Intelligent Design vs. the Imagination

The Darwinian view of embryos seems to show how a mythological view of biology can develop based on blurred imagery and vague reasoning. Most Darwinists no longer say that ontogeny (the way that embryos develop) recapitulates phylogeny (their ancestral history or development) because that would obviously be ignorant and stupid, instead they say that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny occasionally. Modern Darwinists argue that if embryos look similar to the embryos of other species (in the Darwinian mind it seems that any similarity will do) then that is sound evidence of their common ancestry. For example:

Although a human embryo does not “recapitulate” the adult stage of any previous ancestor, certain ancestral conditions and particular structures are clearly recapitulated. This figure is from Mayr’s book What Evolution Is. According to Mayr, “embryonic similarities, recapitulation, and vestigial structures . . . raise insurmountable difficulties for a creationist explanation, but are fully compatible with an evolutionary explanation based on common descent, variation, and selection.” As Mayr also notes, if evolution is not true, “why should the embryos of birds and mammals develop gill slits [They’re actually not gill slits.], like fish embryos?” Hawaii.edu

Given Darwinian “reasoning” in which any similarities among embryos verify common descent one would think that deep distinctions and differences among embryos would therefore falsify common descent because verification and falsification are logically linked. Unfortunately Darwinism has little to do with logic and evolution is rooted in hypothetical goo in which the “fact of evolution” has already been established based on more of this sort of reasoning: “This looks a little bit like that or something!” Given that it is already established there actually can be no such thing as scientific evidence against “evolution” and all arguments against it are based on ignorance while all apparent evidence against it can be interpreted as a gap in knowledge.

It’s ironic that anyone would argue that biological observations are “fully compatible” with evolution given that there are apparently no biological observations which are not compatible with hypothetical goo. What sort of observations would not be compatible with “evolution”? It’s interesting to think about exactly what sort of observations could “raise insurmountable difficulties” for theories of evolution in general.

Here are pictures of embryos:

richardson-embryos1

Unfortunately students have often been taught that the blurred form of imagery represented in Haeckel’s forged embryos (a blurring which seems to be typical to the Darwinian urge to merge) has something to do with the empirical evidence. In contrast, some iconoclastic proponents of ID have sought to shatter such imagery. Imagery which is still in use, although proponents of Darwinism have claimed, “This illustration, and re-drawings of it, should not be included in any biology textbook today, nor is it now.” (Textscience.org, Emphasis added) They went on to argue, “Embryological similarities are indeed excellent evidence to support the truth of evolution, and thus they should be included in introductory textbooks, since they are a vivid graphic example…”

It seems to me that Haeckel’s forgeries lasted so long in textbooks (and does in many to this day) because the Darwinism “meme” needs to pollute impressionable minds with “vivid” imagery (i.e. propaganda) which then tends to structure a largely imaginary view of biology in general. In my experience Darwinists often use the term “overwhelmed” to describe their mental state with respect to their view of the evidence but being overwhelmed may have more to do with indoctrination than eduction.

Advertisements

8 Responses

  1. It seems to me that Haeckel’s forgeries lasted so long in textbooks (and does in many to this day) because the Darwinism “meme” needs to pollute impressionable minds with “vivid” imagery (i.e. propaganda) which then tends to structure a largely imaginary view of biology in general. In my experience Darwinists often use the term “overwhelmed” to describe their mental state with respect to their view of the evidence but being overwhelmed may have more to do with indoctrination than eduction.

    It seems like to me that to the Darwinist, the end justifies the means. They already “know” that evolution is true, so it doesn’t matter much to them “how” people are convinced. It only matters that they are convinced. I’ve asked Darwinists numerous questions in the past, and they have a complete inability to understand the question because of their assumptions that Darwinism is true. They are completely uncritical of Darwinism. The attitude seems to be, “So what? Darwinism is true. This is a lie, but Darwinism is true. It doesn’t matter.”

  2. I’ve asked Darwinists numerous questions in the past, and they have a complete inability to understand the question because of their assumptions that Darwinism is true.

    First, I don’t recall any particular cases where you asked me a question that I didn’t understand. Care to remind me?

    Second, how do you know that someone’s inability to understand a question is due an epistemic deficiency on their part? This is a far trickier matter than you seem to realize.

    It’s one thing to fault someone for being unable to provide an answer to a question that they understand . . . it’s something far, far different to fault someone for being unable to understand a question that’s being asked of them.

  3. I wasn’t referring to you Carl–you’re an anomaly in my opinion. I understand the difference between the options you talk about, and I do believe that they were blinded by their assumptions.

  4. “I wasn’t referring to you Carl–you’re an anomaly in my opinion.”

    May I take that as a compliment?

    “I do believe that they were blinded by their assumptions.”

    It is an exceedingly difficult thing to not be blinded by one’s assumptions — blinded, that is, to what seems obvious on the basis of other assumptions.

  5. They already “know” that evolution is true, so it doesn’t matter much to them “how” people are convinced.

    I think this has to do with their feelings about a broad pattern of evidence that they think they see, although history shows that the imagery and imaginary associations that they tend to believe is evidence may not be what they think it is. At any rate, they usually say that they feel “overwhelmed” by it. What seems like an obvious truth to seems to be combined with their mythological view of Progress and they conclude that as long as students are convinced of the fact/truth of evolution then the details and evidence will naturally and inevitably be filled in later. One thing seems to be consistent to Darwinian reasoning, whether such reasoning is based on imagining things about the past or about future Progress it often has little to do with the empirical evidence here and now.

  6. […] Intelligent Design vs. the Imagination | Intelligent Design and More. […]

  7. Whenever I debate a Darwinist, I ask him or her to tell me one thing we know to be true about Darwinism. Just one little thing. Invariably they huff and bluster and accuse me of doctrinal propaganda or ignorance or right-wingerism, but they never answer the question.

    I’m not talking about finch beaks changing marginally as wet or dry conditions prevail, because they remain finches. They never become eagles or anything but finches.

    What I ask Darwinists to defend is the assertion that interspecies transfer, e.g. apes to man, ever took place. “Why, everyone knows it!” is the usual response.

    I deal with this subject with a fictional but highly educational and entertaining debate between a preacher and a lawyer in my new end-times novel, “Trouble in the House of Jacob.” You can see the web page at http://tinyurl.com/4d79yt if you wish.

    Many thanks,
    Hale Meserow

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: