Creationist Wisdom #183: Several Oldies

Today we have an article written by one of those people who expounds authoritatively on every area of human knowledge. This impressive individual is Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D. We found his article at a website called NewsWithViews. It’s titled THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION, PART 1, which hints that there may be more to come from this source.

Okay, who is Cuddy, and what’s his doctorate is all about? At the end of the article we’re told:

Dennis Laurence Cuddy, historian and political analyst, received a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (major in American History, minor in political science). Dr. Cuddy has taught at the university level, has been a political and economic risk analyst for an international consulting firm, and has been a Senior Associate with the U.S. Department of Education.

Fine. Cuddy has been a busy boy, but he has no background in science. Knowing that will help to understand his article. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

The public has been told for many years that evolution is a scientific fact.


Evolution is supposed to have begun by chance, but the statistical odds against one protein molecule forming by chance would be 100160 to one against that happening. Moreover, Cambridge University’s Sir Fred Hoyle (originator of the Steady-State Theory of the Universe) has remarked: “The notion that not only biopolymers but the operation programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.” Dr. Paul LeMoine, who was an editor of L’Encyclopedie Francais, has concluded that “evolution is a fairy tale for adults.”

There are many goodies in that paragraph, all of them nonsense debunked long ago. The mere mention of creationist astronomer Fred Hoyle in this context is sufficient to discredit Cuddy’s entire body of work. Aside from Hoyle, the most amusing clunker in that paragraph is Cuddy’s attempt at expressing the “odds” argument. Even assuming that the website left his intended exponent un-formatted, what crazy number was he trying to write? Was it 100160? Maybe 100160? Who knows? It’s fairly certain that Cuddy himself doesn’t know. Our oft-repeated response to that is in Common Creationist Claims Confuted.

Let’s read on:

There is simply no evidence that simple forms of life developed from dead matter, or that complex forms of life developed from simple forms. … The scientific fact of the matter is that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which says natural processes always tend toward disorder, and the simple will never produce the more complex.

We won’t waste time with that. Cuddy’s brilliant article continues:

Another problem evolutionists face is that the fossil record does not provide us with transitional forms of life, which must be evidenced if life has evolved slowly supposedly over tens of millions of years (Darwinian evolution).

Wow! Here’s more:

Colin Patterson, Curator of the British Museum of Natural History (which has perhaps the greatest collection of fossils in the world), who admitted there is no scientific evidence of transitional life forms.

It’s been a while since we’ve seen the Patterson canard deployed. Patterson himself has rebutted it (see this at Talk.Origins: Patterson Misquoted).

The rest of Cuddy’s article is a long quote, allegedly from Patterson, and that’s where it ends. Cuddy’s effort is rather pathetic, but that’s quite understandable. The man’s a creationist. As a service to him, we’ll offer a few more goodies he may find useful in his intellectual career:

The check’s in the mail. I’ll respect you in the morning. I did not have sexual relations with that woman. Read my lips, no new taxes. The Sudetenland is my last territorial demand in Europe. I know nothing about the Watergate break-in. The dog ate my homework.

Copyright © 2011. 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 #183: Several Oldies

  1. cnocspeireag

    I see he’s had to post on his own website. Presumably such as World Nut Daily wouldn’t accept such low level dreck. Even WND must have some standards if you scrape low enough.

  2. Tim Norfolk

    Mentioning that Fred Hoyle originated the ‘Steady-State’ model also makes for a problem, as this has been shown to be wrong as well.

  3. Just watch a fertilized frog egg (zygote) develop into a tadpole, then a creature with 2 legs and a tail, then 4 legs and a tail, then without the tail. Evolution marches forward in triumph.

  4. Tim Norfolk says:

    Mentioning that Fred Hoyle originated the ‘Steady-State’ model also makes for a problem, as this has been shown to be wrong as well.

    Yes, but it made sense at the time it was proposed. It was a serious idea until the cosmic background radiation was discovered. I don’t hold that one against him.

  5. Sometimes it feels quite sad that such an supposedly educated person could be so stupid and sloppy (or disgustingly dishonest, and I rather do consider that). Funny though that he presented Hoyle’s credentials with a failure: steady state theory of the universe? Well, then he was wrong on two things. That and whatever he thought about the origin of life.