Aug 042005
 

Macroevolutionary Darwinism is a bad speculation that has been presented as such so many times, for example in the book by David C. Stove “Darwinian Fairytales” (free download):

http://www.realist.org/files

As well as David C. Stove’s related article “So You Think You Are a Darwinian?

http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/stove_darwinian.htm

Now that public schools will be presenting scientific criticisms to Darwin’s theory in Ohio, Minnesota, New Mexico, and probably in Kansas and others, I want to have this thread as a place where students can search for related material, mostly as online books and articles.

See some highlights and links to the official document “Critical Analysis of Evolution“:

http://www.geocities.com/plin9k/critical.htm

However, as bad as bad speculations are, also are bad those bad interpretations of the Bible, no matter how generalized those private interpretations may be in our society.

In the 2004 Annual Meeting at the AAAS, Ronald Numbers, a historian in the department of medical history and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin said that in the past, the overwhelming number who wrote against evolution had no quarrel with geology that suggested earth’s antiquity. Most turn-of-the-century [even way far before] anti-evolutionists accepted the idea that Earth is very old.

Which is good, as again the mistake in the beginning of the YEC’s timeline was only in the minds of some 1960’s careless interpreters and its followers [ICR, AiG], but not in the beloved Source itself (The Bible)

See the next links:

http://custance.org/old/time/3ch2.html
http://www.therain.org/appendixes/isa4518.html

http://www.jba.gr/Articles/nkjv_jbasep96.htm

We can also read:

“Nothing [is] wrong with the Word [The Bible], for the Word is accurate. It is accurate in minute detail, and the Word is so accurate here in Genesis that it fits the fields of chemistry, the fields of biology, it fits all the fields of geology, every field of science. There is no field of science, which is true science, which contradicts any facet of the truth of the accuracy of God’s Word in Genesis 1:1.

Genesis 1:1, 2:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was
[the text should say ‘became‘] without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

“How long ago is Genesis 1:1? I do not know, but I know it was in the beginning. And sometime between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 there is a long period. How long? I do not know, but I know this: that when verse 2 came into being it says, “and the earth became without form and void.” It was not created this way, it became this way. Now, the question is: what caused this original creation in Genesis 1:1, which was perfectly perfect, to get to the place that it became without form and void? Or as the Hebrew puts it, ‘tohu va bohu.’

… this thing was so cataclysmic [context: the rebellion of Lucifer and his hosts], which occurred, that when this thing occurred the whole thing was in a mess, that [which] God had originally created in Genesis 1:1. That’s why verse 2 says “and the earth became without form and void.” That’s how it became that way.

Then verse 3 simply starts telling you what God does to put this earth back in shape, so that mankind, as we know mankind, can live in it. And mankind as we know it from the beginning was a man of body, soul and what? And spirit!”

Then I read in my Bible:

“For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old…” [2Pe3:5a]

This and the rest of that verse, plus the next verse there describes, not the flood of Noah, as ICR and AiG misinterpreted it, but a worst and previous catastrophic event of Universal proportions (the rebellion of Lucifer, ‘the darkness’ mentioned in Gen 1:2 and in many other scriptures).

Remember: ‘the heavens were of old‘!

Are religious creationists going to bent their knees to the Biblical evidence? (remember, this is not ‘compromise‘, this is what the Bible itself reveals!) Or rather, religious creationists (ICR, AiG, etc.) decided already to support their private interpretation ’til the end?

My Bible teaches me that there is an Old Universe! And an Old Earth, which is part of such Universe (as the Scripture reveals it).

My Bible teaches me that the Six days of Genesis chapter 1 were real and literal, but that in them God was re-ordering the Universe to make it an habitat again! (remember that plants are restored since day 3 and the sun, moon and stars are restored until day 4) God was here bringing back order to Earth and Universe with his Word, in order for him to CREATE breathing animals (the ones that we see now, included their bounded plasticity to bring variation within them, ‘after their kind) and men!

My Bible also teaches me that Adam and Eve were real and literal people!

