Episode 35 – The Pancake Theory: Deceptive Labels

The Pancake Theory: The Deception of Labels

Hawking even has good news for those who have despaired of life on planet Earth—indeed, in the whole universe: Hawking has found you a way out!

They named their idols al-Uzza, Manat, and Hubal. On examination, they prove to be names without things named, shells without realities: al-Uzza has no might, wishes are not fulfilled through Manat, and Hubal has nothing but folly. Darwin followed in the footsteps of the idol-worshipping pagans, and his followers have walked after him: resounding names and ridiculous content.

The priests of the myth gave names to what they claimed were hominins that existed hundreds of thousands and millions of years ago: Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo neanderthalensis. They said these creatures filled the gaps between humans and their alleged animal ancestors.

After living for decades, in support of the myth, on the lie that Neanderthal man was an intermediate link between humans and allegedly semi-animal ancestors, studies indicating… followed... Consequently... the naive young man affected by intellectual intimidation will find himself psychologically, unconsciously driven to escape the prison—the framework, the frame—to which “creationists” have been confined, so that he may join the ranks of enlightened scientists.

Speaker 1: Please read. Speaker 2: Hespi... Hesperobi... Hesperopithecus... Harold... Haroldcookii, (rooster sound) Speaker 1: Cookookii? Its name is Hesperopithecus haroldcookii. You cannot even pronounce the name, and you have come to debate the theory, you ignorant man!

This is the scientific name of Nebraska Man. Do you remember, brothers, the story of Nebraska Man, whom they imagined from a tooth they found and said belonged to one of humanity's semi-animal ancestors? They said he lived 6,000,000 years ago, drew pictures of him, and the major magazines of the day, such as "Science", published them. Did you know he had been given a scientific name? Could you read this name with me, please? I will enlarge it for you: Hesperopithecus haroldcookii! All right, brothers?

Hesperopithecus Haroldcookii. Of course, you will find someone spending an hour sounding out the name, feeling helpless and ashamed because he cannot pronounce it, and saying to himself: "If I cannot even pronounce the name, what do I know about these sciences?! These scientists know better." But, as we mentioned, that tooth turned out to belong to a pig, so "Science" published a retraction of the existence of this alleged hominin.

Likewise, there was the alleged feathered-dinosaur fossil for which a conference was held and which "National Geographic" promoted in 1999. It too was given a scientific name: Archaeoraptor liaoningensis. They said it had lived 125 million years ago. But the celebration did not last: it later proved to be a forged fossil, as "Nature" and others published.

We know that some people are born without yet being given names; yet, in the science of the myth, names are given to imaginary creatures that have never been, and never will be, born. The myth's priests use deceptive labels often, and they have a great effect on superficial people.

To arrange the subject, we shall mention how they use them in three principal fields: First: giving ridiculous myths resounding names. Second: giving facts imaginary names in the service of their myths. Third: framing labels.

First: Giving Ridiculous Myths Resounding Names

As usual, Darwin blazed the trail for his followers and established this custom of giving grand names to myths. When he wanted to justify one of the four mythical pillars of his theory—the myth that acquired traits are inherited through use and disuse—Darwin invented the theory of gemmules, released by all the body's cells and concentrated in the reproductive organs to affect the embryo.

Darwin's Theory of Pangenesis

What did he call this theory? Pangenesis: universal generation, or comprehensive formation—a grand name, is it not? Yet its content is entirely empty. Even direct observation indicates that traits acquired through use and disuse are not inherited. Nevertheless, Darwin contradicted what is known even to ordinary people, framed this myth as a theory, and gave it a name: Pangenesis.

The Theory of Directed Panspermia

Although Darwin's ordinary followers acknowledge that he was wrong in this theory, they liked this "Pan" tune, so they fashioned after it the theory of "Directed Panspermia", meaning the directed sowing of the origin of everything. What is the essence of this theory? Francis Crick, one of the discoverers of the structure of genetic material, realized that genetic coding could not have come through the sum of coincidences. Fine—so what follows?

He therefore proposed that extraterrestrial beings from another civilization sowed the seed of life, containing the genetic code, and departed; this seed then underwent evolutionary processes!

