Darwin’s Mockingbirds Show Neither ‘Rigid Creation’ Nor Evolution

The Natural History Museum in London recently opened a new exhibit that features mockingbirds that Charles Darwin collected during his travels around the Galapagos Islands in 1835. He observed they were unlike the mockingbirds in other South American regions. Jo Cooper, one of the museum’s curators, told the Associated Press, "It struck him immediately that [th]is was a very different bird: it's bigger, it has this dark chest, the bill is quite long…and that really made him start thinking."1

However, what might have struck Darwin as a “very different bird” looks to others like slight variations within the same bird kind. In any case, all the birds presented in the display are, in fact, undeniably mockingbirds. Darwin had legitimate scientific grounds, by virtue of the different features he noted, to challenge a “rigid creation” model of origins, one that assumes that all living creatures have descended unchanged from their first created parents. The variations that Darwin observed, however, pose no threat to standard, current biblical creation models, which recognize that living creatures can adapt to environmental or other changing factors (a process known as microevolution, or “horizontal” change).

Like the paleontologists of his time, as well as today’s observers, Darwin did not actually see any differences that represented transitional links between basic reproducing kinds, including “Darwin’s finches” on the Galapagos Islands. If the theory of descent with modification is true—that all organisms today evolved gradually from one single living thing over eons—then there ought to be evidence for it. Most fossils should show transitional states, but instead they show distinct kinds fully formed, even in the lowest (“earliest”) sedimentary rock layers.

Scientific observation and experimentation should reveal at least some hint of lower-to-higher biological development, but they don’t.2 It seems that though the scientific evidence does not favor rigid creation, it also does not support its polar opposite: Darwin’s view of total genetic plasticity, or morphing between kinds. Both scientific observation and the biblical record document that life produces life, and like produces like.

But if Darwin did not develop his “descent with modification” idea from the evidence, then where did he get it? History shows that his grandfather Erasmus, a medical doctor and prolific poet and writer, introduced Darwin to these concepts at an early age. One line from Erasmus’ 1794 book Zoonomia reads:

Unfortunately, those who visit London’s Museum of Natural History will only be given Erasmus Darwin’s imaginative interpretation, as filtered through his grandson, of mockingbird origins—that they arose from non-birds. Science has not documented these changes between kinds. All evidence points to the exact situation described in the Bible: that each creature reproduces after its own kind. Therefore, though it’s unpopular, favoring observational science over fanciful Darwinian doctrines is the better choice.

Science has not documented these changes between kinds. All evidence points to the exact situation described in the Bible: that each creature reproduces after its own kind. Therefore, though it’s unpopular, favoring observational science over fanciful Darwinian doctrines is the better choice.

More nonsense from creation "science."

Don't you realize that groups like the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), which sponsored this article, are committed to upholding the bible at all costs, no matter what?

Don't you realize that what they do is not science, it is religious apologetics? If there is a conflict between the bible and science they have to follow the bible.

That's not science, that's religious dogma. It is the exact opposite of science.

Here are their beliefs, required of all members. See any chance for science in there?

Tenets of Scientific Creationism

The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.
The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.
Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward' changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.
The record of earth history, as preserved in the earth's crust, especially in the rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of gradualism and relatively uniform process rates. There are many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to strong scientific evidence that most of the earth's fossiliferous sedimentary rocks were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.
Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates, but since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator. Evidences for such intervention should be scrutinized critically, however, because there must be clear and adequate reason for any such action on the part of the Creator.
The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions, and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally-perfect created order.
Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now-decaying creation, there do exist ultimate purposes and meanings in the universe. Teleological considerations, therefore, are appropriate in scientific studies whenever they are consistent with the actual data of observation. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that the creation presently awaits the consummation of the Creator's purpose.
Although people are finite and scientific data concerning origins are always circumstantial and incomplete, the human mind (if open to possibility of creation) is able to explore the manifestations of that Creator rationally, scientifically, and teleologically.

Nope, no science there. Just the opposite--its all belief in scripture and dogma, with no evidence required or even wanted. And no critical thinking tolerated; "We'll tell you what to believe."

I guess if they had any actual scientific evidence they would have produced it long ago, eh?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Darwin’s Mockingbirds Show Neither ‘Rigid Creation’ Nor Evolution

by Brian Thomas, M.S.*