Günter Bechly: Evolution Has Collapsed!

You remember Günter Bechly. He’s the Discovery Institute “senior fellow” whose website used to say:

I despise the dogmatic and sometimes even fanatical stance of some evolutionists like P.Z. Myers (Pharyngula blog), Laurence Moran (Sandwalk blog), Jeffrey Shallit (Recursivity blog), Jerry Coyne (Why Evolution is True blog), freelance writer John Farrell, the anonymous coward behind The Sensuous Curmudgeon blog, and other infamous web activists against Intelligent Design and religion. [Emphasis supplied.]

We wrote about his biggest claim to fame in Discoveroid Günter Bechly Has Been ‘Erased’. The last time we wrote about him was Günter Bechly: Evolution Is Collapsing. He was ecstatic about some new discovery that could require some revision of the human evolutionary time-line.

Today his joy is boundless. This just appeared at the Discoveroids’ creationist blog: “It’s Official”: Textbook Wisdom on Human Origins Is Wrong! [*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

In three earlier articles at Evolution News [the Discoveroids’ blog], I’ve written about the numerous paleoanthropological discoveries this year that generated media headlines announcing one “rewrite” of human evolution after another. I hardly dared to dream that, as an early Christmas present, 2017 would close with a final blow to the Out of Africa story. Yet guess how Discover Magazine announced this latest development? That’s right: “It’s Official: Timeline for Human Migration Gets a Rewrite” (Tarlach 2017).

Günter’s wildest dream has come true! This is the article he’s talking about: It’s Official: Timeline For Human Migration Gets A Rewrite. They say that new research suggests:

… multiple migrations out of Africa beginning perhaps 120,000 years ago. While some of these early explorations certainly failed and became evolutionary dead ends, others, say the authors, survived, not only spreading across Asia but interbreeding with Denisovans and Neanderthals. Both the archaeological and genetic evidence support a large dispersal from Africa around 60,000 years ago, but it was by no means the first — or the last — to occur.

Günter’s joy is unbounded. He says:

As the article demonstrates, even mainstream paleoanthropologists now acknowledge that there is a problem with the ruling paradigm on human origins and with the way scientists have handled the accumulating evidence against it.

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] New data points need to be considered. This is a scientific catastrophe! He continues:

The rewrite [of the human evolution timeline], though, is not the necessary rethink we may have hoped for.

Günter links to an earlier Discoveroid post in which he said:

The current consensus is refuted by more and more evidence. But in spite of all this conflicting evidence, the holy cow of Darwinian evolution of humans from ape-like ancestors may not be questioned. Why? Because that would challenge the ruling scientific paradigm of naturalism. God forbid!

Back to his latest post:

Instead [of that anti-evolution rethink] we find the usual fudging on the conventional story, with the minimal changes required to accommodate the conflicting evidence. Darwinian just-so stories are reconsidered, but Darwinism itself may not be questioned.

Aha! — the Darwinists are engaged in the “usual fudging” to preserve the paradigm of naturalism. Günter quotes again from the Discover article:

Acknowledging that our Out of Africa saga has many chapters stretching farther back in time is an important advance for the field. But some paleoanthropologists are unlikely to sign on: that small but vocal group of researchers who advocate a regional model for our species’ evolution….

So, while the conventional timeline that has dominated for half a century finally takes a tumble, don’t think that this is the end of the great debate regarding the early days of our species.

Wowie — it’s all falling apart! Günter gloats in triumph at the end of his post:

Who said it all along, yet was ridiculed [link to a blog article that ridicules him] by incompetent Darwinist bulldogs on the Web? Yes, indeed, you read it here first.

Yes, dear reader. You read it here first. Günter was right all along! Soon, the whole world will recognize his genius and abandon Darwinism.

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

18 responses to “Günter Bechly: Evolution Has Collapsed!

  1. The current consensus is refuted by more and more evidence. But in spite of all this conflicting evidence, the holy cow of Darwinian evolution of humans from ape-like ancestors may not be questioned. Why? Because that would challenge the ruling scientific paradigm of naturalism. God forbid!

