WorldNetDaily: Evolution is Finally Doomed

Buffoon Award

Today we bring you some vital science news from WorldNetDaily (WND). As you know, WND is the flamingly creationist, absolutely execrable, moronic, and incurably crazed journalistic organ that believes in and enthusiastically promotes every conspiracy theory that ever existed. WND was an early winner of the Curmudgeon’s Buffoon Award, thus that jolly logo displayed above this post.

Their new story is Scientists’ creed: We don’t know. That headline appears beneath their “Evolution Watch” banner, which always gets our Curmudgeonly attention. The mere existence of that journalistic category tells us all we need to know about the intellectual standing of WND. That banner is their equivalent to the “Hurricane Watch” maintained by your local TV station.

Now that you know where this news comes from, and how important they think it is, let’s proceed without delay. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

There apparently are three words on which some scientists’ faith in evolution is based: We don’t know.

That is a focal point of a widespread new campaign to raise the level of awareness across America – and around the world – about the shifting underpinnings of evolution.

Golly — they’ve figured it out! Our “faith” in evolution is based on those three words. The rest of the WND article is a promotion for some creationist website named Creation Ministries International. They have something there called Question evolution! WND thinks it’s absolutely brilliant, because:

It doesn’t tell evolutionists to believe anything about creation; it just asks them for their explanation of creation. And it encourages everyone to ask those questions.

Here are some examples:

Question No. 1 wonders, “How did life originate?”

They’ve got a point there. We really don’t know yet, but it has nothing to do with evolution. Here are some more:

• How did the DNA code originate?

• How did sex originate? (Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected?)

• Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?

• How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? [That’s the equivalent of “Why are there still monkeys?”]

• How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?

• Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Regard [sic] the last question, Creation.com notes, “Evolution actually hinders medical discovery. Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?”

This is powerful stuff! One last excerpt from the end:

Officials [of the creationist website] said well over 300 Texas churches already have been contacted about participating, and that’s a key battleground for what goes on in classrooms, since the state buys more textbooks than any other state except California.

Officials said the issue has been getting more attention in recent months, with eight anti-evolution bills introduced by U.S. state legislatures in 2011 alone.

Well, dear reader, it’s time to face facts — we’re doomed! The game is over! All is lost! WND and the creationists have triumphed at last. It’s time to learn a new trade. Embalming seems to be an attractive, recession-proof career; maybe we’ll look into that.

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

31 responses to “WorldNetDaily: Evolution is Finally Doomed

  1. I haven’t read the article, but because they think that “evolution” is in trouble for not having answers to those questions, I assume that “creation” is in better shape by having answers.

    Just to take one of their examples, How did the DNA code originate?

  2. Weird coincidence, I was just reading this article at WND right before I came here, I was thinking you would probably have something to say about it, and I guess I was right.

    Although it looks like pretty much the same creationist arguments, only phrased as questions instead of statements.

  3. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?

    I must remember to ask my physician that question in a smug, know-it-all tone – the next time he gives me a flu shot.

  4. …You know, to combat the influenza germ that the Creator specifically designed in all its intricate majesty.

  5. My favorite is: “Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?

    Who the *bleep* “expects” to find countless millions of transitional fossils?

    If a creationist insists that there should be countless millions of transitional fossils, i.e. all life forms that ever existed should exist today as fossils and be readily found, then I ask…where are fossils of the fire-breathing sea leviathan, the behemoth, unicorns, flying serpents, dragons, cockatrice, and other biblical animals? Inquiring minds want to know.

  6. Ed: Don’t forget the race of giants who walked the Earth in the days of Noah. Presumably those fossils (and all the other critters you mentioned) should NOT be too difficult to find, since they all existed in the past 6000 years or so.

  7. Poolio: You’re right! The titan bones should be easily found in the layer of bones deposited by the flood.

  8. …Basilisks, satyrs, talking snakes. According to Deism.com: “More recent versions [of the King James Bible] have changed these ridiculous creatures to more reasonable creatures, such as oxen, etc.”

  9. Tomato Addict

    “How did sex originate? (Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected?”

    Anyone who doesn’t understand the advantages of sex, is doing it wrong.
    😉

  10. Terry Hurlbut posted the same nonsense earlier this week over at The Examiner. There’s more to the story, but protocol presently prohibits my disclosure of the details.

  11. CMI are so confident of their position, that they will not publish any comments that might contradict their nonsense…
    “Editor’s comment: We have received a lot of unpublishable comments from very angry atheists”
    Sure, anything that might smack of Science, reality, reason etc, just has to be “angry”!
    LOL 🙂

  12. See, this is what I find so mind-blisteringly stoopid about these people…

    They criticize scientists for honestly saying “We don’t know, but we’re working on it” while the nimrods for creation make crap up that can’t be verified.

    Their radical skepticism of the scientific facts makes their fantastical claims MORE unbelievable, not less. That’s how skepticism works.

  13. LRA, they make up crap that can be easily refuted … in at least one case 😉

  14. “Embalming seems to be an attractive, recession-proof career; maybe we’ll look into that.”

    I did one of those career tests before entering university, and it came up as one of the highest compatibilities for me. It’s always my back-up for when my current career burns out.

