Revising History?

An interesting post over on Evolution Exposé1, asserts that evolutionists have a pattern of retroactively admitting that their previously-claimed, and much touted, transitional fossils, were not all that they claimed before (only after something that they think is better is found). The author uses the recent example of the Tiktaalik and Panderichthys. Evolutionists had claimed Tiktaalik as “proof” of how we evolved digits, only later to admit that the Tiktaalik was a poor example (after finding Panderichthys). This despite the fact that the “evidence” shown for Panderichthys is questionable at best. The author calls this “retroactive confessions of ignorance.” I’m somewhat inclined to call it revising history.

What I think is somewhat interesting, is that the study of homology2 has a great deal in common with Intelligent Design. In other words, it relies on human observational powers and inference to arrive at a conclusion. With homology, the Darwinist looks at a feature and says, “Hey this looks like that, but doesn’t look like that (or functions like this but not like that). Therefore, this evolved from that, but not from that.” Whereas, the IDist looks at features and says, “Hey, this bears the hallmarks of design. It has complex, specified, and functional information. Or, it’s irreducibly complex; therefore, it is designed. Or, that clearly appears to be designed.”

The Young Earth Creationists also weighed in on the subject last year, and I think history has shown them to be correct.3 They somewhat humorously reference the Darwin fish, as I have done in the past.4 AiG of course gives the topic an extensive examination.

This quote seems prescient to me:

However, few reporters, teachers, or laymen have ever read the original scientific reports upon which grandiose evolutionary claims are based. Moreover, these reports are often convoluted, conflicting, and couched in unprovable assumptions that make evolutionary claims difficult to evaluate even for those who do examine the original scientific papers.

I’ve quoted one of their less technical and more philosophical arguments from the article, because I think this goes more to the heart of the matter. And to me, it comes down to matters of faith. Do you put faith in the ideas of man, or in God?

1 Evolution Exposé-The Rise and Fall of Tiktaalik? Darwinists Admit “Quality” of Evolutionary Icon is “Poor” in Retroactive Confession of Ignorance
2 Homology on Wikipedia
3 Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish, Part 2; Answers in Genesis. (May 23, 2007)
4 A Naturalistic Fairy Tale-Part XI (September 18, 2008)

Fascinating Life

It makes you wonder if a unicorn (1) didn’t fall into the water and evolve into a whale.


Narwhal 2

Every once in awhile, they have 2 tusks (so maybe a goat fell into the water and later lost a horn?). Scientists don’t really know what they use the tusks for. (2) I don’t know about anyone else, but the thought of one of those swimming around would be a bit scarier than a shark!

It actually seems to be an upper tooth instead of a horn. (3) So, perhaps it could still be a bear that fell into the water and evolved a 10 ft tooth. Wait a second here. Let me consult homology. (4)


So perhaps an elephant fell into the water and became a whale.

Or, one of these?

No, we don’t know because there is no fossil evidence, but it seems like it might have been one of these. (5)

Cow Pic


Hippo Pic

As an aside, my wife is fascinated by water. I roll my eyes when she holds up a glass of water and stares at it in awe. Guess what? She rolls her eyes when I tell her about my respect for cows. Where would we be were it not for cows?


Seriously! I feel bad for cows. All they want to do is eat grass, and all we want to do is eat them! I am very much against cow tipping, although a number of my classmates out in the sticks thought it was fun. (6) Although in reality, this seems somewhat mythical.