I think the history of the theory of evolution is a story of the search for it’s holy grail – the missing link. It is filled with sensationalist stories and proclamations of it’s discovery, only to have each discovery go down in flames as a hoax. The search for the fabled missing link is filled with hoaxes. I can just imagine what would happen if Christianity was a history of hoaxes.
So, when evolutionary scientists make a grand announcement, with promotional materials and prime time TV – one becomes a little suspicious. Especially when the find was kept secret for two years. Those who have missing link revelations do not have good track records, actually, they have lousy track records.
I believe it proves that Darwinian scientists are an insecure lot. The fanfare centered around the finding of the fossil of Ida, a lemur monkey is illustrative of this point. It’s like a kid when no one believes his tall tale; he is constantly trying to find that one thing to prove to everyone it’s all true.
If Darwinian evolution is true, why the hullabaloo by Darwinians over a supposed finding of a missing link? Why keep it secret for two years before it’s unveiling, without giving access to all of the scientific community? Their actions prove why evolution is still a theory: they know that if evolution is to be true, there should be no missing links in the first place.
In the end, evolution is merely a process – it has no bearing on the existence of God. You just have to determine if this process is such to bring about all that we see. I doubt it. If evolution is true, only God could make it work.
While evolution has no bearing on the existence of God, it has a tremendous bearing when it comes to atheism. To the atheist, evolution is much more than science – it is the justification of faith. Thus their fundamentalism in the discussion of evolutionary theory.
Is Ida a missing link? If we go by past revelations made by missing link promoters, probably not. I seriously doubt it. The few scientists who have had access to Ida for two years in secret can say anything they want to – evolutionists have proven to be a insecure lot. I will reserve judgment when a cross section of respected scientists get their crack at Ida.
But there is something to think about. After all the hoopla, if it is disproved to be a missing link – will anyone notice?
UPDATE! 5/20
Well, there you go – “Revolutionary” Fossil Fails to Dazzle Paleontologists from ScienceNOW:
Many paleontologists are unconvinced. They point out that Hurum and Gingerich’s analysis compared 30 traits in the new fossil with primitive and higher primates when standard practice is to analyze 200 to 400 traits and to include anthropoids from Egypt and the newer fossils of Eosimias from Asia, both of which were missing from the analysis in the paper. “There is no phylogenetic analysis to support the claims, and the data is cherry-picked,” says paleontologist Richard Kay, also of Duke University. Callum Ross, a paleontologist at the University of Chicago in Illinois agrees: “Their claim that this specimen should be classified as haplorhine is unsupportable in light of modern methods of classification.”
Other researchers grumble that by describing the history of anthropoids as “somewhat speculatively identified lineages of isolated teeth,” the PLoS paper dismisses years of new fossils. “It’s like going back to 1994,” says paleontologist K. Christopher Beard of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who has published jaw, teeth, and limb bones of Eosimias. “They’ve ignored 15 years of literature.”
Also, from Live Science – Amid Media Circus, Scientists Doubt ‘Ida’ Is Your Ancestor By Clara Moskowitz:
Besides scientific objections, some paleontologists take issue with the way the discovery was announced. The research team unveiled the fossil Tuesday at a showy press conference at the American Museum of Natural History. A History Channel documentary and a book about the discovery are also being released to tout the news.
“The P.R. campaign on this fossil is I think more of a story than the fossil itself,” said anthropologist Matt Cartmill of Duke University in North Carolina. “It’s a very beautiful fossil, but I didn’t see anything in this paper that told me anything decisive that was new.”
Most experts agree that the find is significant, if only for its impressive degree of completeness, but some were put off by the bells and whistles that went along with the publicity campaign around Ida.
“This fossil has been hailed as the eighth wonder of the world. Frankly I’ve got 10 more in my basement,” said Chris Beard, a curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh. Though the fossil is a beautiful specimen, it is not dissimilar to many slightly less well-preserved primate fossils from around the same period.