• Hmm... Fine, then how did these extraterrestrial beings come into existence, Francis Crick?
• That does not matter; the important thing is that we explained life on Earth and moved the problem to outer space.
• Fine, is this assumption—that extraterrestrial beings sowed life—based on observation, evidence, or experimental science?
• Of course not.
• So you deny the Creator because, as you claim, you believe only in what can be observed and tested; yet you believe in the myth of panspermia, although it cannot be observed or tested. “Wretched it is for the wrongdoers as an exchange.” [Al-Kahf 18:50]. Anything at all, so long as you do not believe in the Creator.

This is the story of "Directed Panspermia", the theory of universal sowing—the seed of everything, as they claim. Yet they make you feel its grandeur by using that looong "Pan": Paaangenesis, Paaanspermia, even though these theories, in reality, are not worth a pancake.

Hawking's Theory of Everything

Do you remember, brothers, when Stephen Hawking died and the battle of his defenders, who were admitting him into the Paradise he denied, grew heated? Among Hawking's achievements, they mentioned that he was the author of the Theory of Everything. Did they know what this theory was, or were they merely repeating like parrots?

• "Without knowing, it is obvious that it is a wonderful and important theory, man! It explains everything."
• Everything?! ... Hmm.

Let us set aside Hawking's retreat from the possibility of reaching a theory that explains everything. What was the essence of this Theory of Everything when Hawking proposed it? He explained it in his book, "The Grand Design", where he built on Darwin's explanation for the existence of living beings without a Creator—as he claimed—and concluded that the universe could be explained without a Creator.

• How, Hawking? He told you: "Because of the law of gravity, the universe created itself from a very, very small particle. Over the years, physical calculations kept estimating this particle as smaller and smaller, until Hawking finally concluded that, because of the law of gravity, the universe created itself from nothing: no small particle and no need for one! In his words, in English: 'Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing.'" Hawking claimed he performed the calculations needed to reconcile the cosmic constants within this conception using M theory.

Thus, in the Hawkingian manner, a law is transformed from a description of the effects of an acting, willing, choosing agent into an agent itself. Imagine that I describe you as typing on the keyboard at a speed of 100 words per minute, then conclude that this law—"typing speed: 100 words per minute"—created the keyboard, struck its keys, and turned those keystrokes into words.

Hawking even has good news for those who have despaired of life on planet Earth—indeed, in the whole universe. He has found you a way out! He promoted the idea that if a black hole swallows you, you may pass through it to another universe. No wonder, then, that the editor of Physics World, Dr. Hamish Johnston, expressed concern that the British might refuse to spend part of their taxes on physics research if they thought that most physicists spent their time discussing theories like these!

Yet put the word “theory” before nonsense, promote its proponent as Hawking was promoted, and keep other experts’ criticisms of him and his theories out of the media: by a magical touch, nonsense becomes a scientific theory—even a Theory of Everything. If you have a myth, simply add the word “theory” to give it prestige in the minds of the gullible.

Giving names, however, means nothing on the scale of science and does not turn a myth into a fact. Giving empty names is an old method used by people of falsehood to promote their myths, as God says: “They are not but mere names you have named them.” [An-Najm 53:23]. They named their idols al-Uzza, Manat, and Hubal; on examination, they prove to be names without things named, shells without realities: al-Uzza has no might, wishes are not fulfilled through Manat, and Hubal has nothing but folly. Darwin followed in the footsteps of the idol-worshipping pagans, and his followers have walked after him: resounding names and ridiculous content.

Second: Giving Facts Imaginary Names in the Service of Myths

The second field in which the myth's priests manipulate labels is giving facts imaginary names.

"The Human Tail" and Atavism

Conditions such as lipoma and spina bifida were given the deceptive name "Human Tail" by the myth's priests, who regarded them as evidence of an alleged phenomenon called atavism. We have scientifically refuted some of this absurdity in the episode Your Tail: What You May Not Know. They give these scientific names to send a psychological message, so that you feel you are before an established fact which has received a name, and that is all: they tell you, "You poor man! Do you still deny the truth of these things? History has passed you by. We are no longer discussing whether they are true; they are true, they have even received scientific names, and that is settled. We are only looking for more examples of them."

Microevolution

One of the greatest examples of calling facts by false names is their calling examples of adaptation in creatures microevolution, to make you think that these adaptations are nothing but random mutations and blind selection. Yet we showed in the episode "The Citrate-Digesting Bacteria Experiment" that they are marvelous, precise adaptations with wonderful mechanisms, indicating the wise Creator; there is no place in them for randomness or chance, as they try to make you imagine.

