Guest Blogger: Dr. Matthew Mirabile, PhD

I promised you a few weeks back, that I'd have a friend of mine take over the microphone for a week on the topic of Creation vs. Evolution. Here's his latest work called "They Shot Themselves in the Foot", by Dr. Matthew Mirabile, PhD.

They Shot Themselves in the Foot. An Ongoing Critique of Current Trends in Darwinian Evolution.

Dr.Matthew Mirabile

9/5/09

The Christian Apologist G.K Chesterton once wrote that “falsehood is never so false as when it is very nearly true”. This statement accurately reflects most of the concepts and ideas that flow from the oral and written pronouncements of modern Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary apologists. They continuously edit and reinterpret the latest scientific findings to fit their secular worldview, and expect the public to accept them without question. In fact, those who dare to challenge them, whether utilizing science and/or biblical principles and findings, are deviously labeled as practitioners of “pseudo-science” and outdated religious mythology. Fortunately they continue to “shoot themselves in the foot”, since most of their “science” is based upon selective, misleading, and misinterpreted analysis of the actual data, be it geological, paleontological, genetic, or morphological convergence of similar physical characteristics. Consequently, a large percentage of their evidence presented as “proof” or strongly suggestive of evolution, is in reality, upon closer scientific and logical scrutiny, evidence against their basic hypothesis and is usually more suggestive of Intelligent Design.

Given the above-mentioned deceptive practices, it is imperative that the Intelligent Design/Creation audience be prepared to intelligently debate the accuracy of the interpretation of those major “scientific” findings, which purport to “prove” the veracity of Darwinian evolution as an established fact. In this series of articles, I will attempt to present careful critiques of their analyses, based on ACTUAL Readings and quotations from the original research articles and not upon the “Interpretive Spin” of those with an evolutionary and secular agenda. One word of warning however, I will be playing solely in their sandbox, and will not use biblical arguments for our Christian beliefs, only conclusions based upon their own “scientific” findings and interpretations. My attempt will be to provide evidence suggesting that their own research and arguments for evolution actually are better arguments for Intelligent Design. Since I will be playing by their rules, I will be presenting information in the context of the scientific beliefs in long geological time periods, an old earth ( 4.5 billion years), and a 15 billion year old universe.

Today’s Topic: The Beak of the Finch

Long accepted as a primary icon of Darwinian evolution, the finches of the Galapagos islands were never mentioned in Darwin’s Origin of Species, but have continuously appeared in biology textbooks since the 1950’s due to their canonization by David Lack in the 1947 book:” Darwin’s Finches”. In addition, in a 1994 Pulitzer prize winning book entitled “ The Beak of the Finch”, reporter Jonathon Weiner immortalized the Galapagos finches as the “ best and most detailed example to date of the power of Darwin’s blind process of random mutation and natural selection “. Pontificating on the modern research on finches by Peter and Rosemary Grant, beginning in 1973 and extending into the early 1990’s, Weiner massages their data to fit his natural worldview, concluding that the observed variations in finch beak size were the result of random mutations in beak size genes, acted upon by natural selection survival criteria, interacting with changes in climatic conditions on the island. In fact as the climate changed from a rainy, humid environment, to a drought, it was observed that a larger number of finches would be born with bigger beaks, shaped so as to better enable them to extract the harder and larger seeds buried in firmer and less pliable ground.

In this environment, finches with smaller and less shapely beaks tend to lose the competition for scarce seeds and eventually suffer major decreases in their population. Birds with big, shapely beaks are then classified as a different species, compared to birds with smaller beaks, due to the supposition that females with larger beaks will tend to reject males with small beaks and mate primarily with males with larger beaks, thus satisfying the major biological criteria for species differentiation. Extrapolating from this process, evolutionary biologists then suggest that, over a long period of time, the accumulation of micro-changes, such as beak size differences, will result in large macro-changes, eventually leading to the appearance of a new genus such as a Galapagos Pelican or maybe even a new class such as a Galapagos Dog. As logical as this may sound to evolutionists, the facts, as observed and measured by the Grants, do not support this Darwinian scenario.

What in fact was observed by the Grants was a process lacking any real net change over the 20 years of their investigations. Since the climate on the islands varied periodically between heavy rainy seasons followed by equivalent periods of drought, the Grants observed an oscillatory process, with smaller finch beaks more prevalent during the rainy seasons, becoming gradually dominated by birds with larger beaks during the dry seasons. By itself, oscillating selection cannot produce any net change in Darwin’s finch species, no matter how long it continues. Some sort of long term trend in average beak size would have to be superimposed on the back and forth oscillations, to produce real long term change---and that is NOT what the Grants and their colleagues ever observed. In fact, a closer examination of the Grants actual published papers, reveals the observation of phenomena diametrically opposed to expectations that would derive from the Darwinian paradigm.

