Creationist Wisdom #198: Cliché Carnival

We have a repeat letter-writer today. This guy was responsible for #194: Mysterious Spinner. Like that letter, this one appears in the Winona Daily News of Winona, Minnesota. That newspaper discourages copying their material, so we won’t give you very much. You’ll have to click over there to enjoy the whole thing. It’s Darwinian policies have proven dangerous.

This fellow appears to be on a crusade to cram every creationist cliché that ever existed into his letters. It’s so incredibly bad that we’re starting to suspect it’s a college student trying to show his buddies how much trash he can get the local paper to publish. We doubt that anyone could actually be this far over the edge. But we could be wrong.

Brace yourself for a letter that is loaded with creationist goodies. We can only give you a hint of the wonders to be found when you read his letter for yourself. Okay, let’s get started. As you know, the bold font was added by us. He begins with racism:

The often-deleted subtitle of “On the Origin of Species” — “The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life” — speaks for itself.

You’ve seen that stupidity before. We debunked it in: Common Creationist Claims Confuted (hereinafter “CCCC”). Let’s read on:

[T]he last century, the bloodiest in history, was brought about by Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Mao Tse Tung implementing Darwinian policies.

More creationist rubbish. See Hitler and Darwin. We continue:

If it [macro evolution] were true, all living things would be transitional forms, and delineation between species would be a blur. Transitional forms are called missing links for a good reason.

We’ve discussed the “micro-macro” fallacy in CCCC. As for transitional forms, those that have been located aren’t “missing links” — they’ve even got names. See List of transitional fossils. Regarding the blur between related species, yes — when the intermediates aren’t extinct, that’s precisely what we see (Ring species). Here’s one more excerpt:

Kent Hovind has a standing offer of $250,000 for anyone who can offer any scientific proof of macro evolution. There have been no takers.

Kent Hovind? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Hey, great letter! Keep ’em coming!

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

21 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #198: Cliché Carnival

  1. Hovind’s offer wasn’t worth spit even before he was in the Federal pokey:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html

  2. John Pieret says: “Hovind’s offer wasn’t worth spit ”

    I remember his offer. He made all the rules, and to win you have to prove evolution to his satisfaction.

  3. Hovind made a much more amusing offer at the time of his sentencing: “If it’s just money the IRS wants, there are thousands of people out there who will help pay the money they want so I can go back out there and preach!” The court ultimately declined Kent’s magnanimous offer of his list of suckers to pay for his misdeeds. Since then, his offers have consisted of variations of: “Please don’t hurt me and I’ll clean your cell.” I also hear he tosses a mean salad.

  4. magpie61 says:

    Hovind made a much more amusing offer at the time of his sentencing:

    Hovind is very interesting because he’s an example of the intersection of two different denial communities. Besides the science deniers, there’s an equally fanatical community of “tax protestors.” They have gurus, books, seminars, etc., and all kinds of dogmas that are constantly slammed in court: Federal reserve notes aren’t money, only gold and silver can be income, the income tax amendment is unconstitutional, etc. Pointing out loads of convictions for others who follow their schemes is no deterrent, because they’re all true believers.

    Unlike creationists, one can sympathize with those people (no one likes paying taxes), but their denial mechanisms are quite similar to those of creationists.

  5. Retired Prof

    A major implication of evolutionary theory is that all life forms actually are transitional and boundaries between species are blurred. In fact, taxonomists ever since Linnaeus have been arguing over where, exactly, to draw the lines.

  6. Retired Prof says:

    A major implication of evolutionary theory is that all life forms actually are transitional and boundaries between species are blurred.

    Right. But then the creationists start to do the micro-macro mambo.

  7. How could you forget “by means of natural selection”?

  8. “I also hear he tosses a mean salad.”

    BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  9. All that “BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!” over the socalled “micro-macro mambo” cannot conceal a fundamental problem in evolutionary theory: it throws all random changes in nucleotide codes (DNA) on one heap, although completely different mechanisms are at work. Evolutionary theory therefore needs articulation.
    The article “The Evolutionary Dynamics of Digital and Nucleotide Codes: A Mutation Protection Perspective” in the peer-reviewed Open Evolution Journal, Vol.5, 1-4, Feb. 2011, at http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toevolj/articles/V005/1TOEVOLJ.pdf ) is of interest for everyone who aggrees that the articulation of theory is core business of every respectable branch of science.

    The article:
    a) refers to the basic biological fact that the change of the beaks of Darwin finches is caused by the mechanism of recombination and selection of gene variants (‘alleles’), whereby the length of the nucleotide code does not change; therefore, the change of the beaks cannot be used as proof that bacteria can change into humans;
    b) reveals that random processes cannot expand the length of digital codes and nucleotide codes (DNA) ever further, as they are both protected against mutations;
    c) proves that evolutionary theory needs articulation by distinguishing random change of nucleotide codes whereby their length does not increase (‘first-order evolution’) from random change whereby the length of the nucleotide code increases ever further (‘second-order evolution’). The first kind of random change is as normal and omnipresent as gravity; the second kind of random change appears the cause of cancer and hereditary diseases.

  10. Anonymous says:

    random processes cannot expand the length of digital codes and nucleotide codes (DNA) ever further

    Uh huh. So you’re inviting us to the micro-macro mambo. Thanks, but I’m not in the mood. Besides, I blogged about your article a few months a go: ICR: Evolution’s Biggest Problem. Nice try.

  11. [Anonymous] random processes cannot expand the length of digital codes and nucleotide codes (DNA) ever further…

    So, you believe God was needed to give one variety of
    onion
    31pg of genetic material when other varieties get by just fine with 7pg?

    [From original article] the bloodiest [century] in history…

    Interesting side topic. There’s more people now than ever before, so measured in pints, this is probably true – of course if you measure in pints, then as long as the population keeps going up, every new century will be the bloodiest. Duh. OTOH, the human population was low for hundreds of thousands of years, then exploded in the last 10,000 or so. Which would seem to indicate a lot less death per capita in the civilized age(s). I.e. lower growth = fewer people surviving to have kids. Of course thinking about the fact that the 20th century was more peaceful than most of the stone age is a pretty scary thought.

  12. Anonymous: you’re just wrong… please consult some basic biology texts to correct your ignorance. you are confusing different mechanisms. new material can and does get included in the genome (see recent developments of nylon eating bacteria). I’m not even going into the rest of your nonsense.

  13. Anonymous clearly has reading comprehension issues, seein’ as how I was laughing at the “tossing salad” quip of our esteemed Magpie.

  14. Unless, of course, the comment was directed at Curmie and not at all at me…

    LOL!!!

  15. LRA says:

    Unless, of course, the comment was directed at Curmie and not at all at me…

    I’ll be a gentleman and take insults aimed at you upon myself.

  16. [TJW: …please consult some basic biology texts to correct your ignorance]

    The debate of the evolutionary dynamics of nucleotide codes (DNA) and the “micro-macro mambo” in particular, is usually conducted in happy ignorance of the following basic biological facts, as referred to in the article “The Evolutionary Dynamics of Digital and Nucleotide Codes: A Mutation Protection Perspective” in the peer-reviewed Open Evolution Journal, Vol.5, 1-4, Feb. 2011, at http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toevolj/articles/V005/1TOEVOLJ.pdf
    1. The natural decay of nucleotide codes is antagonized by a large repertoire of mutation repair systems (article, p.1, column-2, section-2).
    2. Hereditary diseases and cancer are caused by irreparable mutations of the DNA (article, p.1, column-2, section-2): COSMIC, Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer op http://www.sanger.ac.uk/genetics/CGP/cosmic/ .
    3. Change of the beaks of finches is caused by the mechanism of recombination and selection of gene-variants/’alleles’ (article, p.2, column-2, top of section-1). Because this mechanism does not expand the length of the DNA, it cannot transform bacteria into humans.
    4. When producing sex cells, the alleles of the father of an organism are compared with that of the mother; if they are not of exactly the same length, the production is aborted (article, p.2, column-2, end of section-1). Sexual reproduction thus antagonizes the inheriting of code-expanding mutations, unless the mutation protection dysfunctions, resulting in Syndrome of Down-like aberration and selective disadvantage. As a consequence, apes cannot change into humans, even when waiting a very long time.

