Bernard d'Abrera

{{crenav}}
'''Bernard Laurance d'Abrera''' {{lived|1940|2017}} was an [[Australian]] [[Fundamentalist]] [[Christian]] 
[[scientist]]
 butterfly photographer. He was a signatory of [[A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism]] and a vehement opponent of [[evolution]].

He was a fellow at the pro-[[intelligent design]] organization {{wpl|International Society for Complexity, Information and Design|International Society for Complexity, Information and Design|.}} He owned Hill House Publishers, which restricted itself to publishing his Lepidoptera books, Bella Wyborn d'Abrera's [[revisionist]] anti-[[United Kingdom|English]] [[Reformation]] books, and facsimile reprint editions of {{wpl|John Gould|John Gould's}} works. [[irony|Ironically]], John Gould's island biogeography work was instrumental in the development of evolution and was cited in [[Charles Darwin]]'s ''[[On the Origin of Species]]''. 

==Religion==
It seems that he did not publicly state his religious affiliation, but it would seem that he veered towards [[Traditionalist Catholicism]] due to his opposition to both the Protestant Reformation and the [[Roman Catholic Church#Evolution|Roman Catholic Church]]'s 
infallibility
 reversal on evolution.

==Qualifications and quality of work==
d'Abrera was not a scientist by training. He earned bachelor's degrees in History & Philosophy of Science, and History from the University of New South Wales in Sydney.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20150417010558/http://www.hillhouse-publishers.com/about-bernard-dabrera] About Bernard d'Abrera, ''Hill House Publishers'' (archived from April 17, 2015).</ref>

Although the sham petition ''[[A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism]]'' lists d'Abrera as a Visiting Scholar of the "Department of Entomology, British Museum", the listed affiliation is, quite simply, a lie; d'Abrera was associated with the Natural History Museum, which has not been part of the British Museum for several decades. d'Abrera was not a scientist by training and does not hold a Ph.D.<ref>BSCE, [http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/IntelligentDesignAdvocates article] on the British contributors to the list</ref>

Lacking a degree is not inherently a hindrance to doing quality scientific work ([[credentialism]]), however:<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20190809194053/http://collector-secret.proboards.com/thread/1498/late-dabrera?page=3 John Tennent remembers Bernard Laurance D'Abrera (latterly d'Abrera), 28<sup>th</sup> August 1940 – 13<sup>th</sup> January 2017] by John Tennent (2017) ''Entomological Society of Queensland News Bulletin'' 44(9). via ''The Insect Collectors' Forum'' (archived from August 9, 2019).</ref>
{{cquote|He absolutely refused to submit his work to [[peer review]], with the predictable result that his books contain numerous errors, many of which would have been easily identified and resolved even if he had only asked someone to give them the 'once-over'. His innate pomposity, combined with an ego of monumental proportions, resulted in the fact that even major errors were – so far as I can see – rarely if ever corrected in subsequent editions of the same book, even over a period of decades.|||John Tennent}}

==View on evolution==
He described the theory of evolution as "viscid, asphyxiating baggage" that requires "[[Blind faith|blind religious faith]]" since, according to this particular [[PRATT]], it is [[Falsifiability of evolution|unfalsifiable]]. Arthur Shapiro aptly described d'Abrera as "profoundly [[Anti-science|anti-scientific]] – not unscientific, but hostile to science."<ref>[http://lepidopteraresearchfoundation.org/journals/30/PDF30/30-142.pdf (Review of) Bernard d'Abrera, Butterflies of the Holarctic Region, Part I], Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 30 (1-2): 142–144.</ref>

==Dissection of a D'Abrera book==
In describing d'Abrera's book <i>Butterflies of the Holarctic Region, Part I</i>, Arthur Shapiro states the following,<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=2X0TUGg4pDAC&lpg=PA215&ots=e5fOxCFwBw&dq=%22Attention%20should%20be%20paid%20to%20their%20stupidities%2C%20their%20errors%2C%20their%20pig-headedness%2C%20their%20bad%20writing.%22&pg=PA215#v=onepage&q=%22Attention%20should%20be%20paid%20to%20their%20stupidities,%20their%20errors,%20their%20pig-headedness,%20their%20bad%20writing.%22&f=false Arthur Shapiro as quoted in ''The Dangerous World of Butterflies: The Startling Subculture Of Criminals, Collectors, And Conservationists'' by Peter Laufer] Lyons Press, ISBN 1599219271.</ref>
{{cquote|Attention should be paid to their stupidities, their errors, their pig-headedness, their bad writing. The thing is, as I say in my reviews, they're absolutely indispensable. There's nothing else like them. If you're trying to identify exotic butterflies outside your geographic area, the primary and secondary literatures are so scattered and relatively inaccessible, you're out of hope. Big coffee table picture books are the only way to go. But if you're going to do that, at least get input from the people in the areas you cover geographically so you don't make an [[Asshole|ass]] of yourself.}}

Analysis of ''Birdwing Butterflies of the World'', new and revised edition by Bernard d'Abrera (Hill House Publishers, 2003):