  15. My top three careers were: teacher, writer, and minister/pastor. Not kidding!

    Well, two outta three ain’t bad! 😀

  16. Rubble- I was thinking of the whole “There is a designer” stuff. But, yeah, lots of the crap is debunkable.

  17. …well over 300 Texas churches already have been contacted about participating, and that’s a key battleground for what goes on in classrooms, since the state buys more textbooks than any other state except California…

    Jeez, they’re still fighting the Children’s Crusade. (“And a little child shall lead them,” …because it worked out so well the first time?) Didn’t they just lose decisively in Texas classrooms? So much for the “battleground.” I fail to see any method in the madness here. What is the endgame? This isn’t even smart enough to be insidious.

  18. “…flamingly creationist, absolutely execrable, moronic, and incurably crazed journalistic organ that believes in and enthusiastically promotes every conspiracy theory that ever existed. ”
    I’ve gotten so used to seeing that here on SC’s site that I’ve actually expected to see it as a subhead to the WND banner when I go there (which is as liitle as possible- those folks just make my head hurt with the stoopid).

  19. LRA says: “My top three careers were: teacher, writer, and minister/pastor.”

    Mine were pizza delivery, chimney sweep, or blogging the controversy.

  20. magpie61 says: “I fail to see any method in the madness here.”

    Have you learned nothing here? They don’t expect actual results, at least not until the Second Coming. This little campaign is all about raising money.

  21. I have followed the evolution -vs- creation boondoggle for many years and from many sources. I have only one question for creationists, which I have presented many times. It has never been answered – at least in any intelligent manner: Where did GOD come from? Unless we answer that question, we are simply starting in the middle of the story. I don’t like that.

  22. SC said: (last paragraph)

    Well, dear reader, it’s time to fact facts

    Did you mean to say “it’s time to face facts”?

  23. Gary says:

    Did you mean to say “it’s time to face facts”?

    Yup. Another typo! All fixed. Thanks.

  24. Curmudgeon Numero Uno wrote:

    Yup. Another typo!

    Hiring standards for the steno pool at the CITADEL are slipping, I see….. there was a time when, I understand, they all typed like mink….

  25. I think Bryan Fischer has been reading it too.

    http://www.rightsidenews.com/2011082714372/life-and-science/culture-wars/defeating-darwin-in-four-steps-so-easy-a-caveman-could-do-it.html

    But Fischer at least admits you’d have to be a caveman to think the arguments are valid.

    (You can thank me for the mill grist later.)

  26. Yes, John Pieret, Bryan Fischer and I usually think alike.

  27. The WND article reproduces the cover of the pamphlet with the fatal questions, and on the cover is a color photo of a chimpanzee’s face. What were they thinking!? If you *wanted* to show how closely related chimps and people are, you couldn’t have picked a better picture! I would have gone with a shot from profile, myself, just to emphasize the adult chimp’s muzzle, brow ridges, and sharply receding forehead, which make it look less human and more animal-like, and making sure not to show the human-like external ears. But the full-face photo they did use, with those disturbingly human-like brown eyes… it’s practically proof in itself that there must be some relation between us and the banana boys!

  28. I have a question for THEM. Were any of these questions field-tested on actual wicked Darwinists and demonstrated to reduce scientifically knowledgeable heathens to sputtering incoherence? Most of these questions seem like the same old tired Creationist cliches easily refuted by a glance at the Talkorigins FAQ. Maybe a homeschooled kid of about fourteen armed with this pamphlet could blindside an unprepared museum guide or public school teacher not specifically trained in the subject, but these are all the same old tired wheezes exploded long ago. Even though I’m not a scientist, I could answer most of them, I’m sure (though I might have trouble with the one about evolution “hindering” medical discovery, since I wasn’t aware that it did — it’s their assertion — and haven’t made a special study of the subject). These questions aren’t the irrefutable zingers the compilers seem to think they are, and I doubt if they were ever run past any alive and conscious “evolutionist.”

  29. You know, “we don’t know” if followed by the statement: “let’s find out” would be a fairly accurate description of how science works all in all. Either way, it’s better than the alternate: “we don’t know, let’s make it up”.

  30. “Embalming seems to be an attractive, recession-proof career; . . . . . . . .”

    Dead end job. 🙂

  31. Before this thread is lost in the eternal darkness of “Older Posts” where no one ever looks, I’ll just say my grandpa was a funeral director during the Depression. People don’t stop dying during hard times, so it is steady work, but what happens is that families get the cheapest caskets and other services they can, when in more propserous times they might see their loved one off with more of the trimmings. So the undertaker does take a hit in income along with everyone else. (A famous book in the early ’60s, THE AMERICAN WAY OF DEATH, charged undertakers with resorting to sharp practices, in particular pressuring distraught and grieving loved ones just when they were least able to resist into buying overpriced services they didn’t need. Maybe that went on in big cities, but according to Grandpa, you couldn’t operate like that in a small town where everyone knew each other, people talked, and you depended on repeat business from families over the long term.) Anyway, I always heard that the really recession-proof business was running a liquor store, because no matter how bad times were, people always found money for that. Hold-ups seemed to be a risk of that business, though…