    Organisms and populations with dysfunctioning mutation repair, suffer from cancer and hereditary diseases resulting in selective disadvantage in the struggle for food, shelter and a partner, which is not counterbalanced by possibly advantageous mutations in future generations. According to Darwin, these organisms and populations will loose the struggle for survival with organisms and populations equipped by well-functioning mutation protection. Sometimes copy errors are not repaired resulting in gene-multiplication, but this multiplication does not produce new functionalities and represents a selective disadvantage because reproduction of the multiplied DNA requires more time, energy, and resources than reproducing the original DNA. According to Darwin, organisms and populations with multiplied DNA will ultimately lose the struggle for survival with sister-organisms and populations with the original DNA and well-functioning mutation protection.

    In any branch of science a theory is divided in sub-theories when fundamentally different mechanisms play a role in the phenomenon of interest. In the random change of the DNA fundamentally different mechanisms play a role (the article, final sentences). Evolutionary theory will therefore inevitable be divided in (1) a first-order evolutionary theory that focuses on the mechanisms for random change of the DNA within the boundaries of mutation protection, whereby de length of the DNA does not expand; and (2) a second-order evolutionary theory that focuses on the mechanisms for random change of the DNA beyond the boundaries of mutation protection, whereby de length of the DNA expands. The first-order evolutionary theory can be grounded on a very large basis of empirical evidence. The second-order evolutionary theory misses a basis of empirical evidence, and needs a testable answer to the question how a mechanism that causes cancer and hereditary diseases can transform bacteria into humans. (See also: Contradiction in Evolutionary Theory at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzh6Ct5cg1o The answer “a god or a pink elephant has created the DNA” is untestable and therefore not falsifiable and thus unscientific: it is a belief. As long as no testable answer has been found to explain the existence of the DNA, the answer “We do not know (yet)” will be sufficient. This position is completely normal in any branch of science, and is the driving force for scientific progress.

  17. William quotes TJW who said: “please consult some basic biology texts to correct your ignorance”

    Words to live by. We don’t do the “micro-macro mambo” here. Please don’t post any more of your creationist “research” here. A venue like ICR would be much more receptive.

  18. Eric the last 10,000 years has seen man over come life’s 2 biggest obstacles to them at the start of this era. dying through nature and working yourself to death (mostly, but not totally defeated) . Therefore, wise old man has stepped in to help kill off man in unprecedented numbers and I pretty sure that is what the blood is referring too.

  19. thanks, Curm. Anyone who cites youtube as a site of information on evolution’s downfalls clearly does not understand real science.

  20. Sensuous Curmudgeonists claim to conserve the Enlightenment values of reason, liberty, science, and free enterprise, but keep their eyes closed for basic scientific facts on the mutation protection of the DNA and on the fundamentally different mechanisms that are at work in the random change of the DNA. [see my post of August 16, and the peer-reviewed article it refers to http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toevolj/articles/V005/1TOEVOLJ.pdf ] Articulation of theory is core business of any respectable branch of science, and theories are divided into subtheories when fundamentally different mechanisms appear at work, as the article proves. But for Sensuous Curmudgeonists, articulating evolutionary theory is absolutely nonsense and ridiculous (“We don’t do the ‘micro-macro mambo’ here”). When evolutionary theory is subjected to the academic standards for scientific theories (no contradiction with empirical findings and facts, testable and thus falsifiable, internally and externally consistent, and robust to reasoning and argumentation) Sensuous Curmudgeonists start to bark and bash, and sweep unwelcome scientific findings under the table, and turn to the proven approach of the Inquisition of finding a wrong belief or worldview by those who treat evolutionary theory as any other scientific theory. In fact, the enlightened defenders of reason, liberty and science push us back to the Dark Ages. It’s more than sad.