Review: Jonathan Park: Ep. 56 – The Arctic Adventure, Part 2
This is Part 2 of a two-part review. To see Part 1, click here.
The newly discovered Tiktaalik fossil takes both teams to the extreme north, up to Ellesmere Island. But the teams’ competition takes a back seat as Myles Morgan and his assistant place the CRT in danger, forcing part of the team to take refuge back in town. From there, things only get worse as Ryan and Katie’s helicopter goes down, stranding them in the barren wilderness, unbeknownst to the rest of the team. Will they be discovered before a treacherous storm blows in? (Taken from here.)
The Study Guide for this episode can be found here: jp_vol5_study_guide_epi55-56
The Jonathan Park CDs are produced by Vision Forum Ministries. Through these CDs, VF hope to ‘provide children and adults with scientific evidence that is in harmony with the Word of God’. [Which raises the questions, ‘What does “in harmony” mean?’ and ‘What do they do with scientific evidence that is not in harmony with the Word of God?’]
Tagline: This is our Father’s world, God created it; we can explore it, so live the adventure!
NOTE: The producers of this series neglect to reference their information in any form. No references is ever given either on the CD or in the Study Guide for ANY information presented in the series. Even the voice actors of the series are not given any credit anywhere. We only know that the series is a production of Vision Forum Ministries.
The Creationists in this episode try their hardest to prove how and why Tiktaalik did not evolve, but that rather, it was a created ‘kind’ from the Beginning. Scientists believe that Tiktaalik shows the transition between fish and tetrapods.
Dr Park asserts, ‘Fossils need to be found in the right order of geological layers. Second, the progression of the fossils needs to show smooth progress as the animal changes. And third, each step in the progression must show the animal improving.’ (3:35-3:51)
In the case of Tiktaalik, we must be able to see a progression from fin to foot for it to be considered a true evolutionary process.
However, when we look at the line-up of creatures that supposedly evolve from fish to tetrapod, we do not see a smooth transition from fin to foot. Rather, we see an erratic ‘progression’ from fin to foot and back from foot to fin several times. This doesn’t make any sense.
The logical conclusion would be that these animals did not evolve from one to the other, but that they were separate created creatures from the Beginning.
We should expect to see older animals in the lower and older layers and see younger fossils in the higher levels.
However, the fossils are found the in the ‘wrong order’!
The animals should get ‘better’ as they evolve.
I am not at all sure where Dr Park gets his information about what makes something a ‘true’ evolutionary process. It sounds yet again like an attempt to discredit evolution.
In a nutshell, evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations, and evolutionary biology is the study of how evolution occurs. The biodiversity of life evolves by means of mutations, genetic drift and natural selection. These are things that have been observed to happen.
Since the fossil record is so sparse, it is unrealistic to expect a ‘smooth’ progression from one animal to the next.
The claim that some fossils are out of place and therefore casting doubt on evolution is addressed here.
Finally, evolution does not claim that for evolution to have occurred the change must be positive. Furthermore, ‘better’ or ‘worse’ is subjective. To use teleological arguments (“Why have bones evolved just to take them away in the next fish, and then to bring them back again? It just doesn’t make sense.”) is illogical.
The Creationists distort and misrepresent evolution and conclude that it makes more sense to believe in Creation. Teleological arguments are made to support the idea that evolution has no real purpose, but that Creation does (to glorify God).
Dr Park even tries a last-minute attempt to discredit evolution by talking about the ‘evolution of a car’. He argues that just as a line-up of vehicles from simple to complex does NOT show that cars evolved, so too does the line-up of fossils not prove that animals evolved. Instead they both show Design. This is a real caricature of how evolutionary biology works! Dr Park gives the (false) impression that biologists piece together the evolutionary puzzle in a childish and simplistic way.
The claims for ‘true’ evolution were bad enough, but the analogy to Transport Vehicle Evolution really takes the cake!
Give this one a miss.