Imagining Transitional Forms

Why do evolutionists see things that are not there? Like a social media relationship status, "It's complicated". Scientists are not driven by facts alone, but by their presuppositions and other things. Since they assume that particles-to-paleoanthropologist evolution is "settled science", they frequently get a hankering to present evidence for evolution when none exists. If they were being scientific about science, these mistakes should be few and far between.

Dreadful evidence for evolution is exhibited like a prize pig at the county fair, but there's really nothing to show to the judges. There are many articles about alleged transitional forms, but it seems to take someone who can take a step back and seriously examine what is trotted out, and then see that there's nothing to pay any mind to after all.

Why did Piltdown Man fool the evolutionary community for over 40 years, and why are Darwinistas still chasing down bad leads? A bit of psychology, plus the desire to deny evidence that shows the Creator, are some of the reasons. There's more. Like I said, it's complicated.

The role imagination can play in the mental processing of data helps explain how someone who believes the naturalistic evolutionary worldview can look at fossil bones and “see” transitional features or look at an odd fish from the ocean depths and “see” primitive features that others don’t.

Eminent evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould details why inherent elements of evolutionary theory must appeal to our imaginative ability to “see” the unseen things from the past. He describes one such element as extrapolationism or scope, in which researchers use “history from data of an imperfect record that cannot, in any case, ‘see’ past causes directly, but can only draw conclusions from preserved results of these causes.” This is accomplished, he says, by explaining “large-scale results by extrapolation from short-term processes…[and] extrapolation to longer times and effects of evolutionary changes actually observed in historic times (usually by analogy to domestication and horticulture).”

Extrapolation in the sense Gould identifies isn’t the same as an inferential conclusion but always invokes some imagination to project from the known to the unknown—it fills in the gaps. Intervening time or distance is usually proportional to how much conjecture is summoned; the larger the gap, the more imagination is needed. For instance, what explains the apparent design of interrelated parts in living things? Since people know that design is the cause of multiple parts purposely working together in man-made things, many people infer that intelligent design is also the cause of such parts in living creatures. Darwinists, however, see how organisms can change somewhat in observable time, extrapolate this observation to immense time periods, and imagine radical changes in organisms.

To read the whole article, click on "The Imaginary Piltdown Man".