“Darwinist fundamentalists this week produced a fishy fossil which, they claimed, was evidence of their weird and increasingly shaky theory.”

“From these bones, they claimed to have deduced that large fish spent hundreds of thousands of years developing shoulders (why would a fish want shoulders? To do press-ups on the beach? How would I develop fins if I wished to reverse the process?) plus a lot of other contentious, vague, circular waffle.”

“Should these people be allowed to propagate their bizarre creed in schools? Should children be exposed to fanatical atheism and unprovable claims dressed up as if they were proper science?”

“I respect the sincerity of their faith in the idea that nature happened by accident, but surely it is better suited for discussion in religious education classes?”

Peter Hitchens also some months back wrote a 2-page article in the same paper promoting ID. He is my favourite columnist and we should be thankful that there are still journalists like him around to air such views (and be allowed to of course).

The Guardian article is humorous re: ID. A new target acknowledged, struck at by blunt arrows. I hope DI responds re: ID. Guardian’s past foozling of ID causes skepticism on my part. They are more gatekeepers with an agenda than guardians of open information. Much like Science and Nature, they do not allow opposing opinions or findings to be reviewed prior to their announcements or if they do, it is inaccurate or misplaced. No opposing viewpoints, just lavish praise from the disciples of neo-Darwinian Church.

Scott’s #7 post “like Archaeopteryx, the famous fossil that bridged the gap between reptiles and birds”. shed’s light on McEvo’s wishful thinking. Dr. Feduccia(an ornithologist, evolutionist and honest skeptic) soundly refutes false claims even recently by McEvo’s. It exposes how science with fawning media can mislead the public.

An apt quote from the Dr’s UNC website, “Feduccia said the publication and promotion of feathered dinosaurs by the popular press and by prestigious journals and magazines, including National Geographic, Nature and Science, have made it difficult for opposing views to get a proper hearing.”

Quoted from NG’s daily news:
“The National Geographic Society partially funded the project, which is to be detailed tomorrow in the journal Nature.”

So, we have a known promoter of evolution funding a ‘study’ for McEvo scientist. I realize this is routinely done. But, its like allowing Merck to both fund and report new drug findings without oversight by the FDA. Paying millions, of course its Macro-Evolution! And opposition may not examine closely the evidence.

Is there any other scientific field that works the way paleontology does today? Magazines with biased views fund pre-ordained scientist to support their findings?

Re: ID, the Guardian is biased(certainly on ID), or uninformed, and does not check facts. The Popular Press(National Geographic) – Sponsors themselves cannot act as Independent Media, nor can Nature their buddies suffice. The Guardian without critical skeptics cannot furnish any real rebuttals.

With a priori positions and without question, Media colludes(knowingly or ignorantly) with scientist that promote rhythmic drum beats to the sheep, giving credance to, “Any thought that is passed on to the subconscious often enough and convincingly enough is finally accepted.” A sales trick.

Sales and marketing leaders know intimately how repitition thru media influences our lives works. Those who skeptically take a considered and thoughtful long look, see the biased, unchecked promotion for what it is. Those who do not look closely become like sheep before a mechanized shepherd – ‘scientist said it, so it must be true’. Yet again, another fallacy repeated by secular press that distribute by rapid fire, their brummagem messages to an unsuspecting public at large.

Dr. Feduccia goes on to say, “With the advent of ‘feathered dinosaurs,’ we are truly witnessing the beginnings of the meltdown of the field of paleontology,” he said. “Just as the discovery a four-chambered heart in a dinosaur described in 2000 in an article in Science turned out to be an artifact, feathered dinosaurs too have become part of the fantasia of this field. Much of this is part of the delusional fantasy of the world of dinosaurs, the wishful hope that one can finally study dinosaurs at the backyard bird feeder.”

After much individual research on multiple articles, reviewing pro-evo sites I can only agree with Dr. Feduccia. There is a Disney element of fantasia to all story tellers in the McEvo business.

In an article on the fallacy of links between dinosaurs and birds out of China: http://www.exn.ca/dinosaurs/st.....es(another excellent point of evidence against McEvo), Dr Feduccia rightly points out time lines – bird/dinosaur evidence to the contrary. Most of what is said in popular science magazines are more about bravado than science.

