Articles

Bugaganda

By Karl C. Priest November 23, 2009 (Revised 7-20-2011)

“Bugaganda” is a term I coined for evolutionists’ propaganda using insects.

Peer reviewed journal articles report research filled with Bugaganda. The only difference is that the context is on an advanced level. However the following principles apply.

Almost every layman’s article (news release or newspaper article) has the word “evolution” inserted one to three times. (In many articles, homage is also paid to St. Darwin, but I will avoid, in this article, attacking the personal prophet of evolutionism.) Removing the word(s) would not change the understanding of the article in the slightest. Another example of Bugaganda is putting the word “evolutionary” in front of a legitimate scientific title such as “biologist” to make “evolutionary biologist”—which is an excellent example of an oxymoron. Other Bugaganda is more insidious and more difficult for the lay reader to separate real science from anti-science.

An example of this type of Bugaganda is an article headed “Some Trees and Insects Are Made for Each Other” (http://www.livescience.com/environment/091113-bts-joshua-tree-coevoluation.html). Unlike most media releases, which are usually done by graduate assistants or public relations specialists, this particular article is by a real scientist.

Dr. Christopher Irwin Smith attempts to explain the absolutely amazing mutual dependence of a type of moth and Joshua trees.

The real science is deftly (some authors do it deviously) mixed with pseudo and anti-science.

Dr. Smith provides some scientific information:

The strangest thing about Joshua trees may be the way that they are pollinated. These desert plants produce no nectar. So, in order to reproduce the Joshua tree relies on small, inconspicuous grey moths. The moths have tentacle-like appendages that grow out of their jaws, which they use to collect pollen from Joshua tree flowers. The moths then crawl from flower to flower, deliberately spreading pollen onto the female part of each flower.

Why would a simple moth go to so much trouble to help a tree? The answer is that the moth needs the Joshua tree for her own reproduction. Before she pollinates each flower, the moth lays her eggs on the immature seeds of the Joshua tree, cutting into the flower with a thin, blade-like organ called an "ovipositor". Her eggs will eventually hatch into caterpillars that will eat some of the seeds before crawling to the ground to form a cocoon. So, for her babies to eat, the moth needs to ensure that there will be Joshua tree seeds, and for there to be seeds the moth must pollinate the flower.

These real facts discovered by doing real science come after the slant of the article is set in the opening:

Coevolution — mutual adaptation of two or more species to one another — shapes much of the natural world and produces some of the most remarkable biological phenomena,from the exceptional speed of cheetahs and gazelles, to the virulence of the HIV and swine flu viruses.

Actually, what is logical is that some living entities (such as plants and insects) have been designed to successfully function in relation to each other. It is not “coevolution” it is “cooperative design”. As is so often the case, neither would survive without the other. (See the Yucca Moth articles for one excellent example.) There is no observable scientific evidence of any transitional forms that lead up (by the evolutionists’ hallucinated tiny steps of progress) to what we can observe.

Bugaganda articles always contain qualifiers which may go unnoticed by the average reader. Smith’s article contains “may indeed”, “might have” (twice), and “might”.

In a typical Bugaganda attempt to remove any doubt about the anti-science of evolutionism, the article concludes with the emotional (religious) statement that “The most exciting part of this research is the prospect that a single natural process — natural selection — has produced both the spectacular diversity of plants and insects and the remarkable fit between insects and the flowers they pollinate.” Can I get an “amen” from the evolutionist choir?

“Natural selection” is synonymous with “evolution” (See “Let’s Squash Natural Selection”.). It is the all-powerful deity of Darwinists. “Natural selection” and “evolution” are the duality (Christians have a trinity) that represents their god. Bugaganda romanticism is all that evolutionists have when they reject biblical reality.

I will place other examples of evolutionists’ bulk Bugaganda as they come to my attention.

---------------------------------

Also see Helping Evolutionists Get It Right and BWAH HAH HAH HAAAA!

---------------------------------

Addendum

“Millions of years” and “adaptation” are other indicators for Bugaganda.