moonbattery logo

Oct 13 2017

Wikipedia Erases Paleontologist Günter Bechly for Acknowledging Intelligent Design

It is intuitively obvious that the universe around us is the product of intelligent design, even if the intelligence is one we cannot comprehend. Why don’t more scientists acknowledge this? Because it conflicts with the vacuous nihilism at the core of progressive ideology, and people don’t want to get erased, like Wikipedia has done to Günter Bechly:

Günter Bechly is a distinguished paleontologist, specializing in fossil dragonflies, exquisitely preserved in amber for tens of millions of years. After revealing his support for the theory of intelligent design, he was pushed out as a curator at the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany. … Now we learn that our colleague has suffered another act of censorship: he has been erased from Wikipedia, ostensibly for not being “notable” enough.

On the contrary, Bechly is highly notable in his field, if not scrupulously P.C. when it comes to intelligent design. If you are ever tempted to take Wikipedia seriously as an unbiased source of information, click through to read the bizarre details on those who declared Bechly an unperson.

Unpersons will find it hard to obtain grants from Big Government. That is what props up the global warming hoax.

On a tip from Lyle.

29 Responses to “Wikipedia Erases Paleontologist Günter Bechly for Acknowledging Intelligent Design”

  1. Scattergood Baines says:

    “To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.” (Ibid., p. 350),

    “The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” (Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 351),

  2. Trebuchet says:

    Are you actually pretending we’ve learned nothing in the 158 years since Darwin wrote those words? Paleontology was in its infancy then. Of course Darwin didn’t have all the answers. We never will know everything about anything.

  3. Artfuldgr says:

    Stalin erased people from history

  4. Mr. Freemarket says:

    Leftists hate the thought of intelligent design. “Intelligent design” implies that there is a designer. That designer clearly would know a great deal more than the brightest leftist. It also implies that one might have both a relationship with the designer, as well as have to answer to him at some point.

  5. Mr. Freemarket says:

    And the simple truth is that Darwin’s ideas have been disproved in a number of ways. For example, the necessity of gradual change from one form to another, while in nature, we see example after example of sudden changes.

  6. Buffalobob says:

    Crazy Bernie beet out crooked Hilary fr the job.

  7. Nathillien says:

    1. “Gradual change” doesn’t mean “a change with a constant speed”.
    2. Mutations are more gradual than emergence of a new functional protein which usually requires accumulation of several mutations.

    So sudden change argument is a meaningless argument.

  8. Trebuchet says:

    Darwin’s theory is actually stronger than ever, although additions to it now result in it correctly being called “Neo-Darwinism.” And rapid changes? That’s called “punctuated equilibrium,” a theory postulated by the late Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge. Look it up.

    “Intelligent Design” is just repackaged Creationism, and in no way, shape, or form resembles science. It’s religion, presented in a deliberately false way that should embarrass Christians.

  9. Mr. Freemarket says:

    As an engineer, it is obvious to me that there is a great deal of order in the world around us. That what we see could be produced by random chance requires not only faith but ignorance of the mathematical impossibilities. Darwin’s theory is that everything evolved through natural selection. But prior to living cells forming, there is nothing to guide the assembly of DNA molecules, choosing those with desirable characteristics, eliminating those with undesirable characteristics. So, life either formed as a result of random chance, or something was guiding it. Apparently you accept the former as the only possibility.

    Good luck with that.

  10. Trebuchet says:

    Evolution does not include the origin of life, only its changes over time. The evidence for those changes is overwhelming. Denying that takes a great deal of either stupidity or intellectual dishonesty. So which one are you?

  11. Trebuchet says:

    Um, no. Where is yours? If evolution isn’t the answer, where’s your Intelligent Design/Creationism explanation? Theories are overturned by new, better theories. Evolution is the presiding theory because it explains the relationship between living and extinct species better than any alternative thus far.

    Creationism mandates all life forms being created within a few literal days. So how does it account for life forms which went extinct hundreds of millions of years ago? How does it explain pre-Cambrian forms that had no living descendents?

