It seems odd, don’t you think, that brilliant men, such as Richard Dawkins, could make glaring errors in thinking. I would expect that an uneducated person, such as myself, would overlook data that would answer my questions, but surely brilliant men who are among the ‘movers and shakers’ of our world wouldn’t overlook these things purposely. Would they? Perhaps that’s the answer. Perhaps, if all the facts were clear, it would look more like a deliberate error was made, but why? Could it be a worldview matter—you know—the “I’m expressing my worldview, and I am not about to lend any logical reason for yours while I’m doing so” sort of thing. Surely, this must be the reason for such glaring errors in Richard Dawkins video on YouTube.
“Think of what the geographical distribution of animals should look like if they’d all dispersed from Noah’s Ark. Shouldn’t there be some sort of law of decreasing species diversity as we move away from … Mt. Ararat. I don’t need to tell you that is not what we see? Why would all those marsupials ranging from tiny pouched mice to kolas and bilbies to giant kangaroos…Why would all those marsupials with no placentas at all have migrated… from Mt. Ararat to Australia? Which route did they take? Why did not a single member of their straggling caravan pause on the way and settle in India, perhaps, or China, or some haven along the Great Silk Road? Why did all the penguins undertake the long waddle south to the Antarctic, not a single one to the equally hospitable Arctic?”
First of all, there are marsupials in other parts of the world, and Dawkins admits this, but he doesn’t admit that differences could be merely related to the gene pool or the possibility that a greater number of predators existed elsewhere. Secondly, there are seventeen species of penguins, only two of which live on Antarctica year round. They live in South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Chili, Argentina and even just north of the equator in the Galapagos. Although attempts have been made to introduce penguins in the Arctic Circle in Norway in the 1930s, the attempt proved unsuccessful and is now thought to be unwise to try.
But, the point that is really surprising is that Dawkins couldn’t figure out how the marsupial fauna indigenous to Australia could have arrived there from Mt. Ararat. Suddenly the great ocean is a problem, yet it is not for evolutionists, is it? It is a problem only for the creationist and those who believe in what the Scriptures tell us occurred. This is why I believe Dawkins’ error was deliberate; he was being deliberately obtuse in order to attack the opposing worldview. Surely, he wasn’t so ignorant that he forgot the proposition embraced by both creationists and evolutionists, namely, that all the continents were connected in ancient times. In fact, Tim Thwaites, reporting in New Scientist Magazine of a discovery of a fossil of a platypus in Argentina, stated matter-of-factly that “the great southern continent of Gondwanaland had broken up by that time. India and Africa were already separate landmasses, but Australia was connected to South America through Antarctica, which was much warmer than it (is today).”
The horrendous weather patterns created after the flood would have triggered an Ice Age, again accounted for by both creationist and evolutionary models, this would cause the ocean level to drop causing even previously unconnected land masses to be connected through ice near the poles or land in the more temperate zones. According to the creationist’s model, the Ice Age would have lasted only a few hundred years, after which the continents would be completely cut off from one another by the oceans.
Additional ways animals could have migrated is through vegetation mats, as is done even by iguanas today traveling from island to island. We need only to consider the rapid recovery of Krakatau or the surprising aftermath of the birth of the island of Surtsey in 1963, just off the coast of Iceland to test our theory. It is populated today by insects, birds and vegetation in remarkable variety, but not according to the evolutionary model. Surely, Dr. Dawkins knows of these things. He is simply promoting his worldview, not science. Science is what we have evidence for. Dr. Dawkins is simply stating his own worldview concerning how he believes things occurred in earth’s ancient history. And, I’ll use Dr. Dawkins’ own words in an open letter to his daughter in conclusion:
“Next time somebody tells you something that sounds important, think to yourself: ‘Is this the kind of thing that people probably know because of evidence? Or is it the kind of thing that people only believe because of tradition, authority or revelation?’ And, next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: ‘What kind of evidence is there for that?’ And if they can’t give you a good answer, I hope you’ll think very carefully before you believe a word they say.”