This one is a bit of a stretch, even for the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute‘s creationist public relations and lobbying operation, the Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids, a/k/a the cdesign proponentsists).
This has just appeared at the Discoveroids’ blog: The Osama/”Junk DNA” Connection. It’s by David Klinghoffer, a Discoveroid “senior fellow” (i.e., flaming, full-blown creationist). We won’t bother reciting Klinghoffer’s scholarly creationist oeuvre, but you can check it out in this recent post.
In his latest stunner, Klinghoffer manages to skillfully tie together the recent death of Osama bin Laden and the Discoveroids’ bizarre claim that There’s No Such Thing as Junk DNA. We’ll get to bin Laden in a minute, but first, dear reader, it’s vital for you to understand that there can’t be any junk DNA, because the existence of debris in the genome offends the Discoveroids’ concept of an all-wise Designer — blessed be he!
The Discoveroids have leaped upon recent research (not conducted by them, of course) showing that some tiny segments of previously unexplored DNA have some function. From there they’ve leaped to the wild conclusion that there isn’t any junk DNA, which “proves” that the handiwork of the Designer is perfect and free of flaws. Not only are they no kin to no monkey, but they ain’t got no junk DNA either.
Where does Osama bin Laden fit into this “no junk DNA” fantasy? Stay with us, you’ll see. Here are some excerpts from Klinghoffer’s brilliant essay, with bold font added by us:
How do you think OBL’s body was identified? By a comparison with his sister’s DNA, evidently those non-coding regions singled out by Darwin defenders, among the pantheon of other mythological evolutionary icons, as functionless “junk.” Indeed, the myth has featured in news coverage of Osama’s death.
We’ll skip Klinghoffer’s quotes from news sources. Essentially, they say that some junk sequences of bin Laden’s DNA were compared with his sister’s DNA, thus proving that they’re related. Let’s read on:
Readers of this space … will know how thoroughly the myth [of junk DNA] has already being debunked in peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Yes, we all know how well the “myth” has been debunked. All that was required to do that debunking was a couple of Discoveroid posts by Casey. Then — like magic — there was no more junk DNA. (Except that there is, and lots of it.) Klinghoffer continues:
If Darwin is right, there ought to be huge swaths of ancestral garbage cluttering the genome, serving no purpose other than to identify otherwise unidentified forensic remains. So if those huge swaths turn out after all to be vitally important to the functioning organism, what does that say about Darwin’s theory?
We’ll deal with that “crisis” if it should ever arise, which it won’t. We predict, however, that even if every atom in our genome were 100% essential (which doesn’t seem even remotely probable) it wouldn’t do a thing to Darwin’s theory. We can still use DNA to trace our evolutionary ancestry.
Here’s Klinghoffer’s powerful conclusion:
Let’s see how many Darwin lobbyists have the guts and honesty to acknowledge that another icon has fallen. They have not, on the whole, left themselves a lot of room for deniability on this.
M’god — he thinks he’s got us cornered! It’s quite amazing what the demise of Osama bin Laden means to a Discoveroid. Well, let’s be fair here. Klinghoffer’s ostensible point (a cover for his “no junk DNA” mantra) is that the media are misleading the public by still claiming that junk DNA exists. But we know what he’s really thinking.
In your humble Curmudgeon’s opinion, the boys in Seattle would have more credibility (they have zero now) if they claimed bin Laden’s death was faked as part of a Darwinist plot. There’s no junk in our genome, so that comparison of “junk DNA” with bin Laden’s sister was worthless! Hey, Klinghoffer, play it smart — demand the death certificate!
Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.