{{sbs|title=1|d'Abrera Text|Dissection}}
{{sbs|1=From the Preamble: "… author's misguided deference to his 'elders and betters', and his confusion brought about by the fog of [[Evolution|evolutionary]] [[pseudo-science]], which fog he has not yet learned to penetrate." (page <i>ix</i>)
|2=The author starts off on bad footing by criticizing something that he admits that he does not understand, evolution, but gives readers fair warning at least. The original edition of this book was published in 1975, so the author had 28 years to understand a widely-accepted concept taught from secondary school through university.}}

{{sbs
|1=From the Preamble: the author reviews other books on the birdwing butterflies. (page <i>ix</i>)
|2=One book by J. Haughum and A. M. Low (<i>A Monograph of the Birdwing Butterflies</i>) is called "prolix, unlovely, curiously stilted". d'Abrera later states that though these authors helped him, they had "thinly disguised malice" against him (perhaps actually a critique against d'Abrera's [[denialism]] about evolution).}}

{{sbs
|1=The Introduction begins with a review of the history of birdwing butterfly discovery and [[taxonomy]]. (pages <i>xiii-xv</i>)
|2=In concluding the review, the author refers to the editors of the original edition of the book (Lansdowne Publishing) as "[[Militant atheism|militant atheists]]" for replacing the text "…humble tribute to their [[God|Creator]]" with "…humble tribute to these insects". (page <i>xv</i>)}}

{{sbs
|1=d'Abrera states that "<i>Ornithoptera</i>, <i>Trogonoptera</i> and <i>Troides</i> are natural units" (and correspond with the genera). (page <i>xv</i>)
|2=This is widely recognized. }}

{{sbs
|1=Continuing the Introduction, d'Abrera begins to spell out his objections to modern taxonomy. (pages <i>xv-xix</i>) 
|2=He objects to "speculative theories", "[[Richard Lenski#Lenski's long-term E. Coli evolution experiment and intelligent design|lack of experimental proof of theories of the evolutionary descent of living creatures]]", and "[[Young Earth creationism|specious theories of vast geological age]]". (page <i>xv</i>)}}

{{sbs
|1=d'Abrera then launches into an attack on evolution (given in more detail in his book <i>The Concise Atlas of Butterflies of the World</i>). "Evolution is an anti-science." "Creation requires a creator" (seemingly an unacknowledged nod to [[Ray Comfort]]), "[[Answers in Genesis Dawkins interview controversy|a frog can never turn into a handsome prince]]…" (seemingly a reference to the [[Answers in Genesis]] [[propaganda]] film on [[Richard Dawkins]]). 
|2=Bizarrely, he refers to the "[[metaphysics]] of cause and effect", seemingly a flat-out admission to being a [[Denialism|denialist]]. His main argument against evolution is that its proponents are [[Humanism|humanistic]] and godless ("'<i>Non serviam</i>' is their battle-cry."), essentially an [[Argumentum ad hominem]]. (page <i>xvi</i>)}}

{{sbs
|1=d'Abrera next sets out "some philosopho-scientific definitions". (pages <i>xvii-xviii</i>), starting with "The Species". He defines the species as "both primordial and terminal", and summarizes his view as the "Aristotelian Law of Typology (='like begets like'.)" (page <i>xvii</i>) 
|2=Here he distances himself entirely from his [[A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism|co-creationists]] and rejects the concept of the [[Baraminology|baramin]], and here he also rejects evolution again.}}

{{sbs
|1= Concluding his philosophy on what is a species, he states "Therefore, a species… successfully mate with other species to produce fertile offspring, because locked into its genome is its singular and strictly limited capacity to reproduce only its own kind…" (page <i>xvii</i>)
|2=This statement is at odds with reality, even within his narrow field of butterflies. It has been widely accepted and known since the 1870s that related species can naturally form an interbreeding [[Ring species|mimicry ring]].<ref>[http://www.learnaboutbutterflies.com/Survival%20Strategies%204.htm Mimicry Rings in "Learn About Butterflies"]</ref>}}

{{sbs
|1=d'Abrera next rejects the name "subspecies" (because as he insisted earlier, "species is the terminal taxon"), instead insisting on the term "race" to mean a temporally isolated subpopulation that has irretrievably lost some genes.
|2=This is not how taxonomists define subspecies; it is generally defined as sub-populations of the same species with distinctive features and the capability of interbreeding, but that do not usually do so.}}