See, this is what I am talking about! Hide for two years and then come out with a promotion worthy of an Elmer Gantry and you start smelling like rotten fish. Or should I say like a rotten lemur monkey?
More articles
The Republican Health Care Alternative By Peter Ferrara
Eco-hypocrisy of the day By Michelle Malkin
Report: Obama increasingly “distracted” by Biden’s idiocy – Hot Air
‘American Idol’ and Dumbing Down the Definition of Homophobe by John Nolte
Waxman clueless about his cap&trade bill: “You’re asking me?!” By Michelle Malkin
Wow: It’s time to legalize drugs, says … Tom Tancredo?
Filed under: Science | Tagged: Atheism, Christianity, hoax, Ida, missing link, theory of evolution
“To the atheist, evolution is much more than science – it is the justification of faith. Thus their fundamentalism in the discussion of evolutionary theory.”
Sorry, but you’re wrong.
Whether or not evolution is true has no bearing on my being an atheist.
Because even if evolution weren’t true (it is, but I’m open to a hypothetical) that wouldn’t mean that Christian creationism (or any other brand of creationism) was true. It would just mean that evolution wasn’t true. Any other theory about life would still need to have evidence supplied to confirm it.
Creationism doesn’t have that evidence.
Nor does the existence of god, which is the reason for my being an atheist.
Well, good for you – you are committed to your faith. You would be surprised how many atheists (I believe most) must have the comfort of evolution (as Dawkins calls it) in order to justify their atheistic faith – and are quite fundamentalist about it.
But in a postmodern world, I think tolerance is in order. You look at the world around you and choose atheistic faith, others see more and choose a theistic faith.
You just simply choose not to see what others see.
“I think the history of the theory of evolution is a story of the search for it’s holy grail – the missing link. It is filled with sensationalist stories and proclamations of it’s discovery, only to have each discovery go down in flames as a hoax.” I can only think of a few times this has happened, and each time it was the self-correcting mechanisms which are built into science that discovered them. “I can just imagine what would happen if Christianity was a history of hoaxes.” Shroud of Turin? Peter Popoff? Yeah, that will never happen.
“If Darwinian evolution is true, why the hullabaloo by Darwinians over a supposed finding of a missing link?” Because it’s exciting!
“Why keep it secret for two years before it’s unveiling, without giving access to all of the scientific community?” Because such discoveries require study, not going off half-cocked. Remember that stupid cold fusion episode? That’s what happens when scientists don’t take the time to properly study things. It’s not a conspiracy. I’m sure those that found it were itching to get it into the literature. The fossil is now available for all in the scientific community to study, but the discoverers get first crack at it (as they should). Your attempt to make this seem tawdry is pathetic.
“Their actions prove why evolution is still a theory: they know that if evolution is to be true, there should be no missing links in the first place.” Baloney. There isn’t even a need for a single fossil find. Darwin’s original work had nothing to do with fossils or even the need for any. Nor do you know what the term ‘theory’ means, it seems. It is not a wild guess, but an explanation of a set of observations which is falsifiable and testable. It starts as a hypothesis and when it has undergone a grueling set of tests it is elevated to the status of ‘theory’. Gravity is also ‘just a theory’, but I don’t see too many people worried about falling up all of a sudden because of that.
“It’s like a kid when no one believes his tall tale; he is constantly trying to find that one thing to prove to everyone it’s all true.” You should realize that science honestly doesn’t care whether you believe in this or not – it’s where the evidence from a broad range of disciplines has lead us. It’s not a popularity contest.
“To the atheist, evolution is much more than science – it is the justification of faith.” No. I would be an atheist without it. Ideas and hypotheses must stand on their own merits. I know of no religion that has any evidential support going for it. Nor is any religion self-consistent. It is up to the claimant to provide convincing evidence that the claim is valid, not on those maintaining the null hypothesis. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, yet no religion has mustered even the mediocre sort.