Alleged Hominins

The myth's priests gave names to what they claimed were hominins that existed hundreds of thousands and millions of years ago: Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo neanderthalensis—between humans and their alleged animal ancestors. Apart from the absurdity of speaking about one fossil, or two, or ten, or twenty, as we showed in detail in the episode "Who Stole the Million?", if you return to each of these fossils they called Homo, to make you feel that they are hominins, studies show that they are either forged, animal remains unrelated to humans, or human fossils—people like other people—but given a different name suggesting that they are intermediate creatures.

An example is the grandest of these names: Homo neanderthalensis, or Neanderthal Man, the one with the greatest number of studies. As I told you, the first thing we begin talking about is what? Neanderthal Man, discovered in 1856. What is Neanderthal Man? It is Homo neanderthalensis, Homo neanderthalensis; it is Homo. One of the later early hominins—understood. You will see people tell you that they discovered more than 300 fossils of him and that he became an established fact; therefore, this huge number of fossils cannot all be forged.

• Around 300 specimens, some nearly complete. The fossil with the largest number of specimens is Neanderthal: around 300 at least, at least.

Notice, brother, one of the methods of deception is changing the subject of the debate: they move the field of disagreement away from what we call them liars or mistaken about. We did not say that all fossils are forged. Rather, we reject their interpretation of many of them. Even if they discovered 300, 3000, or 3000000 Neanderthal fossils, that supports their myths in no way.

After living for decades, in support of the myth, on the lie that Neanderthal Man was an intermediate link between humans and allegedly semi-animal ancestors, studies indicating that he was a complete human being, no less intelligent than us, followed. He had language, as in this study published 43 years ago. He had religious rites and used pigments and varied tools. Among the best studies is this comprehensive study published 4 years ago, which reviewed 151 studies of Neanderthals and established that they were humans like humans, in no way inferior to us. This has become an established fact, as the British Guardian and others published.

Neanderthals, then, are simply a human population: not an intermediate link, not a transitional creature, and none of this nonsense. Yet despite all this, some of the myth's advocates from among our own people still mock young people after all these studies have been published and assure them that Neanderthals are major evidence for evolution.

Third: Framing Labels

The third field in which the myth's priests use labels is "framing labels", or what is known as "framing". The myth's followers use the term "Creationists" for those who believe that God created creatures with intention and will. I repeat: with intention and will—not as some people make it seem, as though the difference between us and them were independent creation, evolution, or development. The matter of intention and will is more important than all of that, and it is what the myth of evolution seeks to deny or cast doubt upon.

They call you a Creationist so that you appear to believe in something neither self-evident nor fundamental, while they call the symbols of false science scientists. Thus, the naive young man affected by intellectual intimidation finds himself psychologically, unconsciously driven to escape the prison—the frame—to which “creationists” have been confined, so that he may join the ranks of enlightened scientists.

In truth, we who say that God created creatures deliberately and willingly are not called Creationists; we are simply sound human beings who use minds untouched by the contaminations of myth. You may debate someone affected by the myth about an article or study, and he says: "But the author of this study is a Creationist." A Creationist?! Has belief in creation become a flaw that lowers the scientific value of research or an article, however objective and logical it may be? Does it lower its value in advance, before examining the details?

Meanwhile, research published by the myth's followers gains, in the minds of these deceived people, unconscious value and credibility for no reason except that, in their subconscious, it is by scientists. This is the effect of framing. You may say to me: you yourself use framing and describe them as followers of myth. I say: review the fifteen episodes so far and see whether their theory is science or myth. Then learn whether describing them this way is deceptive framing or an accurate description of their condition.

Thus, “They are not but mere names you have named them.” [An-Najm 53:23], so do not let these labels deceive you, brother; look at the facts.

Conclusion: Methods of Promoting the Myth

Thus, we have discussed ten methods of promoting the myth:

1. Impressing people.
2. Mixing observations with the myth.
3. Addressing people as children.
4. Evading what necessarily follows from the myth.
5. Shifting the burden of proof.
6. Arguing from ignorance.
7. Rehashing lies refuted more than 130 years ago.
8. The fallacy of resemblance.
9. Circular reasoning.
10. Deceptive labels.

In the next episode, God willing, we shall discuss the method of turning destructive evidence into supporting evidence, titled All Roads Lead to the Myth. Stay with us. Peace and God’s mercy be upon you.

[End-of-episode music]