    Everything depends on what “current consensus” Gunter is talking about. If he means the single-migration out-of-Africa idea, so what? If, on the other hand, he means the “ruling scientific paradigm of naturalism,” what does he have in mind to replace it?

    As if we here didn’t know. He wants a new paradigm of supernaturalism which will allow for Adam and Eve, the Garden and, of course, a 6,000-year-old universe by accepting miracles as legitimate explanations for natural phenomena. This would, of course, reduce science to a branch of Bible studies—which is the whole idea.

  2. Michael Fugate

    Why does this overthrow evolution?

  3. Just as when it was discovered that the Earth is not a sphere, but a spheroid.
    But the atheists refused to consider that it might be flat.
    Or when the atheists had to admit that the atoms could be divided – despite the fact that “atom” means “not-divide”.

  4. Michael Fugate

    Is Günter implying that each and every change scientists make in our understanding discredits science? Wouldn’t it discredit science if it didn’t change in the light of new data?

  5. Setting aside the obsession with humans: sometimes a small population of animals will leave its species’ core area. It may find a congenial environment and thrive, or find a tolerable environment and survive, possibly being lucky enough to experience mutations making it highly successful in the new habitat, or it may simply die out. Obviously such migration can happen over and over, more or less often depending on the geographical boundaries involved. Exactly which migrations occurred when, and how successfully, are historical questions: very interesting to us, perhaps, if our own species is involved, but with little impact on the general theory.

  6. Ah, Guneter (mit ein umlaut). When new data becomes available as a result of research, results of scientific analyses can change in order to integrate the new information. As opposed to your never changing, endlessly repeated, data immune “god did it” mantra. are you stupid or just mentally ill?

  7. Let’s see a small correction to the collective data on human migration was found by science and updated to science. Creationists are still mired in deep BS and have rewritten their books o’BS to correct their errors …. how many times? Oh Right! Still full of the same old BS! That gets us no where!

  8. @och will: (mit ein umlaut) -> (mit einem Umlaut)

  9. Michael Fugate

    alt-u u = ü

  10. Sometimes I try to make serious posts. Sometimes I indulge in pointless nitpickery.

  11. I think Gunter would prefer to cauterise a surface wound with a red-hot poker. Who needs stitches, antibiotics or any of those new-fangled ideas they keep developing?

  12. Michael Fugate

    Is Günter looking to replace “out of Africa” with “out of Ararat”?

  13. Is Gunter a happy person who can get great pleasure from so little, or is he a desperately unhappy man clutching at straws?

  14. Ted Lawry, Gunter is probably neither. He is wretchedly, miserably, jaw-dropping stupidly, incompetently, ridiculously, mindlessly, determinedly, damn-fool wrong. That, as the poet said, is all we know and all we need to know.

    There is now evidence for several or many waves of migration from Africa.
    Gunter thinks this disturbs the evident fact that humans are descended from earlier bipedal apes in Africa. It defies all reason why anyone in possession of a functioning brain would think that. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that on this subject, Gunter does not have functioning brain.

    So he’s probably happy as a clam, for the same reason a clam is.

  15. EricL asks: “what does he have in mind to replace it?”
    Der Günter (alt 129 suffices) gave the answer himself:

    “the holy cow ….. may not be questioned. Why? Because that would challenge the ruling scientific paradigm of naturalism. God forbid!”
    Ie the classic god of the gaps.

  16. Charles Deetz ;)

    So, lets try out Gunter’s paradigm change. Humans are the result of ID. Starting with the earliest human, which is … ? And when that is decided, what if new evidence of a slightly older/primitive hominid is discovered, will that be the new/revised ID-created human?

    In other words, the ID would have to choose some bright line in the lineage that shows enough unique design to fulfill their theory … but would some how have to avoid the risk of having to revise that choice given new information.

  17. Hmmm, lets see. Review the evidence. Read over some biology textbooks. Read over some popular books on evolution. Yep, Gunter, you are still wrong. Next?

  18. And let’s say that one believes that the final, definitive word on the matter is what the Bible has to say.
    The Bible has nothing to say about the relationship among the different animals.