{{sbs
|1=Concluding the introduction (pages <i>xviii-xix</i>), d'Abrera attempts to critique a journal article by Kiyotaro Kondo <i>et al.</i><ref>Molecular systematics of birdwing butterflies (Papilionidae) inferred from mitochondrial ND5 gene by Kiyotaro Kondo, Tsutomu Shinkaw and Hirotaka Matsuka (<i>Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society</i> 57:17-24, 2003)</ref> d'Abrera's contention is that there is no genetic relationship between species that is higher than genus-level; Kondo <i>et al.</i> attempted to show the relationships of the three birdwing genera within the tribe Troidini and within the larger family of Papilionidae. d'Abrera attempts to start his critique by paraphrasing [[Karl Popper]], "evolutionary theory was only a pseudo-science, because it was incapable of encompassing testable hypotheses."
|2=d'Abrera misinterprets Popper and is likely referring to co-creationist [[Duane Gish]] without attribution, who similarly misunderstood Popper.<ref>[http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/what-did-karl-popper-really-say-evolution What Did Karl Popper Really Say About Evolution?]]</ref> Oddly, d'Abrera supports only species- and genus-level categorizations of life forms yet rejects baraminology and states that species have existed since the Creation. He supports the original, pre-evolutionary [[Linnaean taxonomy]] and no further. Why should there be any genus-level classification if there is no [[Phylogeny|phylogenetic]] relationship between species, as he asserts?}}

{{sbs
|1=Continuing in his critique, d'Abrera states that Kondo <i>et al.</i> are objectively correct with regard to their measurement of genetic distances between species, but that they are still wrong because "they have demonstrated nothing more than the numerical expression of unbridgeable genetic difference…"
|2=d'Abrera states that species are immutable and that evolution cannot be true even if genetic analysis indicates otherwise.}}

{{sbs
|1=d'Abrera then quotes [[Maciej Giertych]]. Giertych is a co-signer of [[A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism]], a signer of the [[CMI list of scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation|CMI]], [[Antisemitism|anti-semite]], a dendrologist, and geneticist. Giertych stated, "…Molecular genetics generally confirms the accuracy of taxonomy. But at the same time, it does not confirm postulated evolutionary sequences. There are no progressive changes say from fishes to amphibians to reptiles to mammals. Molecular genetics confirms systematics not phylogeny." (pages <i>xiii-xix</i>)
|2=We have another denial of evolution, this time by way of the [[missing link]] canard.}}

{{sbs
|1="Like most modern evolutionists, they are either ignorant of, or refuse to accept what is now being demonstrated in certain laboratories about sedimentology, and the difference between 'layers' and 'strata'. (p. <i>xix</i>) 
|2=No citation is given for this unfounded statement. Perhaps it was the research performed at [[Dinosaur Adventure Land]]?}}

{{sbs
|1="Perhaps it is time to draw the reader's attention to the work of Professor Guy Berthault, the prominent sedimentologist… [who] has experimentally demonstrated the exact mechanisms of sedimentation, and proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that successive geological 'strata' are in no way indicators of geological age." 
|2=So, the "laboratories" mentioned previously are just the work of one 
[[geologist]]
 [[Young earth creationist]]. Berthault rejects the broad consensus of geologists (and even the 1669 foundational publication by Nicolas Steno<ref><i>De Solido Intra Solidium Naturaliter Contento Dissertationis Prodromus</i></ref>) that geologic strata are laid down temporally.<ref>[http://www.evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm "The Curious Case of the One-Man Band. The work of Guy Berthault: Revolutionary Geology or Extravagant Hubris?" by Alec MacAndrew]</ref><ref>[http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/berthault_is_yec_henke.htm "If Dr. Berthault is Not a Creationist, Why Do His Supporters Say Otherwise?" by Kevin R. Henke]</ref>}}

{{sbs
|1=Drawing to a close of the tendentious introduction, d'Abrera states, "Francesco Redi (1626-1697) has already shown infallibly, that it is impossible to produce life from non-life (='chemical evolution'), but that axiom is precisely what papers such as the one by Kondo <i>et al.</i> are trying to un-prove." (page <i>xix</i>)
|2={{wpl|Francesco Redi}} did not, in fact, prove that chemical evolution is impossible; he merely showed that [[Abiogenesis#Creationists and abiogenesis|flies originate from maggots]].}}

{{sbs
|1=Text and photographs on individual butterfly species on the pages that follow the introduction. (<i>1-313</i>)
|2=The text is frequently peppered with anti-evolutionary [[bullshit|"flapdoodle"]] (e.g., "In simple terms, what is scientifically demonstrable is that when God created what we call <i>O. richmondia</i>, He created it specifically distinct in all its stages from those of its congeners." [[Goddidit]], pages <i>93-94</i>), retractions of evolution-oriented "claptrap" that d'Abrera wrote in the previous edition, and claims of being libeled, slighted, and insulted by other lepidopterists. d'Abrera could have confined his creationist self-delusions to the book's front matter and left the species descriptions dispassionate and science-oriented. Instead, the creationist appeals to Goddidit are almost inescapable. The frequent mentions of personal attacks against him by lepidopterists cause one to wonder just how [[Paranoia|paranoid]] he is.}}

==Hill House==
Since d'Abrera's demise, Hill House Publishers has gone belly up, with its web domain purchased sometime in 2018 or 2019.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20180501000000*/http://www.hillhouse-publishers.com/ Hill House Publishers] (archived copies)</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:D'Abrera, Bernard}}
{{crebox}}
{{Down Under}}
[[Category:Australians]]
[[Category:Christians]]
[[Category:Creationists]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience promoters]]
[[Category:Side-by-side articles]]

Categories: Australians, Christians, Creationists, Pseudoscience promoters, Side-by-side articles