However, religious creationists claim that death entered on earth only until the fall of men (and that’s one reason why Ken Ham in his museum is putting dinosaurs together with men; they already decided that dinosaurs living before Gen.1:2 is not an option, even if the Bible leaves that option open). They forget that such Biblical contexts of death entering on earth only until the fall of men are talking about spiritual death in HUMANKIND! They fail to see that God’s concerns are with HUMANS’ eternity! Not with the dinosaurs!

Concluding: Old Universe, Old Earth and Old Vegetation restored by GOD. However, created in the fifth and sixth days ‘young‘ living animals, the ones that exist now. And the climax of God’s work, in the sixth day of Genesis 1: a ‘young‘ and unique man!

The Bible teaches an Old Universe not on the basis of expanding the span of the six literal days of Genesis chapter one, but on the basis of the time in which Lucifer rebelled against God, dislocating then the full order of the Universe (Gen. 1:2)!

[Some of this points in my Book’s Review posting at ARNOn the Book of Genesis‘]

A Biblical and careful study indicates Old matter but Young breathing living souls on earth (the animals existing now, and men).

Darwinian evolutionists want us to worship their speculations while religious creationists want us to worship their own private interpretations of the very same sacred text that I love with all my heart: THE BIBLE!

If I find my research inspired by the Bible, deriders of the Bible have no authority whatsoever to ridicule and retaliate such stance… Neither religious creationists should criticize their fellow Christians. ICR and AiG, etc., are giving more weight to their own personal and private interpretations than to the revealed Bible itself on this particular topic! They have invested their millons on it!

We really need to do a sound and in-depth Biblical study and to follow or develop a most rigurous Biblical scholarship than that!

Even if for the moment we don’t see things in unity of hearth, at least I have my consolation by thinking that in one glorious day, when Christ will rescue and transform us, all born again ones, the member of his Body, no matter the affiliation, then we all will be able to see ALL TRUTH! ‘Till then, love your bro’!

—————————————

Expanded for my posting at ARN

 Posted by at 1:45 pm

  11 Responses to “Bad Speculations and Bad Interpretations”

  1. fdocc, good to see your posting again. I think I am in general agreement with you. I am a fundamentalist Christian which makes me a Biblical literalists. Unfortunately, most people will either distort or misunderstand what this means. As a result these labels have become anathema any social discourse today. What does it mean to be a fundamentalist and literalists? Simply it means that I believe the Bible is the Word of God that is applicable to people through all Ages. I believe in the perspicuity of Scripture. Meaning that the Bible is clear and simple to understand in general, and the simple straight forward interpretation of the text is the correct one. Literal interpretation of the Bible means applying proper hermeneutics as the grammatical-historical method.

    As part of good hermeneutical practice, we need to consult good scholarship for textual criticism and proper historical context and understanding. In short I believe there is one correct understanding of the Word of God, but because we are sinful and flawed creatures we may fail to gain the proper interpretation. Using these basis for my understanding I think groups like ICR and AiG is not practicing good hermeneutics and is doing a disservice to the Christian community.

  2. No scientist who has examined the fossils says archeopteryx is NOT a transitional. As Alan Feduccia, the most severe critic of bird evolution papers alive, puts it, archy is a “perfect” transitional.

    The site you link to says, contrary to the facts, that scientists disagree about this.

    So, is it your proposal to teach bad information, discredited claims to kids?

  3. edarrell, your assertion is just plain wrong. The only scientists who thinks Archaeopteryx is a “perfect” transitional are religious Darwinists. The problem with Archaeopteryx and any Darwinian transitional fossil is that Darwinists are engaged in obfuscation and equivocation. First, even among Darwinists who accept Archaeopteryx as a transitional fossil are critical of then extent of how much this form supports Darwinian fairytale. For instance, you have Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge who said

    At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Bauplane [body plans] are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments: there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count)” – Gould, S.J. and N. Eldredge. “Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered.” Paleobiology, 3 (1977): 115-151. (p. 147)

    What Gould and Eldredge is saying is that Archaeopteryx is not a perfect fossil to demonstrate the idea of LUCA(last universal common ancestor) for the modern birds. Another example is paleontologist Colin Patterson who said

    I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test.

