Please note that links will take you directly to the source. AiG is not responsible for content on the news websites to which we refer.

1. The Sydney Morning Herald: “Weeds signal evolution explosion

Out-of-control weeds sprouting from an “evolution explosion”: the plot of a late-night thriller or hot news? It’s the latter according to US scientists, reports Sydney’s Herald: “Fast-growing weeds have evolved over a few generations to adapt to climate change … [t]he weeds will likely keep up with any attempts to develop crops that can adapt to global warming.”

So what is this evolution explosion, really? The article explains that Arthur Weis, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology in the University of California system, experimented on groups of field mustard plants (one group grown from seeds collected before a five-year drought; the other from seeds collected after the drought). Weis discovered that plants grown from the post-drought seeds reproduced earlier than those grown from seeds procured from before the drought. Weis offered a “crude analogy” to help illustrate:

[I]f humans evolved at the same rate as the mustard plants in the experiment, the average onset of the age of reproduction in humans would slip from 16 years to 13 1/2 in seven generations.

Of course, what this “experiment in evolution” failed to highlight was that no new genetic information was added to the field mustard plants. Rather, the seed lines with the pre-existing genetic “programming” for early reproduction survived, and ones programmed for late reproduction reproduced unsuccessfully.

To offer our own “crude analogy,” if all human food was stashed in cubbyholes accessible only through narrow apertures, humans with the genetic programming for small hands, wrists, and forearms would be most likely to survive, as they could reach the stored food while other, larger-armed humans would fail. In this sense, it would be an “explosion” of evolution toward smaller-armed, thinner-wristed humans. But in neither the mustard experiment nor in the analogies was any genetic information added; without the addition of new genetic “programs” (which have never been observed, anyway) “uphill” evolution from molecules to men is impossible.

Interestingly, the University of California-Irvine press release announcing this story begins:

Countering Charles Darwin’s view that evolution occurs gradually, UC Irvine scientists have discovered that plants with short life cycles can evolutionally adapt in just a few years to climate change.

Indeed, this sort of rapid, “downhill” evolution is exactly the sort we’d expect when starting from the Bible. Natural selection, operating on the animal kindsthat walked (or flew, etc.!) off the Ark, would have encouraged rapid speciation that has led to the diversity of life we see today. In other words, scientists’ observations line up with the biblical worldview, and give no credence to the tale of evolution.

2. National Geographic News: “Bizarre New Form of Life Found in Arctic Ocean, Scientists Announce

National Geographic News reports an exciting, historic discovery in the Arctic Ocean: “[a]n entirely new group of tiny and bizarre marine algae.” It seems a team of European scientists stumbled upon the microscopic life “while analyzing DNA sequences in samples of seawater.” The organisms, which are fluorescent, have been named “picobiliphytes.”

What’s interesting is that this article emphasizes the distinctiveness of the picobiliphytes. Fabrice Not, a marine biologist member of the team that discovered the picobiliphytes, explains that “[t]hese organisms represent a new evolutionary lineage … [t]he discovery didn't provide any sister relationship to any other groups of organisms known to date … the divergence of this group from known organisms is as great as the difference between land plants and animals.” In other words, this organism is truly dissimilar to other categories of life (animals, plants, and other eukaryotes; bacteria; archaea). Yet one of the most common arguments given for an evolutionary explanation of life is the inherent connectedness of life on the purported evolutionary tree. A salient example of this is, of course, comparison of ape and human anatomy. “We’re so similar,” the argument goes, “and why would a designer make such similarity just to confuse us?” But when groups of life entirely unique are found-such as these picobiliphytes-the secular commentary is ironic, yet unsurprising: evolution, evolution, evolution.

3. PhysOrg.com: “New findings blow a decade of assumptions out of the water
The topic of this article-oceanic nitrogen fixation-is not directly related to the creation/evolution debate. Yet the headline highlights the important role assumptions play in how we form beliefs. See if you can apply phrases such as “because it has been thought that” and “the conventional wisdom for the past decade dictated” to the creation/evolution debate and recall the many scientists who reject creation a priori by explaining that, for example, “surely God wouldn’t have done in that way” or by simply declaring that it is unscientific to believe in a god, period.

And of course, these frequent changes in scientific theory force one to wonder: is there anything man has to say that is fully trustworthy, or should we be taking the Word of Someone else?

4. PhysOrg.com: “Modern man’s footprint in Europe dates back 45,000 years“

“Well the Bible surely can’t be right; scientists are examining things 45,000 years old!” some casual readers might be prone to thinking. This article, though on a completely different topic, goes hand-in-hand philosophically with the article referenced in item #3. In item #3, scientists’ assumptions-and former conclusions-have been overturned by the “latest” science. When such an overturn happens, the old theories and assumptions often become laughable. Yet before they are overturned, it is usually forbidden to even question them.

So it is with the dating of “man’s footprint,” as this article figuratively puts it. Authoritatively stating, “Modern man's presence in Europe stretches back some 45,000 years, a team of international researchers reported,” the article proceeds to quote no statements in support of such a date (other than that the set of archaeological sites in question has yielded material of similar age in the past-circular reasoning at its finest). Rather, the article intriguingly describes archaeological finds at the site, located along the Don River in Russia: perforated shell ornaments and a carved piece of ivory (thought to be the head of a small human figurine) that may “represent the earliest known piece of figurative art in the world.” Yet shell ornaments and ivory figurines are still made today (albeit rarely and often illegally, in the case of the latter). So how do these scientists know they’re 45,000 years old? Assumptions again.

5. The Stanford Daily: “Errant tee shots? Blame evolution

This light-hearted application of evolutionary theory aims to explain why it’s a challenge to consistently hit “picture-perfect drives” down the fairway (or repeat your best performance in nearly any sport or physical challenge). Stanford researchers trained rhesus monkeys to reach for different-colored spots at different speeds (red fast, green slow), then analyzed their success at repeatedly reaching for the red at the same speed, and repeatedly reaching for the green at the same speed. But the monkeys’ speed varied-as did their brain activity during the process.

The evolutionary explanation? “One … explanation … is that evolution favored predators who could improvise, as they never face an identical situation twice when hunting prey.” And certainly, that explanation makes sense, right? Improvising can help us discover new techniques and improve our abilities. But is this the accident of evolution or the foresight of a Designer?

Stanford student Mark Churchland, who coauthored the study, explained:

“The nervous system was not designed to do the same thing over and over,” said Churchland, a co-author of the study, to the Washington Post. “The nervous system was designed to be flexible. You typically find yourself doing things you’ve never done before.”

Wait a second-designed? Although some might suspect Churchland is a creationist of some kind, it is perhaps more likely that he is simply one of the latest to jump on the “evolution-as-designer” bandwagon. That is, since nature contains so many design features, evolutionists are being forced to adapt their semantics and pervert the concept of a designer. Apparently, according to an evolutionist, if my car were in a wreck, and that wreck bent the frame into an innovative new shape, that would be design!

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:20).


Remember, if you see a news story that might merit some attention, let us know about it! And thanks to all of our readers who have submitted great news tips to us. If you didn’t catch last week’s News to Note, why not take a look at it now? See you next week!

Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.