Creationist Wisdom — Example 60

YOUR Curmudgeon has once again visited the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — truly the fountainhead of creationist wisdom. Check out this new article at their website: Why Are There Still Tuataras? Here are some excerpts, with bold font was added by us:

The evolutionary story is one of constant change. It proposes that simpler life forms evolved into complicated organisms whose offspring branched out in ever more diverse directions. But the modern forms of some creatures are so similar to their ancestors’ fossils that it is clear they haven’t changed much at all. If some species diversified, why didn’t others?

Ooooooooh! There’s supposed to be “constant change.” Darwin’s in trouble now! Let’s read on:

In a recent study, Michael Alfaro and colleagues took a close look at groups of animals that “diverged” over the course of “geologic time,” compared to those animals that stayed the same. His team analyzed diversity among animal groups through the fossil record, publishing their research online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Oooooooh! They’re talking about a real science article, so what they say about it must be true! Hey, you like those quotes around “geologic time”? We continue:

After a few hundred million years of evolutionary existence, some kind of changes should be found. In fact, after all that time, there ought to be a record of dramatic, sequential changes to the tuatara form if natural selection of beneficial mutations were actually responsible for generating the diversity of life observed on earth.

Yeah — why are there still tuataras? And sharks? And cockroaches? And monkeys! What’s going on here? The professors are lying to us!

Let’s pause briefly, dear reader, to take a rationality break. Wikipedia says this about the Tuatara:

Tuatara have been referred to as living fossils, which means their group retains many basal characteristics from around the time of the squamate – rhynchocephalian split (220 MYA). However, taxonomic work on Sphenodontia has shown that this group has undergone a variety of changes throughout the Mesozoic, and a recent molecular study showed that their rate of molecular evolution is faster than of any other animal so far examined.

Okay, rationality break is over. Back to ICR:

The accepted evolutionary scenario for biodiversity is unraveling. One alternative explanation without such contradictory baggage is that macroevolution was not, in fact, responsible for generating new animal kinds. Rather, each kind of animal was intentionally created with the potential for limited variation in response to environmental pressures.

The evolutionary scenario is unraveling! Isn’t that wonderful? And now we come to the end of the ICR article:

Tuataras look the same today as their fossilized predecessors, not because some unknown natural magic force preserved their body form for hundreds of millions years, but because they were created a few thousand years ago as representatives of a distinct kind.

Rejoice! There is no “unknown natural magic force” — so that leaves only the known natural magic force. All clear now?

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

5 responses to “Creationist Wisdom — Example 60

  1. “macroevolution was not, in fact, responsible for generating new animal kinds. Rather, each kind of animal was intentionally created with the potential for limited variation in response to environmental pressures”

    Non sequitor.

    “Tuataras look the same today as their fossilized predecessors, not because some unknown natural magic force preserved their body form for hundreds of millions years, but because they were created a few thousand years ago as representatives of a distinct kind.”

    Ignorant.

  2. LRA, you have a limited worldview.

  3. Yes. I limit my worldview to facts and evidence– not to magical thinking.

    😛

  4. Natural magic as opposed to what, the unnatural magic of an invisible, all powerful, all knowing Fir Darrig?

    I love the way they try to twist the logic (and mutilate definitions) so that their imaginary friend isn’t magical but natural forces are. Who’d a thunk?

  5. What’s so special about the Tuatara ? According to Creationist logic, it is 6,000 years old, like every other animal. Just another lizard-like critter.