Thank you for your comment!
The Shroud has never been declared as “authentic” by the Catholic Church. It is not an item that is essential to Christian faith. The missing link debacle is essential to evolutionary argument.
But – the Shroud is not a hoax either. There is new information, including that it does date back to the time of Christ. Please check out my two blogs on the subject:
Knights Templar records indicate possession of Shroud of Turin
Is the Turin Shroud genuine after all? It does date back to the time of Christ!
Please check out evolution hoax history – there are a lot more than just a couple. It gives you that “Barnum and Bailey” feeling all over.
As for the hiding it for two years thing – please check out the updates on my blog. Scientists are already debunking it. That’s why you don’t hide something from the scientific community and proclaim truth from the housetops – you will end up looking like a fool.
But as for your atheistic faith, I will finish the same way as I commented on the prior post:
To me the theory of evolution is an absurdity! Now, I’m a layman in the strictest sense and not schooled (beyond that of High School Biology) in an advanced understanding of the theory, so to those of you who are “in the know” will probably laugh yourselves silly over my very general understanding of the theory of evolution.
I was taught (as best as my feeble mind can remember) that lightning struck the primordial sea and created the first one celled organism and that after a few million years, that one celled organism crawled from the primordial sea and sprouted legs and became the first land dwelling animal, and in turn the process continued until that land based animal became a tree dweller and one capable of flight (birds). Am I correct or did I miss something?
In any case, some of these animals were weaker than others and couldn’t adapt so they simply died out. This is survival of the fittest. How am I doing so far?
Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but when has evolution been proven as FACT?! I always thought it was just a theory, that’s why proponents of evolution are desperately searching in vain to find that fabled misssing link they are always going on about. At what point was the official stamp placed on it?
As for the Shroud, I have read seven books on the subject, plus countless web articles and even attended some study groups, and I can tell you for a fact that the Shroud Of Turin is a genuine artifact. It has also been proven to be much older than the medeaval date given it back in the eighties. A Dr. Valdez discovered on the cloth itself a bacteria coating that he dubbed a bioplastic coating which is the reason the carbon dating isn’t accurate. There is a safe method for cleansing the cloth but the Vatican has denied any further access to the relic. Furthermore, a women has discovered that in certain areas, different material was used to repair the cloth in specific places and was then died to match the patena of the original fabric. The areas where these repairs occurred is from the areas that the Vatican allowed test samples to be cut from during the seventies and eighties. The newest cloth would definately throw off the carbon dating as well. She discovered the different weaving patterns during inspection under microscope. Is the Shroud the genuine article, probably, but as a Christian I don’t need an image on cloth to tell me what the Bible syas is FACT. But this is just me of course. It takes much more faith to say the world began from nothing and everything within it from one thing than to believe that a creator had designed everything the way it is from the very beginning!! Again, just me, but there is lots more evidence now to support creation than there use to be and most of it being found by athiest and agnostic scientists. You’ll never hear it on television specials or read about it in classrooms though. It’s a shame really.
Interesting post! I have not been keeping up with evolution for a while now since I no longer study it in school. I do find it somewhat amusing at how many different links have been disproved.
With all the people that are trying to disprove the Bible, I still have not come across a great disproof yet (I may be wrong… if there is, I would love to see it so I can come to my own conclusion).
There have been several things about evolution that have been disproven, yet people still believe it. Very few, if any, good disproofs exist against Christianity. Lots of people say Christians have a bias, but you have to say that evolutionists have just as many, if not more, biases towards their own beliefs.
Even if evolution was proven to be true it would not disprove the existence of God. It also would not harm validity of the bible in that effect. It may shake a few peoples interpretations of what the bible says a bit but that is it. The fact is existence of God is not reliant on either. One should also take into account how old the old testament really is. Think of the difference in the people then and know and the level of education and what it would take to get the same concepts through to those people. Imagine trying to explain to a sheep herder then how much something we take for granted today a billion just that simple number. The fact is you could not most people then did not understand enough math then to grasp the concept of a number that large. When it comes to science there is one simple question what was before the big bang? The universes expansion is accelerating not slowing down as it would be if the universe was a continual cycle of expansion and contraction. The fact is they have no answer. But it doesn’t mean we should stop looking for answers even in the bible it says to question everything. That would include itself.