    Patterson is a committed Darwinist but he understands that the evidence is not there to claim that Archaeopteryx is the ancestor of birds.

    Finally, Darwinists are misleading when they use the term transitional form. They know full well that Archaeopteryx is not a transitional form but at best it can only be consider as an intermediary. An intermediary is not a direct ancestor to an extant species, rather they are alleged ancestrial cousins, sisters, or uncles and aunts of the actual ancestors. The problem is that there is no direct evidence of direct morphological transition. This is equivalent of seeing a tree with roots extending out like stilts on a nurse log and claim that it evolved into a 4 legged stool.

    You see the problem is that we have been lying to our students in schools. Let’s set the record straight by teaching them real science with ID.

  4. You misquote and misinterpret Eldredge and Gould. Neither disagrees that archy is a transitional, nor would either of them say that good transitionals don’t exist. Moreover, both of them take violent exception to your suggestion, false as it is, that they disagree with Darwinian theory.

    In fact, the quote you list above is thoroughly explained at the Quote Mine Project at Talk.origins — and as the citation there notes, Gould specifically dealt with your complaint in a different article, taking exactly the opposite of the position you have attributed to him: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html

    It’s now obvious that Gould and Eldredge weren’t arguing against Archaeopteryx being a transitional form, but arguing that it wasn’t an example of a perfectly smooth change between body plans (or “Bauplane”). For instance, the wing of Archaeopteryx was in essence the forelimb of a dinosaur covered with feathers. This is what Gould and Eldredge meant by the term “mosaic”: a creature that is a mixture of both primitive and advanced features. But mosaic forms are exactly what we should expect from evolutionary transitions, since there’s no reason to expect every part of the body to evolve at the same rate or at the same time. Evolution has no destination in mind, just as the Wright Brothers didn’t envision modern jet fighters when they flew at Kitty Hawk.

    But did Gould believe that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form? He did indeed, as can be seen in his article “The Tell-tale Wishbone” (Gould 1980). Any claim to the contrary would be a misrepresentation.

    I challenge you to find an expert in birds who claims these species are not transitionals. There are none (I’ve already noted the most severe critic, Feduccia).

    It seems plain to me that you didn’t get a good grounding in evolution theory in your education, and it’s pretty plain you’ve not been out to look at the literally thousands of transitionals on display in museums (in your definition of “transitional”). I would hope to be in error, but you’re pulling up old, long-disproven creationist claims that literally make no sense in light of paleontology of 20 years ago, let alone today.

    Teach the facts first. They are not lies, as the courts have already determined. It is immoral not to teach kids the best we know.

  5. edarrell, let’s take one thing at a time. I suspect it must be difficult for you to face the facts that contradicts Darwinism. Please read what I actually said. I never misquoted Gould or Eldredge. Please show me where I said they do not accept Archaeopteryx as a transitional? I explicitly said that “among Darwinists who accept Archaeopteryx as a transitional fossil are critical of then extent of how much this form supports Darwinian fairytale.” I also never said that Gould or Eldredge said that good transitionals do not exist.

    Please do not automatic misquotation from IDists. Talkorigins is a propaganda lying machine. While Gould accepts Archaeopteryx as a mosaic(emphasize by talkorigins), he rejects Archaeopteryx as an example of gradual neo-Darwinian evolution. IOW, although Gould accepts Archaeopteryx as a transitional and is committed to Darwinism, he has no evidence for Darwinism.

    Lastly, stop your argument from authority and start thinking for yourself. It doesn’t matter how many scientists agree Darwinism is science. You must examine the data for yourself and follow the evidence wherever it leads.

  6. Teleologist:

    I agree that such groups are doing a disservice to the Christian community.

    At ARN I posted the fact that Archaeopteryx is considered a bird and not a ‘transitional’.

    A related posting, purported to be ‘a lecture ‘ on five “facts” of evoluion (by edarrell) at http://teleological.org/?p=55 can esily be refuted by critically reading the above mentioned book by Stove.

    While checking for the word ““FACT” for you, dear reader, I found the next interesting compilation by Dave Bradbury .

