Alan Feduccia is the S. K. Heninger Distinguished Professor (Emeritus) within University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Biology Department.
While, as we shall see, he is no friend of Creationists, Creation Science proponents nor Intelligent Design proponents as he, himself, is an evolutionist he, nevertheless, is academically honest enough to discern and openly admit censorship within the scientific community.
As noted within the Scientific Cenobites series much which passes for science is, in reality, interpretations of evidence based on worldview philosophies, schools of thought, bias for preferred theories and seeking to protect them, professional rivalries, assuring grants/funding, etc.
Within the Atheist and Darwinian Science and Story Telling series evidence was provided of just that, narrative story telling being passed off as science.
Upon a premise of worldview-philosophy-mythology some, such as Richard Dawkins actually claim that “religion” and/or “faith” is a “science stopper”; see Question for atheists: is “ did it” a science stopper?
Herein we will consider Alan Feduccia’ article “Bird Origins Anew,” The Auk – An International Journal of Ornithology, Vol. 130 No. 1 January 2013 AD (bold and underlining emphasis has been added for emphasis).
The context is that of “intense and polemical debates in vertebrate evolution, the question of avian origins” in other words evolutionist vs. evolutionist.
And just to make evolutionists happy and set the stage, here is what Feduccia states about Creationists:
Another overlooked but dangerous aspect of this entire debacle
involves the ever-lurking Creationists, who see the layered flaws and junk science in the current unchallengeable orthodoxy on bird origins and have leapt into the fray, like circling sharks in a feeding frenzy, terming this phenomenon “The Disneyfication of Paleontology!” (see www.csm.org.uk/news.php?viewmessage=34).
As one well-known creationist noted following a presentation of an egregiously flawed study claiming the discovery of dinosaur DNA in Triceratops purported to be identical to turkey DNA, “This isn’t science. This isn’t even myth. This is comic relief!” (Wells 2000:133).
It is chilling to contemplate that the Creationists may be the ones to sweep our own house clean. It is time for scientists from varied fields to begin the task of a more careful consideration of these highly speculative proposals. Otherwise this arena will continue to flounder in a world of neverending speculation, a veritable Disney Fantasia.
Whatever happened to astronomer Carl Sagan’s well-worn axiom, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”?
Note that he erroneously references Jonathan Wells within the context of Creationist and yet, Wells is an Intelligent Design proponent of which there are Atheists (Francis Crick), Agnostics (David Berlinski), Christians (Stephen Meyers), Unification Church-Moonies (Wells himself), etc.
Now, when it comes to Carl Sagan’s axiom, the fact is that it is faulty. Extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence rather, extraordinary claims only require adequate evidence. For example, an extraordinary claim is that there is a bowling alley on the dark side of the moon. Granting that there is one, the evidence for it is as simple as going there and pointing one’s finger.
The axiom is, in reality, a flim flam sham. It is used against theists to the effect of that no matter what evidence for God’s existence may be offered, the Atheists can simply wave their hand and declare, “No, does not count. Not extraordinary enough!” In this case, Feduccia is employing it in order to urge his fellow anti-Christian evolutionists to provide better evidence. However, it has the side effect of implying that Christians will simply declare, “No, does not count. Not extraordinary enough!”
Well, in any case, as Alan Feduccia elucidates so vividly; evolutionists have a lot of ‘splaining to do!
On to Feduccia’s article as he notes:
Now the theory that “birds are living dinosaurs,” specifically “birds are maniraptoran theropods” (the “BMT hypothesis”), predominates, and advocates of alternatives have largely been silenced, despite their growing numbers…most specimens [found in China’s Liaoning province] were interpreted within the context of the current mantra of the field, which has become an unchallengeable orthodoxy: birds are living maniraptoran theropods.
This simple statement speaks volumes as it references interpretation of evidence according to the pop theory de jour, “within the context of the current mantra of the field” as well as the pop theory having become “unchallengeable orthodoxy.”
Here are statements along these same lines:
Birds are now considered living dinosaurs, and what was once a working hypothesis has transmuted to an unchallengeable orthodoxy, so that those who offer contrary evidence are subjects of ridicule and no longer considered scientists.
Most disturbingly, the field has taken a turn away from a standard scientific falsificationist approach to verificationist arguments.
In other words, those who promulgate the unchallengeable orthodoxy are only seeking those bits of data that they can force fit into the pop theory de jour.
Feduccia makes this presupposition crystal clear:
Hypotheses are no longer tested according to standard scientific practice, but rather evidence is marshaled to bolster or “prove” what is already thought to be “known.”
James and Pourtless are quoted thusly in order to reinforce this point:
The risk is that only supporting evidence will be recognized, while contradictory evidence is ignored or explained away.[1]
Alan Feduccia further notes that “Today, the field of origins is stuck in a rut of circularity because all conclusions are based on the fact that ‘birds are living dinosaurs.’” And repeats that this is “today’s unchallengeable orthodoxy of bird origins” that it is a “deeply ingrained thought process” and so “the current unchallengeable orthodoxy of the field” thus, “The current orthodoxy of flight origins, involving massive exaptation, stretches biological credulity and is practically non-Darwinian.”
Some other statements deal directly to what which is supposed to be the peer review process—the resulting publications of which we are told are authoritative:
Attempts to silence any opposition to the current unchallengeable orthodoxy are seen in the lack of citation of contrary views (Feduccia 2009), and polemical and ad hominem reviews that are substituted for evidence have effectively silenced many nonsubscribers.
As a result:
I, and many others who advocate the view expressed here, are typically accused in ad hominem fashion of not understanding cladistic methodology [which will be considered below] and, therefore, of not being scientists.
In fact, referring to a certain study, he notes:
Anyone examining this data matrix would find it risible to call this science and would be astounded that such a paper could be published in Science.
In short, Feduccia notes:
The 19th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer astutely summarized the three stages through which all truth passes: first, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
In the next segment, we will consider Alan Feduccia’s statements about feathered dinosaurs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Notes:
[1] James, F. C., and J. A. Pourtless. 2009 AD. Cladistics and the origin of birds: A review and two new analyses. Ornithological Monographs, no. 66, p. 27
References:
Wells, J. 2000. Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Regnery, Washington, D.C.
Feduccia, A. 2009. A colourful Mesozoic menagerie. [Review of Feathered Dinosaurs: The Origin of Birds by John Long. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2009.] Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24:415–416
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.