A couple of weeks ago we wrote Günter Bechly Says Darwinism Fails Again. Günter was claiming that a new humanoid species found in the Philippines somehow disproves the idea that we evolved from an ape-like ancestor. He wrote:
The neo-Darwinian theory of macroevolution has failed on all fronts, from mathematical feasibility, to theoretical plausibility and explanatory power, to empirical support.
Nothing new has happened since then, but Klinghoffer just posted this at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog: Paleontologist Günter Bechly: “No Well-Established Tree of Fossil Humans”. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
On a new ID the Future episode [Wowie, another Discoveroid podcast!], Discovery Institute paleontologist Günter Bechly talked with host Andrew McDiarmid about recent fossil finds that scramble yet again what scientists thought they knew about human origins.
Everything we thought we knew is scrambled! Klinghoffer says:
They discuss the discovery of remains of Homo luzonensis on Luzon Island in the Philippines, hailed as a new human species and dated to between 50,000 and 67,000 years old.
This is the same stuff Günter wrote about before — except that now they’ve made a podcast about it. That’s all the excuse Klinghoffer needed to post something at their creationist blog. He tells us:
A fascinating question is how the creatures got there, considering that Luzon is not now and was not then connected to the mainland. A hypothesis that they had the skill and intelligence to sail runs up against, among other problems, the fact that the oldest preserved boat, a canoe, is just 8,000 years old. It’s another reminder of what a “mess” (Dr. Bechly’s characterization) the fossil record is.
What’s Günter claiming here? If we’re not yet certain about how Homo luzonensis got to the Philippines, then what? The intelligent designer — blessed be he! — created them there, with no ancestors? Klinghoffer quotes Günter:
There is no well-established tree of fossil humans, contrary to the impression you might get if you look at many textbooks. [Gasp!] And that’s mostly because there is a very chaotic rather than an orderly distribution of these primitive and modern characters in various fossil humans. So the character pattern does not align well with a nested hierarchy.
It’s “chaotic!” Günter seems to be one of those creationists who insists that examples of every generation of every species on Earth should be well-preserved in the fossil record — and already found — so we can easily see how, over millions of generations, one species gradually becomes another. Lacking that kind of impossible detail, he is eager to reject evolution and embrace the “theory” of intelligent design.
Klinghoffer helps us to understand what Günter has just said:
Meaning that it does not fit, either, with Darwinian expectations, though evolutionists seek to keep that fact decorously veiled from the public.
Yes, we’re desperate to keep it a secret. He continues:
Download the podcast or listen to here. [Link omitted.] See also [Günter’s earlier post that we mentioned in our first paragraph].
So there you are, dear reader. Nothing new here, except a thrilling Discoveroid podcast you can add to your collection.
Copyright © 2019. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
But does it fit with intelligent design expectations? No, because we have no idea what those would be.
What’s Bechly’s problem? Why does he have trouble getting this? I’ve talked to secondary students at Melbourne Museum — sixteen, seventeen year olds — who can see the basic line of hominin evolution, and that different fossil skulls exhibit a range of basal and more “evolved” features. Those kids might laugh when Miss makes Bechly stand at the back of the class, wearing a strange, peaked cap.
“…decorously veiled from the public.”
Yeah, there might be riots if the public were made aware of the deception being perpetrated in the name of science.
“Günter seems to be one of those creationists who insists that examples of every generation of every species on Earth should be well-preserved in the fossil record.”
I’ve a little question to our dear SC (of course others can answer it too).
Are there creationists who don’t insist on this point, ie think the “missing link” argument is invalid? If yes, how many (relatively speaking)?
@MichaelF needs to be corrected:
“But does it fit with intelligent design expectations?”
Yes,
“because we have no idea what those would be”
– they can be everything and anything. Mark my words, IDiots will bring up an orderly fossil tree as evidence for their beloved Grand Old Designer (blessed be MOFO!) as well, if they see fit.
ChrisS is worried about Blehchly’s mind: ” Why does he have trouble getting this?”
Because he doesn’t want to be no kin of no monkey, but instead feel special of course.
A young, skinny, wild-haired evolution — black shades; jaded; world-weary — sits down at a press conference, lights up a cigarette, and stares blankly at the surrounding creationist media:
1st reporter: So, tell us: why don’t you move more in a straight line? Shouldn’t you show some orderly distribution when it comes to the fossil record?
Evolution (blowing smoke towards reporter): Why? You always move in a straight line, every step you take?
2nd reporter: How can you achieve anything spontaneously, out of nothing?
Evolution: Who says I do anything spontaneously, man?
Lady journalist: How many mutations are needed to get from a dog-like creature to a whale?
Evolution: How many…?
Lady journalist: Mutations. How many?
Evolution: Thirty-three thousand, six hundred and twenty-eight (sly smile)
1st reporter: How do you respond to those articles in Creation journals, saying you’re not possible?
Evolution: Who reads those articles, man? I mean, I read them on the plane, ya’ know, but I don’t take them seriously, ya’ know. ‘Cos I know you guys aren’t gonna’ print the truth.
Lady journalist: You mean, what’s in the Bible?
Evolution: I mean the truth, man! A human descended from an ape, vomiting into the gutter when he listens to Ray Comfort! You guys aren’t gonna’ print that.
2nd reporter: What’s your message? What are you saying to people?
Evolution: There’s no message! It’s just life, man.
Lady journalist: So the message is one of nihilism? There’s no hope for any of us? That’s a bleak message, Mr. Evolution.
Voice from the back of the room: Judas!
Evolution: I don’t believe youuuu! You’re a liar! (turns to his entourage: Richard Dawkins; Jerry Coyne; Sensuous Curmudgeon): SAY IT F****N’ LOUD, OKAY!!!
So Homo luzonensis is a special creation, they can add that to all the others.
As I understand it, standard monotheist belief in creation says that I, you, each one of us, is a special creation of God. We are individuals standing in our own relationship with our Creator and Redeemer.
What has this to do with evolution?
In so far that YECers accept hyperaccelerated evolution, IDiots at the other hand maintain that special creation is the alternative to evolution (though they never specify how – they stop at “the Grand Old Designer diddid”) while mentally healthy believers (the majority) see no problem.
@FrankB
Hw long can the advocates of ID get away with pretending that they are saying something?
It is a tale \
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Ah, yes. The oldest preserved boat.
It couldn’t be, of course, that earlier boats simply weren’t preserved. Just because they were made of wood, you know, and weren’t likely to remain intact under the influence of damp conditions (to which, of course, boats are rarely exposed).
As for skill and intelligence, while I can’t answer for the former (and neither can creationists), modern Homo sapiens remains at least 100,000 years old have been found. Presumably those people had the same basic intelligence as their modern descendants. And the same may hold for <Homo luzonensis (assuming tthe remains’ designation as a distinct species holds up) .