    Stove (above reference) refuted the illusion that “species… make more offspring than can grow to adulthood” by explaining that such expression is totally unscientific and was based in the outwardly wrong assumptions made by the non-biologist Malthus. Such statement don’t even provide any logical percent and today remains fully refuted by populational census.

    Then the idea that “food resources are limited” was refuted by Stove by declaring that such is another of the totally unscientific Malthusianism-Darwinism, because the term “food” includes indeed growing populations, like those of plants and organisms also producing new offspring all the time.

    The same can be said about the unscientific and philosophical idea of the “struggle for survival“, because, if every population normally tends to grow (and that’s what the Malthus-Darwin principle affirms), “food“, is also composed by populations that are growing, so under normal and natural conditions, no struggle for survival is needed. So, Darwinism is abnormal and antinatural.

    Then, related to the statement that “variation is rampant” or expressions like “much of this variation is heritable“, etc” How much is to say “rampant“. To any observer it is clear that those assumptions really don’t help with anything. Indeed, all those speculative, philosophical and false points have been deceiving readers for 150 years by messing up and ignoring the real genetic compatibility and the interbreeding between similar organisms that are able to produce fertile offspring.

    Then, Stove refutes the statement that “those with the “best” characteristics will be more likely to survive, and those desirable traits will be passed to their offspring” by presenting humans facts. Stove declares that deceivingly Darwin never mentioned humans as examples in his first book on evolution, but until later in a different book. The trick of Darwin was that he never excluded humans of his flawed speculations, Darwin generalized that the very same things will be happening in every population, humans included. However, in humans, all medical, and beneficence, and asylums, taxes, and many other institutions indeed preserve those individuals that in the Darwinian beast-like talking, may have been the weak ones, the unfit and non-deserving to survive. The same can be said by the fact that Stove emphasizes that the poorer human classes are the most prolific than those most privileged and educated higher classes. The statician evolutionist Fisher saw this things as “problems” for the theory of evolution but Stove declares that rather than being “problems“, those are real refutations to the ‘theory of evolution’ that anybody with a critical mind will be able to easily see.

    Finally, to declare that: “Natural selection, if carried far enough, makes changes in a population, eventually leading to new species” is again totally speculative and anti-scientific. For 150 years such wrong idea has demonstrated to be totally useless. “Natural selection” if it does anything at all, what it does is to preserve the integrity of the genome under different conditions and environments! There is change within similar kinds of organisms, as those thousands of examples declare us, and as new varieties of organisms are being originated in different locations, countless varieties able to interbreed and to produce fertile offspring in disregard on how humans have misclassified them (i.e., finches interbreed producing fertile offspring, being thus different ‘varieties’ and not different ‘species’ as deceivingly Darwin tried to convince us they were).

    Concluding, I must say that if living organisms today remain fully misclassified, a greater error can be expected over interpreting fossils containing diverse, exotic and extinct organisms, and more especially if “interpreted” by a beforehandedly biased ‘theory of evolution‘. Darwinism is not a fact; Darwinism is the worst philosophical speculation in the history of biology!

  7. edarrell, let’s take one thing at a time. I suspect it must be difficult for you to face the facts that contradicts Darwinism. Please read what I actually said. I never misquoted Gould or Eldredge. Please show me where I said they do not accept Archaeopteryx as a transitional? I explicitly said that “among Darwinists who accept Archaeopteryx as a transitional fossil are critical of then extent of how much this form supports Darwinian fairytale.” I also never said that Gould or Eldredge said that good transitionals do not exist.

    Let me put it this way: Were a student to hand me a paper in class using that quote in that fashion, under the rules of the university I occasionally teach at I’d be obligated to reprimand you for misuse of sources. There might be some discretion as to whether it would be an automatic failure in the course.

    Archeopteryx is a fine transitional. It’s exactly what you originally claimed does not exist — and Gould and Eldredge both agree.

    Moreover, there are thousands more in fossil form — but why stop there. What about the living transitionals? We have at least dozens of examples. Skinks with legs, skinks with somewhat atrophied legs that sometimes crawl like a snake, skinks with very atrophied legs who almost always crawl like a snake, legless skinks; and from the other side, snakes with pelvis bones, snakes with vestigial legs, and snakes with vestigial legs that still have some function (in mating). Or consider the California salamanders, and 20 species that show fine gradations moving from north to south, and around the San Fernando Valley — each intermediate species a perfect transitional from the two on either side of it geographically. Or consider other ring species such as the less black-backed gull/herring gull.