[...] Ida proves that scientists are insecure about evolution « Jim Blazsik No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post) [...]
[...] Wall Street Journal: Celebrated Fossil Shown to World Hot Air: Quotes of the day Times Online: The Ida fossil: spectacular or hype? Guardian, UK: Fossil Ida: extraordinary find is ‘missing link’ between humans and mammals ABC News: Primate Fossil Could Be Key Link in Evolution SKY News: Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution Guardian, UK: To get a glimpse of the Ida fossil, the media make monkeys of themselves Framing Science: Darwinius masillae: Is The Hype a Bigger Story than the Science? BBC News: Scientists hail stunning fossil SKY News: Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution A Blog Around the Clock: Introducing Ida – the great-great-great-great-grandmother (or aunt) PLoS one: Complete Primate Skeleton from the Middle Eocene of Messel in Germany Jim Blazsik: Ida proves that scientists are insecure about evolution [...]
The silliest thing about about the “missing link” claim, is that for the marketing side they are promoting it heavily as the biggest thing to happen to evolution EVER.
But if you read the published and peer reviewed paper on the findings, they dont make that claim at all. In fact, the peer reviewers actually asked the writers to tone down the claims that the fossil is even in the Human ancestry at all!
Here is a direct quote from the published paper, which doesnt quite align with the marketing and promotion:
“[The species] could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates evolved [the line leading to humans], but we are not advocating this here.”
My research here: http://commonsenserepublic.com/2009/05/20/uncommonsense-the-missing-link-or-marketing-ploy/
[...] Ida proves that scientists are insecure about evolution « Jim Blazsik [...]
Finding out that a specific creature lived at a specific place and time does not prove that it “evolved” from one form, or became another. All it does is show that this specific creature lived at the one point in time. The amount of atheists that I have seen scream until their pants were full about this have been pathetic. I feel like they are showing me a copy of the Watchtower without the genuine kindness and calm that usually accompanies a solicitation of that sort.
To Shameless Atheist: You accuse others of not understanding what a scientific theory is then you go on to contradict yourself, basically saying evolution is not a legitimage scientifice theory. You say no more fossil evidence is necessary, that what Darwin discovered is enough? Oh really, well so much for it being a theory that is falsifiable and testable. If what you say about Darwin is true, which it is not, then even by the science definition , evolution would no longer be called theory but fact,if what you say is true. But as Jim points out, missing links are still being sought to justify and support Darwin’s theory, and perhaps one point that should be emphasized is that even if this Ida fossil were legit, it would only be one of many necessary missing links necessary to prove some link between man and beast. So, again, even Darwin himself admitted more fossil evidence was necessary , but so sure he was of his discoveries, in his arrogance, he predicted scientists would be tripping over all the necessary evidence now that they knew what to look for. It hasn’t happened, not even close. And the gradualism evolution requires necessitates this implication of finding numerous fossil evidence. I think evolution is in trouble. Instead of tripping over fossils of missing links, we do get hoaxes and ‘ida’s’ that simply do not provide enough information. At some point, if more fossil evidence isn’t found, and as scientists realize that it may not be out there, does Darwin even meet the qualification of being falsifiable for all of its broad claims? Comparing it to gravity is intellectual dishonesty because we can obseve gravity in the present. It remains a theory because gravity remains a mystery. We know its effects, science is not even close to knowing what it is and why it does what it does. Science is reaching its limits.
i notice evolutionists get extremely violent with their defense of evolution. if they’re so right, what are they worried about? with creationism, God will have the last say and he’ll be right since he created the universe and everything within it!