image_pdfimage_print

Individual Belief

I received a phone call today: from a reporter for a large newspaper in Houston, Texas. As we talked about Marfa Lights and reports of living pterosaurs, she asked me if creationists believe in living pterosaurs. Grateful for an easy question, I answered, “Yes.” I then remembered the exceptions: I told her that some creationist scientists are cautious about the possibility of modern pterosaurs, for the investigations are still mostly in the realm of cryptozoology.

After that phone conversation I thought a bit deeper. Some Americans disagree with me and my associates about the origin of life, choosing to believe that live came about through many millions of years of evolution from simple small organisms to large complex ones. Most of those “evolutionists” have little if any respect for living pterosaur investigations. But a few of them actually believe in living pterosaurs, notwithstanding how their interpretation differs from that of creationists. In fact, I occasionally interview an eyewitness who will talk about the creature in terms suggesting an evolutionary perspective.

Perhaps my thinking today has not been as deep as it could have been. All I got from it is this: Individuals often believe or disbelieve something based upon individual personality, more than upon how they are labeled.

I just remembered my 2004 expedition and the only financial donation I received as I prepared to travel to Papua New Guinea. It was only a few dollars, but it was from a man who was labeled “evolutionist.” Interesting.

Modern Pterosaurs and the Survival of the Fetish

“An object regarded with awe as being the embodiment or habitation of a potent spirit or as having magical potency”—that definition of “fetish” almost applies to the philosopohy of strict Naturalism, including the idea of Natural Selection. But the object of that pseudo-religious worship is not a physical object but an idea, including the dogma that all life came into existence without any help from God. Where is the magic? It’s in the belief that small simple life, through “survival of the fittest,” evolved into large complex humans.

Pterosaurs living (though mostly hidden) in modern times—that should cause reevaluation of the foundation of Darwin’s philosophy, for Darwin himself would have thrown out his idea of unlimited common ancestry if he had known what we now know. Over a century after his death, our knowledge of life, including the complexity of even the simplest organisms, surpasses even the wildest imaginations of nineteen-century biologists. But the higher qualities of modern human accomplishment exceed any reasonable naturalistic explanation within the limits of Darwin’s philosophy.

Objective reasoning, for the devout atheist, results in severe problems, including the problem of explaining the higher qualities inherent in modern humans. We have built space vehicles to travel to the moon; humans have walked on the moon. Can anyone justify believing that particles in a puddle of mud would accidentally bump into each other in a way that would eventually create beings that would fly to the moon? How could such beings be completely unlike any gods? (Remember what it says in the New Testament about humans: “Have I not said ‘ye are gods?'”) The higher qualities of modern human intelligence cannot be ignored, for something god-like resides within us.

And what about modern humans preserving endangered species? How similar is that to God preserving species on the Ark of Noah! One problem for atheism is how to acknowledge the noblest human behaviors and still disbelieve that those qualities may exist in a personage more advanced than modern humans. The devout atheist cannot dispute the existence of the head of NASA, just because he has not shaken hands with that person; why dispute the existence of a higher authority?

But how can so many Westerners remain ignorant of the existence of God? They have been blinded by “survival of the fittest.” Where does the truth lie? The general concept of Natural Selection is hardly disputable. The fallacy is in believing it accounts for the existence of humans. Why? Simple organisms survive better than complex ones, therefore more complex ones would have become extinct, replaced by the simpler forms, according to the definition of Natural Selection.

Looking at it from a broad perspective, a planet with its early history including tiny simple microorganisms, over billions of years, would result in a world devoid of any life, for the non-living substances of the planet (sand, water, and rock) survive much better than any form of life. Larger, more-compex organisms would never have competed well with the simpler ones, and so would never have even begun to be established.

Natural Selection, in a universe without any God, does more than make human life impossible: Over billions of years, on a planet that started with some form of life, all life would have become extinct. Because he never looked deeply enough into the ramifications of his philosophy, Darwin never realized that our wonderful planet of life could not exist without the enormous protective efforts of someone with super-human intelligence and power: God

Acknowledgement of extant pterosaurs does not refute general ideas about biological evolution, those limited changes that are obvious. But Darwin himself acknowledged the challenge of “living fossils” to the credibility of his ideas, and we would be wise to encourage a reevaluation of the philosophical foundations of those ideas, in particular how “survival of the fittest” cannot account for the life we now find on this earth.

Advertisement

 cryptozoology book, nonfiction, on living pterosaurs

 

Live Pterosaurs in America, by Jonathan David Whitcomb, is a nonfiction in the true genre of cryptozoology. But the Christian beliefs of the living-pterosaur investigators are not hidden, acknowledged in the appendix, let readers believe as they will.

