How Evolutionary Thinking Attempts To Counter Its Critics

Over 200 million fossils have been collected but yet there remains large systematic gaps in the record. Darwin skeptics have pointed out there should be more transitional creatures than fully evolved species because it takes so many changes to get to the next animal. The record has shown, there are not many alleged transitional creatures and the ones that have been labeled as such are highly questionable which falsifies the notion of a gradually unfolding tree of life.

Generally we find two ways an evolutionist will answer this, one is based on faith: over the years they haven’t discovered those transitional fossils yet but believe they will with time. The second answer is one which has been alluded to many times in this blog and is also explained in a recent science daily article from an evolutionist point of view which says…

“During the end-Permian extinction, some 250 million years ago, entire groups of animals and plants either vanished altogether or decreased significantly in numbers, and the recovery of the survivors was at times slow and prolonged before new radiations took place.”

“By studying the fossil record, palaeontologists can examine how individual groups of organisms responded to the end-Permian event and assess just how dramatic it was. However, as the quality and completeness of the fossil record varies considerably, both geographically and stratigraphically, palaeontologists need to find a way to ‘join the dots’ and piece together the fragments of a complex mosaic to give a more satisfactory and better picture of ancient life’s diversity.”

How can planeontologists ‘join the dots’ in order to give a satisfactory or better picture of the tree of life? The answer lies with Dr Marcello Ruta who said: “Evolutionary relationships can be superimposed on a time scale, allowing you to infer missing portions of past diversity.  They are powerful tools that complement and refine the known record of extinct diversity.  If you visualize evolutionary relationships in the form of branching diagrams and then plot them on a time scale, new patterns begin to emerge, with gaps in the fossil record suddenly filling rapidly.

Wow and there you have it! Sounds familiar? An author uses his imagination to create a story such as science fiction where a person imagines what an alien being would look like, say and do. They come up with impossible transportation which can fly millions of light years in a matter of seconds or minutes. This fills in the gap on not actually discovering alien life forms and their supposed spaceships. Is imagination used for such things as science fiction movies really a powerful tool for filling in the fossil record? This in no way replaces empirical science, even knowing part of the track record on various guesses made by scientists concerning unobservable data, it’s generally way off from reality.

The bottom line is this, evolutionary thinking is an illusion based on rebelling against the concept of an intelligent Creator namely God. It’s also an illusion to claim that no amount of data ever falsifies Darwinism, because they have the answers using their imagination which they believe will eventually come true through new research. And if it doesn’t they use more imagination for the next illusion of reality which turns out to be circular reasoning. How often times have you heard, this is science using a storyline or writing a script for it?  So what makes you think this is really science?

3 thoughts on “How Evolutionary Thinking Attempts To Counter Its Critics

  1. Michael seems to believe that the purpose of the Science Daily article is to counter critics of evolution. This points up the siege mentality of creationists. Their chief argument, that scientists don’t know everything, becomes weaker and weaker as scientific knowledge advances.

    The Science Daily article describes new knowledge that fits a hitherto mysterious group of animals—the parareptiles—into the broader context of life at the Permian extinction, 250Mya. Along the way, the fossils showed that these beasts did not suffer as much as other groups during that time. This has sparked new research to find out why. Scientific research always leads to more research–unlike creationism, which leads nowhere.

    Michael derides this research as mere fables written in the wind and running water. Yet they are based upon evidence. Evidence dug out of the ground as fossils. Genetic relationships among organisms. Radiometric dating.[1]

    Creationists are forced into a shell game. Here, Michael concentrates on the paucity of fossils to hide the fact that the fossils we do have conform to evidence developed from other means, such as genetics and the dating provided by physics. Science considers all the evidence. It cannot disregard that which is inconvenient, as creationists are wont to do.

    And the evidence, from fossils to genetics to geology to astronomy to atomic physics, unequivocally points to common descent over millions and billions of years.


    [1] Creationists contest these, but have no explanation as to why various methods produce consistent result, and results which comport with other forms of evidence. Further, they seems to accept these dates as long as they are used only to find new coal deposits and oil fields, and not to date fossils. Hmm.

  2. This post certainly points up one major difference between scientists and creationists—

    Scientists read scientific papers to find out something they did not know before.

    Creationists read about scientific discoveries only to confirm what they already knew.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s