    Note that “the Bible tells me so” is a cop out, not an answer. The Old Testament is a bunch of ancient folk tales blended with a tribal oral history, not a science book. It’s not even internally consistent.

  12. Mr. Freemarket says:

    “The evidence for those changes is overwhelming”
    Great example of a straw man argument.

    I do not dispute that species change over time. The only question is whether those changes are entirely random as Darwin suggested.

  13. Trebuchet says:

    You’re the one employing straw man arguments; and by your quoted example
    it’s obvious you have no idea of what actually constitutes a straw man
    argument. It’s patently absurd to use Charles Darwin as the last word on evolution; that’s as ridiculous as claiming Orville Wright is the last word in aeronautics. Darwin proposed the basic mechanism; much has been learned and added since then.

    Changes are not entirely random, for the rather obvious reason that many changes would be contra-survival. Changes to *individuals* can be random (within the confines of what is possible by physics and chemistry); changes to *species* simply make that species better adapted to survive and reproduce in its current environment.

    I suggest you try reading a good book on evolution, rather than just religious tracts opposing it. It is a beautiful and absolutely fascinating theory; far more interesting than “God did it.” I would recommend Richard Dawkin’s “The Blind Watchmaker” or “Climbing Mount Improbable” as good introductions for the layman. For a deeper look, Stephen Jay Gould’s “The Structure of Evolutionary Theory.” I’ve read all three of these at least twice.

  14. Trebuchet says:

    *Yawn* Can’t you religious fanatics ever come up with an original criticism? Species-level evolution takes place on a timescale too slow to be directly seen by humans; particularly since the very definition of what constitutes a species is heavily debated.

    As for Dr. Schwartz, a single supposed quote, without the source, hardly counters the fact he’s written six books on evolution, not to mention that he’s devoted his entire academic career to what you’re pretending he thinks is fraudulent. I’ve never read any of his books, but I have read several by one of his coauthors, Ian Tattersal.

    The Hebrew meaning of “yom” is irrelevant, because Creationism is false no matter what amount of time is meant. The ancient Hebrews were perfectly aware of what a day was. It’s highly disingenuous to pretend that the literal 24-hour day isn’t exactly what fundamentalists mean, not eons or epochs. If you’re postulating an omniscient Creator, whether He did it in six billion years, six days, or six microseconds is pedantry.

  15. Trebuchet says:

    If there was an Intelligent Designer, two things are immediately obvious: 1) He bears an amazingly suspicious resemblance to the Judeo-Christian deity; and 2) He was a lousy engineer, with a ridiculous number of Rube Goldberg solutions to problems rather than each and every individual species being a masterpiece of elegant design. Not very omniscient or omnipotent, it it?

  16. Trebuchet says:

    Not much better. A quote from a single evolutionary biologist (and one that was a notable iconoclast, supporting the long-discredited theory of Lamarkism) from forty years ago, and who despite that still *believed in evolution*. It doesn’t matter that we’ve learned so much more since that was written, or that tens of thousands of evolutionary biologists vehemently disagreed with Grassé. Where is the original scientific research by Creationists disproving evolution? There isn’t any.

    I love the way you guys quote-mine, desperately scrambling through outdated writings to find something, anything, to cast doubt on something as self-evident and beautiful as evolution. Give it up. You’re using pea-shooters against a tank. Nothing says a Creator couldn’t have used evolution as the mechanism to modify life. That is, in fact, precisely the view many Christians hold. That’s the official position held by the world’s largest Christian communion, the Roman Catholic Church.

    While I am not a Christian, almost all my friends are. Every single one of them believes that evolution is how God created such diversity of life on Earth. That He set up elegant rules for the universe, and let things proceed on their own. An omniscient God would have known that eventually those rules would have resulted in mankind, because if He didn’t, that would belie Him being omniscient.

  17. Scattergood Baines says:

    Look out! More quote-mines ahead! “The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time … The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash.” (Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to Die For,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65),

  18. Trebuchet says:

    Gould was probably the best known evolutionist of the late 20th century, and that quote certainly does nothing to refute evolution. Quite the opposite; he’s celebrating the fact that pre-Cambrian fossil record is now much more complete. Try reading about the Burgess Shale. (Fair warning: I own and have read every one of his books, with the exception of the one about baseball. He’s the worst possible scientist to use to refute evolution.)