Another article from NYT, posted here: http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu.....(excellent research), whereby Dr. Feduccia again agrees with the researchers on solid evidence against McEvo’s fallacy. Paleontology’s fundamentalist zeal for all things McEvo without factual evidence is appallingly exposed for what it is – wishful thinking.

Another apropo comment from Dr. Feduccia,
“Because the bird-dinosaur connection is so sexy, Feduccia says, “I feel like I’m taking candy away from some kid, but I’m confident that it’s not correct so I have to keep fighting the battle.”

That is an evolutionist’s honest view of just one segment of the current state of affairs in McEvo’s distorted worldview, which left unchecked, morph into their own self-glorification and fantasy. A battle indeed, among top scientist not associated with ID is ongoing under the cover. And while Feduccia still believes in McEvo, he is honest about current state of affairs in Popular Press and Scientific study in his field of study.

Joseph, I liked your point about small fish waddling on land first. That is exactly how it was related in my Biology book years ago. Small. Today, 9ft alligator/fish waddle out. And like you and others notice. What is the mechanism that forced such a beast out of water for survival? Why? There is no conceivable scientific reason, only ‘Fantasy’. We know that fish, whales, turtles all migrate in the sea between warm and cold climates. Yet they want us to believe this one decided to come on land. It is absurd the false logic being put forth here in my opinion by sponsors with nefarious reasons.

I have a question for McEevo’s, National Geographic sponsors, Nature, Science. Will they allow top scientist who are skeptics to review all the data, up close? Perform their own test and then report to the public their findings? This is what happens in all other areas of science. Why not Paleontology?

But wait, maybe not all areas of science. Dr. Behe is treated with scorn by neo-Darwinians. Without an opportunity of original work on IC by Dr. Behe in Science, now a paper appears in Science attempting to refute IC and thus ID. Yet they never allowed Dr. Behe the equivalent academic peer-reviewd treatment.

So, they put forth questionable evidence against ID while not allowing the original proponents same access? How cowardly is that? Honestly, is that not what cowards do? They denounce their opponents sharply without allowing them rebuttals? Thus running from confrontation of the evidence before them?

I am seriously doubting the objectivity of Popular Science magazines today, and even the peer-reviewed papers, their editors and scientist in this area of paleontology and the extended ongoing controversy of ID.

I can’t wait for the “just-so” story of the selection pressure that had this puppy leave the water for land. It used to be that smaller fish left the water to escape being eaten and to find other food sources- which meant other organisms had to “evolve” out of the water and onto land before them.

Mentok said:
They have discovered a new species and are calling it proof of evolution even though it proves exactly nothing other then that species existed.

Mentok, I luv u man

You are forgiven. We are all tempted to stray. I, myself, have felt the lure of the “IDemons,” forever tempting me with their sirens’ song of logic and evidence.

Aren’t we talking about several thousand (at least) ‘lines’ of genetic code regarding the neural activity which controls the instinctive behaviors as well as the reflexes for the newbie organ? These must be in place BEFORE the novel structure can be used for anything but fishbait. I have not seen this issue of NS’ ability to teach (imprint extremely specified information in such a way that it can be recalled or used when needed) what it is about to evolve.

Not to belabor this, but a ‘small’ organ or systematic difference in a higher organism can require a completely novel set of behaviors that cannot be learned by the organism. If DM through NS happens it must happen (and we must account for it) in the brain first.

“Don’t forget though, Dave… they all (conveniently) avoided dying in the right strata for fossilization to occur.”

I am so disappointed in you Scott. Have you forgotten the tremendous debt we owe to the mystic philosopher/paleontologist Saint Stephen of Gould? Saint Stephen’s ground breaking, nay epoch shattering, insights gave us the dogma of punctuated equilibrium. We now know beyond the slightest doubt whatsoever that all of the transitional species crawled off and died in a place where their remains will never be found – probably because they all had a contrary nature. And it is in these holes in the fossil record that all of the evidence for Darwinist gradualism resides. You gotta have faith my friend, and for your transgressions against the one true faith I demand that you do ten “Hail Stephens” as penance.

“Finding rocks with imprints of heretofore unidentified ostensible transition species should be happening on a daily basis. The fact that it happens rarely and is huge news when it does happen doesn’t tend to support the generally accepted theory of evolution.”

This really is the bottom line isn’t it. Thank you for your clarity!