We all know that Vestiagial biological features — a few of which retain some minimal function — are what we would expect from evolution, but they have no place in the world of the Discovery Institute.
Hard-core biblical creationists can always blame biological imperfections on Adam & Eve, but for litigation purposes, the Discoveroids claim that they’re not creationists, so don’t have that convenient loophole. They have to argue that their intelligent designer — blessed be he! — wouldn’t leave obsolete scraps and debris lying around from his other productions, so they usually avoid the subject. But they once attempted to grapple with the problem — see Discovery Institute Justifies Vestigial Organs, where they say: “Just because we don’t know something’s function doesn’t mean there isn’t one.”
Today they’re taking another whack at it. The latest post at their creationist blog is Theology in Biology Class: Vestigial Structures as Evidence for Evolution. It was written by Sarah Chaffee, whom we call “Savvy Sarah.” Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:
I was recently reading over the Louisiana science standards, adopted this past March. Those standards include the Louisiana Science Education Act. They contain a provision asking students to “Analyze and interpret scientific information that common ancestry and biological evolution are supported by multiple lines of empirical evidence.”
The Louisiana Science Education Act is based on the Discoveroids’ model statute, and it’s designed to permit creationism in public school science classes. The last time we wrote about that backward state’s science standards was six months ago — see Louisiana’s Science Standards — 07 March Update.
Savvy Sarah quotes a portion of the Louisiana standards she doesn’t like:
Emphasis is on a conceptual understanding of the role each line of evidence (e.g., similarities in DNA sequences, order of appearance of structure during embryological development, cladograms, homologous and vestigial structures, fossil records) demonstrates as related to common ancestry and biological evolution.
Gasp — they mention vestigial structures! Savvy Sarah says:
… I would like to highlight the issue of vestigial structures. Arguments for vestigial organs, as presented by Darwin, are metaphysical in nature.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! She quotes Discoveroid Jonathan Wells who claims that a “less than perfectly designed” argument is based on a theological assumption about the nature of God, i.e., that he would not create useless structures. “Whatever the validity of this theological claim, it certainly cannot be defended as a scientific statement, and thus should be given no place in a scientific discussion of evolution.”
Did you follow that? The clear and obvious presence of vestigial organs as an argument for evolution is a “theological assumption.” The Discoveroids would never be guilty of anything like that! Having made her point, Savvy Sarah tells us:
Logically, to prove a negative in this case — an absence, or a decrease, or loss of something like function — is fraught with difficulty. Hence the reliance on theological speculation, which is out of place in science. Yet the Louisiana science standards ask teachers to wade into this metaphysically laden topic. In fact, science standards in North Dakota and Utah also mention vestigial structures. There may be other states that do the same.
Egad — the “theological” subject of vestigiality is everywhere! The Darwinists are relying on religion! She tells us:
One of the nation’s most prominent high school biology textbooks, by Kenneth Miller and Joseph Levine, talks about vestigiality.
Foolish scientists! She concludes her post with this:
Biology class is not the place for metaphysics, or theology. This is a problem, and it needs to be fixed.
Ah yes. If the kiddies in Louisiana are protected from learning about theological nonsense like vestigial organs, they’ll have a much better understanding of biology.
Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.