    And try another tack, please. You’re not going to disprove evolution with quotes, even ones from evolutionary biologists. Let’s see some countervailing evidence.

  19. Mr. Freemarket says:

    Feel free to improve upon his efforts. Which species do you propose to fix first?

  20. Scattergood Baines says:

    Bombs away!! “One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multicellular marine invertebrates in Lower Cambrian rocks on all the continents and their absence in rocks of greater age.” (I. Axelrod, “Early Cambrian Marine Fauna,” Science, Vol. 128, 4 July 1958, p. 7),

  21. Trebuchet says:

    “Unsolved problems” doesn’t mean “insoluable.” Paleontologists have always understood that the fossil record will always be incomplete.

    So, smart guy, where is the Creationist explanation for why there is a fossil record at all, and why the deeper one goes into rock strata the less similar the fossils are to living species?

    *crickets chirping*

    Enough with the outdated quotes. Find actual evidence to refute evolution, not cherry picked phrases taken out of context or deliberately misinterpreted. You do realize that by your absurd logic, these evolutionary biologists are supposedly denying the reality of evolution, meanwhile devoting their entire lives to advancing their science.

    Let’s hope your reading of scripture is better than your grasp of evolution or logical reasoning.

  22. Trebuchet says:

    Let’s start with the human eye, which has nerves in front of the light receptors, thus creating a blind spot right in the middle of our field of view. Most other animals with eyes lack this trait. Why would a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent deity deliberately design a less than perfectly efficient eye for a species which is supposed to be created in his image?

    Our recurved spine is highly inefficient for a bipedal species and results in chronic back problems for most humans. It only makes sense as an ad hoc modification from a quadripedal, i.e., apelike, ancestor.

    I’m not a scientist, but those are two right off the top of my head, I’m sure anatomists and biologists can come up with quite a few more just in humans. The animal world doubtlessly has thousands more examples of strange functional but less than ideally efficient adaptations, such as the panda’s thumb.

  23. Mr. Freemarket says:

    Fine; let’s start with the human eye. Evolutionists will tell you that such a structure could have evolved one small step at a time. First, you have to have light-sensitive cells evolve. Then those light-sensitive cells have to connect to a nervous system. Then the nervous system has to figure out that those light-sensitive cells are sending useful information. Then those light-sensitive cells have to evolve into a pit. Then that pit has to focus an image so that the light sensitive cells, rather than simply providing light and dark information now provide discriminatory information so that the nervous system can determine that images are being sent rather than light dark information. Then that pit has to be covered over not with just cells, but transparent cells in order to form a lens. And the lens has to have the correct curvature so that a focused image is now formed on those cells. And since the light sensitive cells only can respond when light is within a certain range of illumination, either you can see in the dark, or see in the light until you evolve a structure to moderate the amount of light that is admitted into the eye.

    Having a detached retina, with the fluid within my eye being removed, I have considerable insight into how poorly the eye functions without being filled with fluid (and with the lens being at an angle, rather than perpendicular to the pupil.

    “I’m not a scientist, but those are two right off the top of my head, I’m sure anatomists and biologists can come up with quite a few more just in humans. ”

    No, wait. Although you are not an expert in anatomy or biology, why can’t you create your own species, seeing as you believe that nature, unguided, was able to create all you see around you? You clearly have far more education (and wisdom) than the random chance that brought you and everything else into existence. So when will you be producing these improved humans?

  24. Trebuchet says:

    Every one of those intermediate steps in the development of the eye currently exists in other living species. Given that all the basic designs for eyes evolved while all animal species lived in the sea, your observation about no fluid in the eye is moot. There’s at least one book for the layman on the evolution of the eye, although I can’t recall the title offhand. (I own a copy, but my entire library is still in boxes from my recent move.) Can you try reading something to learn, or is your sole ability to argue derived from going to creationist websites to pull more out of context quotes? I’m not afraid to read the Bible; is your Christian faith so weak it can’t handle a contradictory viewpoint? Then I suggest you go join one of the Flat Earth groups, because you’ll find lots of likeminded people there. Invincible ignorance is not an attractive trait, although it is good for a laugh.

