ado, here - in no particular order are the first five memes, and why they are wrong. These memes carry the theme of "common creationist misconceptions" - trying to show why the given statement is incorrect. The statements are correct, and the exposé explains why.
Clearly defined, evolution (molecules-to-man) is not merely Variation (or speciation or minor changes within a kind); thus creationists who make that claim are correct - once all terms are defined and understood. When clarified in this manner it is obvious that microevolution is not macroevolution.
All the other verbiage is a distraction. Evolutionists like to talk about alleles as a distraction but they are not necessary for this discussion.  Evolutionist also claim microevolution and macroevolution are the same (as this meme claims) but they are not. For details see Microevolution: Dispelling the Myths and Misconceptions
Evolution is not science because according to the definition of science used in the meme itself, among other things, science is observable. But evolution is not observable. This is acknowledged by the evolutionist making this meme, by claiming in another meme (here) that evolution is too slow to be observed, thus refuting himself his claim that evolution is observable.
Furthermore, not only is evolution not
science, it fits the definition of a pseudoscience (or in other
words, it is a pseudoscience) because in addition to being unobservable, it breaks
many laws of science, such as the laws of biogenesis, chemistry and
information theory. For more on why evolution is a pseudoscience,
Evolution not Science, Pseudoscience
This is a rather disingenuous
response. Once again we see evolutionists trying to hide the failure
of evolution to explain the origin of life behind definitions.
It is correct that Darwinian evolution necessarily begins with two
reproducing members of a species; without which natural selection
has nothing to select from. As noted neo-evolutionist
Theodosius Dobzhansky put it: "Prebiological natural selection is a
contradiction of terms." Put another
way: without pre-existing life, Darwinian evolution is impossible.
This is more a concern for Big Bang believers, but since it's presented with the memes of evolution, and since evolution cannot be true if the Big Bang isn't true (which it isn't) I'll address it. This can be approached from two perspectives: the logical errors, and the physical impossibilities.
Logical Errors: Let's start with the admission that "empty space does not actually mean nothing." Thus what a creationist means when talking about "nothing" is typically different from what a evolutionist or big bang believer means - the creationist means absolutely nothing. Thus already we see an equivocation on the word "nothing"
Next, let's look at what is known as a category error. The mistake: treating something as if it were nothing. Simply put: something that exists is not the same as something which does not exist. They don't get to claim "quantum fluctuations" did anything if they are truly "nothing"; meaning - lacking existence. The problem is "quantum fluctuations" are in fact something that exists - which they treat as nothing - and thus the fallacy and the failure of the theory: they don't really start from nothing. They can't talk about them popping into and out of existence in space because "space" is not "nothing." Which brings us to the next category of errors.
Physical errors: The big bang theory
claims the universe began out of an explosion from an infinitely
small (note: infinitely small=nothing) dot containing "all the
energy that will ever be in our universe"
in an event called "the singularity." What evolutionists and big
bang believers fail to understand is that before the big bang,
nothing - meaning absolutely nothing - existed.
none of what they claim happens, can happen - because there is no
space, time, matter or energy for it to happen with, and in.
They can't talk about quantum fluctuations popping into existence
because there is no "existence." Nothing exists - including
fluctuations and space itself. Thus there is also no space for
fluctuations to pop into. The recent detection of gravitational
waves proves Einstein was right in viewing space as a "fabric."
So likewise, they can't talk about fluctuations or dark energy in "space"
before the big bang because 1. Before the singularity there was no
place for "space" to exist in (remember, space came into
existence with the big bang) and 2. If there is energy (as it is
claimed for dark energy) it is still "something," not nothing.
Einstein proved this in his famous equation E=mc2 which
shows that matter (m) and energy (E) are different manifestations of the
same thing. Those things on either side of the equation are not
"nothing." Thus dark energy (if it exists), like space, is not "nothing."
And so concludes the unmasking of this first group of misleading evolutionary memes. Remember a running list of all these can be found at http://rationalfaith.com/mememistakes/. If there's an evolutionary meme you'd like to see unmasked in a future article, send me a link to it here.
Duane Caldwell | posted 4 March, 2017
2. Another reason for
the running list - which you'll find here:
3. For a precise
definition of Evolution see the one given by Paul Nelson, philosopher of
Science from “Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed” Documentary,
2008 viewable here:
4. For more on the
distractions evolutionists use, like "variations in allele frequencies",
see the graphic "Evolutionary
6. When answering the
question, "How come evolution stopped", this evolutionist answers,
essentially that evolution is too slow to be observed. This precludes it
from being science. View that meme here:
7. Duane Caldwell,
Evolution: Not Science: Pseudoscience, 6 May, 2016
10. When not trying to
hide the fact that evolution has no explanation for the origin of life,
evolutionists freely admit they have no idea how life originated. As one
documentary notes: "Man continues to seek answers to this extraordinary
mystery of 'How Life Began'"
13. In the equation
E=mc2 , E = energy, m = mass and c=speed of the light (or c=
186,000 miles/sec) you'll note that c is squared, which gives an
extremely large number and so for a little bit of mass a lot of
energy is released. This explains the power behind nuclear weapons.
Black and gold mask
© yuliaglam | fotolia |used