    Transitionals are all around us, in fossil form and in living form. In the hominid line alone there are 20 species from the earliest known member of the human family bush to modern humans — and likely many more to be discovered. One can track the development of brain size in almost stair-step progress.

    Or consider the 2,000 different species of trilobite at the American Museum of Natural History, showing in very close detail such things as the origin of eyes in the genera, the rise of limbs — and covering 300 million years of history.

    Or consider whales. There are another dozen or so species which very carefully show the steps from a hunting, even-toed ungulate (!) living on the shores of a shallow sea, through a mostly marine descendant, to completely marine, modern mammals we know as whales.

    You abuse the words of both Gould and Eldredge, and you talk crazy stuff about transitionals. That we have hundreds of fossil examples despite the scarcity of fossils compared to the abundance of species only demonstrates Darwin’s point, and rebuts bizarre claims that transitionals don’t exist. That we have modern examples all over the place only makes Darwin’s point stronger.

    I have no difficulty facing facts that contradict Darwinian evolution — and I recognize them when I see them. I have great difficulty facing contrived falsehoods that fail to represent reality in nature, which are claimed to be contradictions of science, when they are fantasies instead. Such unfaithfulness to what is observed in nature fairly makes my blood boil.

  8. A related posting, purported to be ‘a lecture ‘ on five “facts” of evoluion (by edarrell) at http://teleological.org/?p=55 can esily be refuted by critically reading the above mentioned book by Stove.

    Then be my guest and refute them. The facts I related there are common knowledge to wildlife managers; they are the basis of the management of crops, renewable resources such as trees, and never-before-refuted by anyone observations that any reasonable person can make in nature.

    You have the refutation? A Nobel awaits you. Where is the refutation?

  9. Listen edarrell, how you would evaluate a paper by your student is irrelevant. You seem to have made up your mind and don’t want to be confused by the facts. The fact is that I provided a quote challenging your claim that Archaeopteryx is a “perfect” transitional. I shown that even a committed Darwinist like Gould does not think that Archaeopteryx is a “perfect” transitional for neo-Darwinism. You then accuse me of misquoting. I again refuted that mischaracterization by providing my exact quote with states the opposite of what you claimed I said. Now you are telling me that you would allow your own bias to punish your students?

    As far as refuting the alleged 5 facts that you’ve posted on the Bush topic, I hate to break it to you but they are not facts. You’ve posted some assumptions. I’ve also refuted those assumptions with the research paper (fact) that Ive posted in response.

    P.S. For the readers with an open mind, in order for an artifact to be a viable transitional fossil. You must be able to identify the immediate ancestor and descendent of the transitional and every subsequent immediate progenitor/offspring between the alleged disparate species. Archaeopteryx does not have such fossil trails, which is the reason for Gould and Eldredge’s Punk Eek. Furthermore, scientist can’t even be certain that Archaeopteryx is the direct ancestor of the modern birds or if it is an intermediate. Darwinists can claim that Archaeopteryx is a transitional because of their philosophical belief but it is not science.

  10. It is sad to see you disregard ethics, claiming that academic honesty is “irrelevent.”

    That will be part of the epitaph of intelligent design, just as it is part of the epitaph of other creationism, no doubt.

    Any philosophy that drives such a disregard for ethics has something other than Godliness at it’s root, I wager.

  11. […] The only imaginative fairytales that I know of is coming from the Darwinians. Is Evolution the Best Explanation or Just another Fairytale? Bad Speculations and Bad Interpretations My challenge to Darwinian Evolutionists is to produce a single sliver of empirical evidence that demonstrates macroevolution. Despite the priesthood of PhDs all Darwinism can produce are imaginative stories. That is why there is still a controversy my dear Brockman. There are examples in history of the collapse of great civilizations. There is no particular reason that the United States should be exempt from historical forces The Visigoths are at the gates. Will we let them in? […]

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.