According to modern evolutionary biology, one population of Finches should eventually diverge into two species, then to four species, then to six species, in an ever exploding trend of more and more diverse and complex species, eventually resulting in the development of new phyla. Unfortunately for the evolutionists, the opposite has been observed for the Galapagos Finches. At least half of the Finch species were observed to hybridize, a process during which differing morphological or physical characteristics in several finch species tend to collect and merge into a few or even just one species. The Grant’s discovered that several bird species on one island were producing hybrids that thrived and reproduced successfully, gradually forcing the parent finch population into retreat and eventual extinction. Extrapolating from the observed frequency of observation, the Grants estimated that within one to two hundred years, all 14 observed species of Galapagos Finches would merge completely into one species, a result totally contradictory to the results expected if Darwinian evolution were the dominant species change mechanism. The finches’ success at hybridization raises serious doubt that the 14 observed species (1990) were separate species at all, even when applying the strict species classification criteria based upon inability to interbreed.

In articles published in 1996 and 1998, the Grants unbelievably declared that the Darwinian theory of species origin “fits the facts of Darwin finch evolution on the Galapagos islands,” and that the “driving force” is natural selection. This, in spite of the contradictory results reported by them in THEIR OWN previously published RESEARCH ARTICLES. This claim was echoed by Mark Ridley in his 1996 College Textbook, “Evolution”. In this text, Ridley extrapolated the increase in beak size, after the 1977 drought, into the future, to estimate the time it would take to produce a NEW SPECIES, completely ignoring the trendless, oscillatory pattern actually observed.

Ridley’s attempts to explain these apparent contradictions were classical Darwinist double talk. More time was needed to view trends that must occur, or the data contains sources of error that biased the conclusions away from the expected trends in average beak size, and the amazing revelation that “arguments of this kind are common in the theory of evolution.” May we infer that Ridley and the Grants are now appealing to the “ evolutionary chance god of the gaps? ”

Enter the National Academy of Sciences endorsement in a 1999 booklet that stated that Darwin’s Finches are a “particularly compelling example of the origin of species”. The booklet goes on to discuss how the Grants and their colleagues showed “that a single year of drought on the islands can drive evolutionary changes in the finches,” and that “if droughts occur once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch may arise every 200 years.”

Thus rather than CONFUSE the reader by mentioning that selection was reversed after the drought, producing NO LONG TERM evolutionary changes, the booklet simply omits this rather AWKWARD FACT. This is not TRUTH SEEKING in any definition of the term. It is also NOT REAL SCIENCE, but represents the type of reasoning expected from methodological naturalists, masquerading as true scientists. Thus, according to the Darwinists, evolution can be proven to be true, based on observations on increases in average finch beak size, and on the other hand, finch beaks must eventually show an average size increase since evolution must indeed be true. Convoluted, circular reasoning like this must be exposed for what it truly is, government supported MENDACITY.

Consequently, when Darwinists obtain data contrary to their pet theories, they simply ignore these facts, and report falsehoods, confidant that a gullible, news snippet educated public, will bow before their scientific masters and accept their pronouncements, without any further investigation of their claims. As we discussed, however, careful scientific scrutiny of their claims usually reveals the existence of an alternative set of conclusions in direct opposition to the evolutionary paradigms. The fact that the Grant’s careful research did not demonstrate any net change in average beak size or any other significant finch characteristics, under diverse environmental conditions, argues more for stasis of species rather than for evolutionary advancement. The temporary changes observed for beak size appear more the result of environmental selection operating on characteristics already existing in the finch population (both small and large beaked animals coexisted during various environmentally diverse periods, albeit in different proportions), rather than due to random, purposeless mutations in beak size, carefully pruned by natural selection. In actuality, the Grant’s research does not suggest the validity of randomly generated long term change, but the observance of natural variations inherent in any species due to genetic diversity already, purposely programmed into that particular species. Thus the failure to demonstrate any significant long term, irreversible changes, coupled with the overall observations of finch population stasis and tendency to pre-planned hybridization to one isolated non-interactive species, suggests the existence of PURPOSE. Purpose then suggests the interference of intelligence behind the purpose, i.e., an Intelligent Designer. Consequently arguments based on research supposedly demonstrating the validity of random, purposeless evolution, actually suggests the existence of a supervising Intelligence, a Transcendent Creator.

Once more, after careful analysis of specific claims by evolutionary scientists, we have shown that “THEY HAVE SHOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT…AGAIN.

Thanks Doc!

Well, I start school tomorrow, so I wont be posting each week, but I am very excited about my next topic - "The Design of the Cosmos". I'm especially thrilled to be showing you my subtopics on the Anthropic Principle, the Fine Tuning of the Universe, Our Rare Sun, the Big Bang Theory, Are We Really Alone (was Carl Sagan wrong), and others.

Tune in next time.

Cheers

Tom