Pareidolia & The Darwinian Narrative

One source defines pareidolia as, “the imagined perception of a pattern or meaning where it does not actually exist.” Of course, the atheist / materialist crowd loves to cite pareidolia as an explanation for belief in things “supernatural,” but I find that ironic. After all, we’ve got no shortage of confirmed pareidolia in the “science” of the Darwinian narrative. Quite literally, some of these “scientists” see grandiose patterns from nothing more than a few teeth or part of a skull.

An old riverbed in Java yielded part of a skullcap, a section of a thighbone and three molar teeth, collectively referred to as Pithecanthropus Erectus. The parts were neither found together nor simultaneously; they were discovered about fifty feet apart and over the course of one year, from 1891 to 1892. They were also mingled amongst various debris and many bones of extinct animals. Evolutionary theorists were quick to propose Pithecanthropus as a possible transitional form, even though only three teeth and fragments of a skullcap and thighbone were found.

Acclaimed for some time as a new skull, a 1926 discovery in Java gave Pithecanthropus a second wind, but it was later shown to be an elephant’s kneebone. By the 1960’s, subsequent finds in Java shed new light on Pithecanthropus, who by that time had come to be regarded by anthropologists as essentially identical with modern man. The original skullcap was likely that of a small woman, the thighbone was found to be completely human in form and simian teeth did not belong with the other remains at all. Yet for the short time in between, many scientists were “certain” that these discoveries were evidence of a transitional form.

There are plenty of other examples of excessively large conclusions being drawn from mere smidgeons of evidence. The Hesperopithicus tooth found in Nebraska in 1922 gained immediate acceptance as a transitional form and thus evidence of human evolution, so much so that it was presented by evolutionists as “expert testimony” in the famous Scopes trial of 1925. Two years later, the complete skeleton was found and proven to have belonged to an extinct pig. Similarly, Colorado Man was constructed from a single tooth that was later found to have belonged to the horse family. Ape Man was also found in Colorado and exhibited as evidence of macroevolution in a state museum, but the skull later turned out to be that of a pet monkey. A bone found near Seattle, claimed to be an ancient human fibula, turned out to be part of a bear’s hind leg. The famous Piltdown Man, regarded until the mid-twentieth century as one of the important missing links, was later formally pronounced to have been a clever hoax that fooled all the anthropological experts for over forty years.

Premeditated arrangement, selective emphasis and selective de-emphasis of facts can prove almost any hypothesis. As polymer expert Walter Bradley reminds us, “…scientists aren’t more objective than anyone else. They all come to questions with their preconceived ideas.” (Bradley, 1984) Evolutionary reconstruction diagrams in modern exhibits may appear very visually convincing, but often convey biased and partial interpretations of fossil data. Seldom will a textbook even mention anomalous data that doesn’t fit the standardized scientific consensus. During his time as a curator at the American Museum in New York, Dr. Niles Eldredge commented on one such example, the 1870 Thomas Huxley horse reconstruction (DeStefano, note that I am *NOT* implying Eldredge denies science or evolution or anything like that so please don’t get all Loftus on me):

There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff. (Niles Eldgridge, quoted in Darwin’s Enigma, by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Books, 1988, p. 78)

One conclusion I’ve drawn from this? When theists, paranormalists and design proponents see patterns, they’re delusional whackjobs not to be taken seriously. When atheists, materialists and expounders of the Darwinian narrative see patterns, they’re ground-breaking scientists deserving our respect.

Be careful, people… be very careful. Not all that comes packaged as “science” is knowledge.