Please support living-pterosaur investigations by purchasing this book about amazing eyewitness accounts of pterosaurs in many parts of the United States over many years. See Live Pterosaurs in America. (Second edition of this cryptozoology book to be available by about late November, 2010)

###

More about Living Pterosaurs in the United States

Is “living pterosaur” a creationist idea?

What is a living pterosaur? It’s a presently-living animal, with pterosaur ancestors, and with features making it an obvious pterosaur. It presently lives as a cryptid in the realm of cryptozoology, according to Western classification. According to critics, it lives only in the imagination of some creationists.

What is a creationist? It’s a human, with a belief in Adam and Eve as their original human ancestors on earth. Disbelief in the General Theory of Evolution (GTE) is one feature of a creationist. Not all cryptozoologists believe in living pterosaurs, and not all creationists are convinced. Some who belief in GTE assume that universal pterosaur extinction cannot be successfully challenged and that those who mention eyewitness sightings are misguided in a severe bias. The problem with that position becomes obvious when we examine the eyewitnesses: Few of them are creationists.

So is “living pterosaur” a creationist idea? From 1993 to early 2010, most expeditions were led by creationists, most research was done by creationists, and most writings were written by creationists. But no, the idea that pterosaurs continue to fly through our skies–that comes from openly considering testimonies of eyewitnesses of various beliefs, various languages, and various cultures. But the living pterosaur as part of a support for literal interpretations of many events recorded in Genesis–that is a creationist idea.

See also Monsterquest and Flying Monsters

Do live pterosaurs “disprove evolution?”

I sometimes encounter a criticism such as this: “A living pterosaur would not disprove evolution. It would just be another example of an ancient species that survived.” That appears simple and airtight, appearently proving me and my associates to be fools to think that an extant pterosaur would relate to the conflict between “religion and science.” One problem with that reasoning is with the word “evolution.” That word some people assume to precisely refer to gradual shifting of biological forms; few people know that the word itself is a shape-shifter. Another problem relates to “disprove,” a word appropriate to mathematics or to science (not to the popularity of a philosophy). In addition, the “conflict between religion and science” is a phrase referring to a conflict between two extremely conflicting philosophies (1); but a conflict between a general belief in God and a belief in the efficacy of sound scientific principles for making discoveries—that is nonexistent: There is no conflict.

In a conversation about biology, “evolution” may refer to different concepts. Unfortunately, those engaged in conversation often fail to realize or distinguish the differences, or fail to appreciate the significance. The limited changes in sizes, shapes, and colors for the same basic kind of organism, commonly observed changes—that kind of evolution has been observed by Darwin and many others. But that is not the kind of change needed to cause one organism to have a future descendant that will be a completely different kind of organism, for example, a mammal with a liver having an ancestor that did not have a liver.

For those who insist that a general definition of “evolution,” a definition like “gradual change over time,” is sufficient in a conversation about biology, consider Professor Peter Beach (2). Over a period of time, the opinion held by this biologist, about Darwin’s ideas about Common Descent, changed dramatically, for his original confidence in Darwin’s philosophy of unlimited common ancestry decreased until it had evaporated. His opinion gradually changed over time, and that process of thinking involved biological brain functions. But how far removed is that kind of evolution from the usual concepts! The real problem is with the vagueness of “evolution.” I suggest, to those who would communicate about the conflict between life-origin philosophies, that we be precise: Use “unlimited common ancestry” when appropriate and other phrases for other concepts. Never converse with the word “evolution” without prior agreement on what is meant by that word.

What is the problem with the word “disprove?” When this word comes up regarding extant pterosaurs (3), their relationship to unlimited common ancestry, the true subject is not scientific but philosophical. Darwin’s idea that there is no limit to common ancestors (as we trace back family trees into the past)–that is a philosophy, and a philosophy cannot be proven or disproven. How serious here is the problem in reasoning! What a problem! Those who think that they are talking about something scientific are blind to the nature of what they are trying to protect: their philosophy.

I will not dwell upon the “conflict between religion and science.” There is no such thing. What some people sometimes refer to is a conflict between strict Naturalism philosophy and the Genesis-account of Creation and the Flood of Noah, especially the philosophy of the “Young Earth Creationist” (YEC). Contrary to the declarations of some of my critics, extant pterosaurs do relate to such conficts, for those who have not already settled their hearts into a philosophy will find that modern pterosaurs fit better with literal concepts in Genesis than with universal common ancestry.

1 Opposing philosophies

2 Brave biologist: Peter Beach

3 Extant Pterosaurs in an issue of Creation Research Society Quarterly

See also Marfa Lights, New Enlightenment

Advertisement

non-fiction book Live Pterosaurs in AmericaDid you know that living pterosaurs have been reported in North America, even in the United States? Read the many eyewitness sighting reports  by purchasing a nonfiction book on Amazon or from the publisherLive Pterosaurs in America.