Jerry Adler with Anne Underwood and W. L. Adams wrote an article for Newsweek (Nov. 28, 2005 for the U.S.A.; Dec. 12, 2005 for the international edited version. In the cover of that magazine they declared “Evolution vs. ‘Intelligent Design’: Round II” ).
In their most unfortunate comment, they wrote that
“…the Bible has nothing to impart about the genetic relationships among the finches he [Darwin] did find…”
You can see the full context at the end of that article.
In the print edition of that magazine, in pages 54 and 55, under the figure of the different Galapagos’ finches, we read an excerpt written by Josh Ulick:
“Origins of an Idea. Darwin was amazed by the diversity of finches on the Galapagos: each species has a unique beak tailored to its specific diet. He theorized that the dozen or so variations arose from a single ancestor whose descendants spread out and adapted to different conditions, eventually evolving into separate species. This idea became cornerstone in his theory of evolution.”
However, the Bible, by declaring in Genesis Chapter One that living organisms reproduce after their own kind, is more accurate than the currently held idea that the Galapagos Finches are different species produced by ‘evolution’.
Why those writings attempting to be for the purpose of “popularizing scientific ideas” fall so short hiding the fact that the different finches interbreed producing fertile offspring?
Let’s put a common comparison with which all of us may relate, because the currently held and deliberate mistake of considering the finches as examples of evolution is as wrong as if each of the different breeds of dogs were considered as different species.
So, imagine that what currently is happening to the finches is like to consider a “Canis bernardensis” (St. Bernard Dog) a different “species” of dog evolved to endure cold weathers, while wrongly considering “Canis chihuahuensis” (Chihuahua Dog) as another different “species” that evolved to endure living on the mountains, then another dog “evolved” short legs to be able to walk under small spaces, etc., etc. What is wrong with that picture of dogs? It is wrong that in the same way that the different breeds of dogs are able to interbreed producing fertile offspring one with another, in the same way the different finches are able to reproduce among themselves, which means that both groups of animals are genetically compatible within themselves.
The same can be said of innumerable groups of organisms that systematically and deliberately are being used as examples of evolution using the same false argument used by Charles Darwin. Evolutionists are desperately and deceivingly trying to convince people that “new species can be originated” , that “the origin of species” is “real” and that natural selection (and random mutation) is “strong enough” to produce “speciation.”
In reality, organisms aren’t going anywhere beyond the realm of varieties within their genetically compatible group.
However, the same corrupt strategy of misinformation using the finches was used last year by National Geographic.
“Perhaps applying the perspective of Intelligent Design can help clarify the difference” declared the Biologist Dr. Raymond Bohlin and Philosopher Gene Herr.
“Quammen used the tired old argument of Darwin’s finches (pp. 26-27,30) as a demonstration of natural selection, citing specifically the well-known scientific studies of Peter Grant from Princeton University who, with his wife Rosemary, has spent the past several decades observing changes in finches’ beaks on the GalÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¡pagos Islands (p. 30). In the end, all that the Grants discovered was that finches’ beaks change. The finches, however, always remained finches. They did not turn into something else. Quammen also referred to variation among dogs (pp. 16-17). If this is the best the evolutionists have to offer, then their theory is in far worse trouble than even they seem to realize… [finches] by the way, are now known to be interbreeding! “A finch ‘changing’ into a finch” does not offer any explanation whatsoever… This “proof” of evolution (like so many others that Quammen used in his article, such as variation in horses, variation in finches, variation in dogs, etc.) turns out to be not vertical macroevolution but horizontal microevolution (i.e., adaptation).”
Dr. Jonathan Wells declared: that “National Geographic Ignores The Flaws in Darwin’s Theory”
One IDEA‘s young leader, Casey Luskin wrote:
“Darwin’s Finches ….could never provide evidence for anything more than the slightest example of microevolution. Microevolution, or minor change within a species is also a well documented fact, readily accepted by creationists and evolutionists alike. Some of Darwin’s Finches may be considered to be different species simply because they are reproductively isolated, however, this is a constructed definition of species which doesn’t necessarily imply any significant transformation has occurred. Unlike microevolution, macroevolution — the ability to turn hominids into humans, reptiles into birds, or evolve complex biological structures — relies upon generally undocumented evidence.”
And even citizens like Do-While Jones declared “Despite the fact that modern evolutionists have rejected almost everything Darwin believed, National Geographic makes the claim that Darwin was right.”
So, with what we know now those finches should be considered not as examples of the non real evolutionary fairytale of “speciation” but as varieties mistakenly and deliberately portrayed as if being the members of “different species” ,which is as biologically absurd as the comedy on dogs aforementioned.
Again and again, as always, the good ol’ book of the Bible is more precise than the imaginations and speculations of men, especially the mischievous speculations of those men with an agenda of getting rid of God and of His Wonderful Word.
According to N. Eldredge, as mentioned in that article, Charles Darwin was plotting the ideas for his 1859 book “Origin of Species” since 1830. Darwin visited the Galapagos in 1835.
Other of the mistaken statements in that article was done by Dr. Francis S. Collins, when he declared
“[ID] says, if there’s some part of science that you can’t understand, that must be where God is. Historically, that hasn’t gone well. And if science does figure out [how the eye evolved]– and I believe it’s very likely that science will … then where is God?”
That statement is as lacking of basis as the one done by Dr. Dennis Alexander when he wrote: “ID proponents commonly use ‘naturalistic’ as a synonym for ‘scientific’ ”
That’s the claim of the people that oposes ID! Not of the ID scholars themselves!
So, Dr. Collins, exactly who declared that, other than yourself, or where is your original source for that statement that is clearly misrepresenting Intelligent Design? That’s just Collins’ pre-conception of ID. However, the other source that Newsweek mentions here is NCSE‘s Eugenie C. Scott, which in her ‘debates’ she is always repeating that there is no controversy at all. So, who or why is she debating at all !!! ? Was she the main and deceitful “source” for Newsweek?
And related to Collins’ statement that science may be able to “figure out” how the eye “evolved” , that still will be, if done, just a lot of imagination and speculation by the very “intelligent” hands and brains that may be involved!
And one more mistake by Newsweek, where are Drs. Dembski, Behe, Wells, Meyer and Denton, etc…? As by taking an unilateral position to bash Intelligent Design with misinformation and by presenting only the perspective of people contrary to Intelligent Design this article is just another example of “evolution propaganda“, like the Darwin exhibit that such article promotes and like the aforementioned and disgraced article of National Geographic.