Creationist Reactions to “Darwinius Masillae”

WE have already posted about Darwinius masillae, and apparently so has everyone else in the universe. Given what we know about the large number of transitional fossils which have previously been discovered (see: list of transitional fossils), our opinion is that another one, although delightful, is hardly worth all the fuss the media are making out of it. But while the press is in full frenzy, we thought you’d like to see how the creationists are reacting. This is just the beginning, of course, but it’s probably indicative of what we’ll be seeing.

First, this is something from Rush Limbaugh‘s website: Stack of Stuff for 19 May. Rush’s commentary seems to be based on the genuinely hysterical Sky News report that we mentioned in our earlier post. The bold font was added by us:

Drudge had as a lead item up there this morning on his page a story from the UK, Sky News: “Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution.” It’s all about how Darwin would be thrilled to be alive today. “Scientists have unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a monkey hailed as the missing link in human evolution.” …

So I guess this is settled science. We now officially came from a monkey, 47 million years ago. Well, that’s how it’s being presented here. It’s settled science. You know, this is all BS, as far as I’m concerned.

Rush, the Curmudgeon loves ya, but we fervently wish that you’d stick to politics, which you understand so well. Science just isn’t part of your portfolio.

Here’s more:

Cross species evolution, I don’t think anybody’s ever proven that. They’re going out of their way now to establish evolution as a mechanism for creation, which, of course, you can’t do, but I’m more interested in some other missing link. And that is the missing link between our failing economy and prosperity.

And with that, Rush goes back to familiar territory — where we almost always agree with him — and he ceases to embarrass himself discussing science. We won’t beat up on Rush too much. He’s got a blind spot here, but we think he’s a good guy.

The next item, however, has no redeeming features. It comes from WorldNetDaily, which we have previously described as “one of the worst practitioners of journalism that ever existed, or that ever could exist.” We’ve presented our views rather clearly here: WorldNetDaily — Worthless Creationist Rag!

Here’s their article on Darwinius masillae: Media blitz: ‘We found missing link’. We’ll give you a few excerpts, with bold added by us. First they breeze through a rundown of what the media are saying. Then:

“There is a lot of media hype right now, and the claim is that this is a missing link, this is it: the evidence of evolution,” said Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis.

Quoting Ken Ham on a question of science is like quoting Charles Manson on family values. Let’s read on:

“The reviewers said we don’t know this is a missing link, and they asked the people who wrote [the newspaper reports] to tone it down,” Ham told WND, “and yet we have this media hype claiming this is it, this is the missing link.”

We find ourselves in superficial agreement with Ken Ham on this small point. We continue:

“It’s obviously a lot of media hype to promote an ideology,” Ham told WND. “In the wake of a lot of controversies in creation vs. evolution, evolutionists want to be able to announce they have the ultimate proof. … It’s obviously a ploy to promote a book and a television special and to indoctrinate the public in evolution by making a lot of statements that are way beyond what the scientists themselves wrote.”

Mr. Ham describes tactics of which he himself is a master. But he’s incorrect in this case. The media aren’t promoting something outrageously goofy for ideological purposes, like — for example — Mr. Ham’s creationist museum. Instead, they’re just being their usual silly journalistic selves.

Moving along, we see that WorldNetDaily is consulting yet another creationist for his input:

Dr. Jonathan Wells, author and biologist at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, helped WND take a closer look at the science vs. hype debate

We’ve written about Wells before. See: The Genius of Jonathan Wells. Now that you know something about him, here’s what he says to WorldNetDaily:

When WND asked Dr. Wells if this creature could have traits of both lemurs and apes, the biologist explained that even a combination of the two groups’ anatomy doesn’t necessarily mean that evolution used this animal as a “bridge” to cross from one to other. Similarity in animal traits, he explained, even in a theoretical “missing link,” doesn’t prove evolution.

As with all scientific theories, no single piece of evidence is “proof.” But an accumulation of such evidence is overwhelmingly powerful support for the theory, especially when — as with evolution — there is no evidence that contradicts the theory. Wells should know this. Another excerpt:

“In every case, what you’ve got is a fossil, a dead animal,” Wells explained. “The theory of evolution says we have to have come from ancestors, so scientists go out looking, and then they find this particular animal that fits the theory better than other candidates. But there’s absolutely no way to know – and many Darwinists acknowledge this – whether in fact any other animals evolved from this one or not, much less humans. So the line of ancestry and descent is completely speculative.”

Thus, Wells dismisses the entire fossil record. It doesn’t mean a thing to him. Just a bunch of dead animals. Here’s the final paragraph of the article:

“When you listen to Darwinists, they claim their theory is as well established as gravity,” Wells told WND. “If that were really the case, we wouldn’t be getting these startling announcements that we finally found the proof that we need. There wouldn’t be any controversy. This would be like someone running up and saying, ‘Stop the presses. I just saw another apple fall from the tree; Newton was right!’ In the evolutionists’ own framework, it’s nonsense. It demonstrates their theory is not as well established as they claim.

We didn’t think our contempt for creationism could ever be any greater than it has been, but this WorldNetDaily article has genuinely surprised us by revealing our heretofore hidden depths.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

12 responses to “Creationist Reactions to “Darwinius Masillae”

  1. What?? No Illuminati? This thing was dug up in Germany and they can’t show that it led directly to the Holocaust and New Coke?

    The creos are slipping up. Maybe it’s because of all that persecution.

  2. Amadán says: “What?? No Illuminati?”

    If they teach this blasphemy in school, our children will start behaving like lemurs!

  3. … as opposed to sloths?

    (Glances at teenage son [not] studying for Leaving Certificate Exam, grinds teeth)

  4. Ken Ham and Jonathan Wells? What, was Ray Comfort not available?

  5. I was just looking in at Free Republic, which is essentially a creationist chat site. They have this thread about the new fossil. The 5th comment is a classic:

    Ok, I am not getting this.
    A 47 million year old lemur fossil is the missing link, then why are there still lemurs?

  6. Rush is a “Good Guy” ??

  7. longshadow

    A 47 million year old lemur fossil is the missing link, then why are there still lemurs?

    I’m waiting for this logic to be applied by science deniers in other areas of science, for example, in astronomy, I would expect the Luddites to raise the following interrogative, based on the same logic:

    If the planets came from stars, why are there still stars?

  8. Longie says: “If the planets came from stars, why are there still stars?”

    Let’s get serious. If we want evolution to triumph, we’ll have to exterminate the lemurs. Their continued existence is a big weakness in the theory.

  9. Let’s get serious. If we want evolution to triumph, we’ll have to exterminate the lemurs. Their continued existence is a big weakness in the theory.

    That won’t be easy. Freakin’ Zoboomafoo.

  10. So FR is still frothing at the mouth? Guess that’ll teach ’em to boot out the brains.

    Don’t the creatards understand that the lemurs that exist today are devolved creatards, who are on their way to extinction.

  11. So let me get the creationist mindset right here. If an archeologist unearths a house from a few millennium ago, proclaims it part of an ancient village because of an ancient temple found nearby, they claim it to be false because an old book says otherwise.

    Then after unearthing more houses and buildings and filling out the roadplan of the settlement, the creationist claims that as proof that the settlement theory is bogus because the archeologist has unearthed more evidence to complete the picture?

    Wow, if nothing else, they’re definitely audacious when they lie. It doesn’t help though that the media continues to use “missing link” to describe links that are no longer missing.

  12. Valor Phoenix says: “Wow, if nothing else, they’re definitely audacious when they lie.”

    As it is in politics. No lie is too fantastic for the true believers.