    As to the second portion of your post, what kind of question is that? What makes you think I’d even possibly be interested in something like that? I lack both the power and inclination to do so. Humans are not gods, and never will be. We’ve already tried to improve the human species; it was a pseudoscience called eugenics. Very popular among progressives and other socialists. Perhaps you’ve heard of it? Its most recent advocates were colloquially known as Nazis.

    Your constant sidestepping and misdirection is becoming tedious. Step up your game, or I’ll move on to a more interesting creationist.

  25. Scattergood Baines says:

    “Smart guy”? Tsk tsk. These are your guys, the crème de la crème. Your argument isn’t with me, is it, just for noting what they said? Take it up with them and let me hear back from you what the response is.
    “Granted an evolutionary origin of the main groups of animals, and not an act of special creation, the absence of any record whatsoever of a single member of any of the phyla in the Pre-Cambrian rocks remains as inexplicable on orthodox grounds as it was to Darwin.” (T. Neville George Professor of Geology at the University of Glasgow, “Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective,” Science Progress, Vol. 48, No. 189, January 1960, p. 5)

  26. Trebuchet says:

    *sigh* Another horribly dated quote, from 1960. Funny how for you Creationists, time seems to have stopped the instant you find another lame quote. Do you really believe that a single sentence or paragraph by an author within a scientific paper or book completely negates the entire point of the book? That scientists spend their entire lives perpetrating some vast fraud? Just how much fun do you think it is for paleontologists and graduate students to spend months or years in remote, unpleasant locations, fighting off sandstorms, ravenous insects, incipient civil wars, or temperature extremes while digging for new fossils? To what purpose?

    The Burgess Shale, while discovered in the early 20th century, did not begin to be scientifically evaluated until 1962. Myriads of bizarre pre-Cambrian lifeforms were fossilized within it, some bearling no resemblance to current lifeforms. So your quotee would have no idea of the evolutionary treasures that were about to be unlocked two years later.

    And again, you resort to quote mining

  27. Mr. Freemarket says:

    “Can you try reading something to learn, or is your sole ability to argue derived from going to creationist websites to pull more out of context quotes?”

    I may surprise you but I don’t actually visit creationist websites. Many of the concepts behind intelligent design that I personally believe it I originally learned from Henry Eyring, a world-class chemist. He explained things like this:
    “Suppose that I observe a farm from time to time. The ground is plowed, crops are planted and harvested, but I never see the farmer. Either the farm is producing all of those events spontaneously, or there is a farmer and I simply haven’t seen him.”

    That is where I am coming from. If there is a God, he has unlimited time (and clearly unlimited patience). He has the ability to direct things as he sees best. From my perspective, that is “intelligent design.” I don’t believe in “poof; God created everything.” He uses natural forces and laws to accomplish his purposes.

    “As to the second portion of your post, what kind of question is that?…We’ve already tried to improve the human species”

    You were more than willing to point out several areas where you thought the design of humans could be improved upon; fundamental design flaws that, supposedly, could be easily fixed. Supposedly all of the development that has taken place to bring about every organism that we observe, along with every structure and system that are part of each organism, took place within a puddle of water with zero outside intervention.

    You seem like an intelligent individual. Why isn’t it within your capability to produce a new species? If undirected nature can do it, why can’t you? We have several examples of different species trying to mate. The one characteristic that seems almost universal from such activity is that the offspring are incapable of reproducing.

    Today’s best scientists have been able to do some gene research and modification. They have, for example, developed corn that is resistant to “Round-up.” Not a new species, mind you, just a useful modification of an existing species.

    Does the fact that “Round-up” resistant corn has been developed prove that “Darwin was right?”

    It takes a great deal of faith to believe that undirected nature produced everything we see around us. I applaud you for having such great faith.

  28. Trebuchet says:

    Apparently, so does hammering a new thought through your skull.

    You had your chance. We’re done.

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy