"It's More Surprising That Anything is Right At All"

A recent paper from a classmate of mine quoted Mark Martindale, a developmental biologist at the University of Hawaii in Honolulu. “At the turn of the twentieth century, embryologists drew what they saw. But their microscopes stunk and they didn’t know about genes. Now we’re finally able to look closer, and we’re finding that they’re often wrong. But if you think about the tools they had, maybe it’s more surprising that anything is right at all.” (emphasis added)

The quote was from an article at Nature.com (http://www.nature.com/news/penis-worm-pokes-holes-in-evolutionary-dogma-1.11667.

The more I learn, the more this seems to be the case with all evolutionary assertions. Ideas and theories from 100+ years ago are clung to with a veracity that rivals the most sold out religious zealot, all the while more and more evidence is being discovered to undermine those ideas. Instead of re-examining the overall model, scientists just redraw the model, completely ignoring (or oblivious to) the possibility that the foundational idea was flawed to begin with. All the while they beat the drum of "science is an examination of the data wherever it leads." As long as it doesn't lead to somewhere we don't want to go.

When creationists say something does not fit with our model, we can rework the model because we have outside information which to compare and help inform of interpretations of the evidence: The Bible. Naturalistic science (claims) has no such external influence inherent to it and is supposed to be based entirely on the physical evidence at hand, though even a general look at science shows that the philosophies of the scientist necessarily play a large role in the process.

Occassionally it seems you get an honest one who will say, "I want to believe it, but the evidence just doesn't go there." Stephen J Gould admitted gradualism can't be shown from the evidence, so he scrapped that and pursued another theory, Punctuated Equilibrium. I would say that he did not go far enough and needed to scrap molecules-to-man evolution all together.

The fact is that no matter what new evidence is found or re-interpreted they continue to try and cram it into a model based on theories from others long ago who did not have the tools, techniques, and access to information that we do today. For some reason, the details gained since Darwin can be adjusted in reference to HOW evolution happened, but don't you dare try to say Darwin or his theory was wrong. It's almost like it would be "blasphemy". For them it is akin to a religion. The evolutuionary fundamentalist will no more consider the theory to be wrong than a religious fundamentalist would deny God. The difference is (aside from the fact God exists) is that we will admit it. They still claim to be "doing science". With most scientists seeming to cling to naturalism and materialism yet denying that a philosophical slant exists, I  can't help but want to repeat the words of Martindale, "Maybe it’s more surprising that anything is right at all."

“At the turn of the twentieth century, embryologists drew what they saw. But their microscopes stunk and they didn’t know about genes,” Martindale says. “Now we’re finally able to look closer, and we’re finding that they’re often wrong. But if you think about the tools they had, maybe it’s more surprising that anything is right at all.” - See more at: http://crev.info/2012/11/three-new-fossil-finds-challenge-evolution/#sthash.68rg6BGu.tRwWmgB8.dpuf

“At the turn of the twentieth century, embryologists drew what they saw. But their microscopes stunk and they didn’t know about genes,” Martindale says. “Now we’re finally able to look closer, and we’re finding that they’re often wrong. But if you think about the tools they had, maybe it’s more surprising that anything is right at all.” - See more at: http://crev.info/2012/11/three-new-fossil-finds-challenge-evolution/#sthash.68rg6BGu.tRwWmgB8.dpuf

“At the turn of the twentieth century, embryologists drew what they saw. But their microscopes stunk and they didn’t know about genes,” Martindale says. “Now we’re finally able to look closer, and we’re finding that they’re often wrong. But if you think about the tools they had, maybe it’s more surprising that anything is right at all.” - See more at: http://crev.info/2012/11/three-new-fossil-finds-challenge-evolution/#sthash.68rg6BGu.tRwWmgB8.dpuf

“At the turn of the twentieth century, embryologists drew what they saw. But their microscopes stunk and they didn’t know about genes,” Martindale says. “Now we’re finally able to look closer, and we’re finding that they’re often wrong. But if you think about the tools they had, maybe it’s more surprising that anything is right at all.” - See more at: http://crev.info/2012/11/three-new-fossil-finds-challenge-evolution/#sthash.68rg6BGu.tRwWmgB8.dpuf

“At the turn of the twentieth century, embryologists drew what they saw. But their microscopes stunk and they didn’t know about genes,” Martindale says. “Now we’re finally able to look closer, and we’re finding that they’re often wrong. But if you think about the tools they had, maybe it’s more surprising that anything is right at all.” - See more at: http://crev.info/2012/11/three-new-fossil-finds-challenge-evolution/#sthash.68rg6BGu.tRwWmgB8.dpuf

Mark Martindale, a developmental biologist at the University of Hawaii in Honolulu. - See more at: http://crev.info/2012/11/three-new-fossil-finds-challenge-evolution/#sthash.68rg6BGu.tRwWmgB8.dpuf

Mark Martindale, a developmental biologist at the University of Hawaii in Honolulu. - See more at: http://crev.info/2012/11/three-new-fossil-finds-challenge-evolution/#sthash.68rg6BGu.tRwWmgB8.dpuf