THE first time we discussed an article appearing in Pravda by Babu G. Ranganathan, a graduate of Bob Jones University, was here: Pravda Promotes Intelligent Design. With that, and this later post: Darwinius Masillae, Pravda, & the Discovery Institute, two things became clear:
First, the Pravda website is a new entity, but it’s run by former Pravda newspaper employees from back when the original Pravda was the leading newspaper of the Soviet Union and an official organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party; and
Second, the Pravda website vigorously supports Intelligent Design (ID), so it’s clear that at least on the subject of evolution, Pravda and the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids) are intellectual comrades.
We then made the ideological connection between Pravda and the Discoveroids even more explicit here: Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Pravda.
We find it curious that the Discoveroids are always posturing themselves, not only as scientists, but also as conservatives. Their scientific standing is dubious, and it’s becoming increasingly clear that they may not be conservatives either. We say this because their anti-Enlightenment mode of thought, their peculiar style of argument, and specifically what they say about evolution — these seem to be echoed in the online pages of Pravda.
For an additional example of this curious linkage, check out yet another creationist article in Pravda. This one is titled Many atheists thrive on ignorance, also by Babu G. Ranganathan. It’s very long, so we’ll give you only a few excerpts, with bold font added by us. Here’s how it begins:
Many atheists have very little understanding of science, DNA, and biology. They only have very superficial knowledge of these scientific subjects. Their ignorance of how nature works allows them blissful freedom to believe all sorts of fairy tales.
As mankind has discovered and understood more about nature, particularly DNA, the more ridiculous and childish does atheism appear.
We’re not interested in discussing atheism, although it’s certainly odd that all the creationists seem to claim that science is allied with, or often leads to atheism, while Babu’s lead paragraphs claim that atheists are ignorant of science and believe in fairy tales. Well, let’s read on:
If anything is old and discredited it is most certainly the old, re-cycled arguments used to support Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory. Darwin was only right about natural selection and micro-evolution, but not about macro-evolution.
Right. See: Micro Macro, Tutti Frutti. We continue:
Some have concluded that everything is possible. Just give it enough time, they say. That no matter how great the odds are, life can simply evolve if given enough time. Yet, these same people wouldn’t dare believe that the energy from a tornado going through a junkyard will assemble a 747 Jumbo Jet even if given billions of years.
It’s amazing. We go all the way to Pravda, but we find the same old comic-book arguments in favor of creationism. Here’s more:
The creation/evolution issue really begins with the origin of life. So, let’s start there. We will not bother discussing the issue of time and the age of the earth and universe. Many do not realize the assumptions involved and the circular reasoning used by evolutionists in their various dating methods. That is another story. So, let’s begin with the origin of life issue.
Sorry, Babu, we’re going to skip that. It’s unworthy of our time. Moving along:
Natural selection is just another tern [sic] for survival of the fittest. But, survival of the fittest is exactly what makes Darwinian macro-evolution impossible. How can a partially evolved species be fit for survival? A partially evolved trait or organ that is not completely one or the other will be a liability to a species, not a survival asset.
For rebuttal, we’ll post the same picture we used in one of our earlier articles on Babu’s writing:
Even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living matter it will only be through intelligent design or planning so it still wouldn’t help support any theory of life originating by chance or evolution.
They’re already getting their talking points ready for that one. Of course, when life actually does get created in the lab — which seems likely within the next 20 years or so, it will be striking evidence that it’s a non-miraculous process. On with Babu’s essay:
The best little article ever written refuting the origin of life by chance is “A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible” by scientist and biochemist Dr. Duane T. Gish.
Yeah, Duane Gish. And now we come to the end of the Pravda article:
All of this simply means that real science supports faith in an intelligent Designer behind the origin of life and the universe. It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory. Science cannot prove that we’re here by either chance or design. Both require faith. Where will you place your faith?
So there you are. Your Curmudgeon has once again enriched your intellectual universe. You now have two impressive choices from which to receive creationist talking points. Which do you prefer — the Discoveroids or Pravda? Hey, why not go with both? They seem pretty much the same.
Update: See Babu and Pravda: Creationism’s Missing Link.
Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.