Creationist Wisdom #214: Dirty Little Secrets

Today’s letter-to-the-editor has a great title: Evolution should not be taught in schools. It appears in the Daily Globe of Worthington, Minnesota. We’ll give you a few excerpts, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, and as we usually do we’ll omit the writer’s name and city. Here we go, with a bit of bold font added for emphasis:

My objection to teaching evolution in schools is based on honest science and not religion.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Great start. We know you’re hooked, so keep reading:

Darwin himself said that if life turned out to be too complex, his theory would not work. He did not know about cells, much less DNA, at the time. A single cell has more moving parts than the city of New York. The chances of …

We’ll skip all the usual blather about how complicated things are, and therefore the odds are kazillions to one, and therefore Oogity Boogity! Let’s read on:

I can’t muster that much faith, can you? You need DNA to make protein, and protein to make DNA. This requires creation, but in a fairy tale anything can happen.

Right. Let’s have creationism instead of fairy tales. We continue:

Darwin also said that if transitional fossils were not found, his theory was dead. One hundred fifty years later and multiple millions of fossils later, none have been found (except for a few elaborate hoaxes).

Yeah, yeah — there are no transitional fossils. Isn’t there anything interesting in this letter? Up to now it’s the usual creationist nonsense. Oh — this is something we haven’t seen before in one of these letters:

In November 1999, National Geographic published a 10-page story on a missing link between dinosaurs and birds. An expert was hired to analyze it, and the story was found to be an elaborate hoax. Twenty-six of the bones were from four other animals. The story was published anyway, and four months later National Geographic printed a two-sentence retraction in an obscure part of the magazine.

Aaaargh!! We thought everyone connected with that had been either bribed to keep quiet or else eliminated. Now, to our horror, we see that this letter-writer in rural Minnesota knows the whole shameful story. What shall we do now? The game’s over. We’re ruined!

Oh, wait — the truth of this incident is much more mundane than today’s letter-writer imagines. It’s mentioned in TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims. There’s also a long Wikipedia article on it: Archaeoraptor. Yes, the fossil was a fake. No peer-reviewed journal would publish about the find. National Geographic decided to go with the story anyway, and then they had to retract it. It wasn’t their finest moment, but we always thought they were best known for publishing photos of topless native women. We like their maps too, but National Geographic isn’t the place where one looks for the latest scientific discoveries.

Moving along in today’s letter:

Another dirty little secret evolutionists seldom mention is that hundreds of modern species of birds and even mammals (one with a small dinosaur in his stomach) have been found with dinosaurs. They show no change but are given different scientific names to obscure the obvious.

We never heard that before. Does anyone know what he’s talking about? Okay, here’s the end of today’s letter:

My conclusion: Man has an almost limitless capacity to deceive himself.

That’s very true. We are pleased to end this post on a point of agreement.

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

11 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #214: Dirty Little Secrets

  1. Does anyone know what he’s talking about?…

    Maybe this?

    Mainstream evolution obviously and clearly accepts that mammals were in existence the same time as (later) dinosaurs; we’d have to be, in order to take over from them. The question is really how big those mammals were, and where they sat on the food chain.

    Very similar reasoning applies to birds. You would fully expect some overlap between reptilian and more avian fliers. Expecting no overlap is just the old “why are there still monkeys” mistake.

  2. I had not heard of the larger Mesozoic mammals. Very cool. However, I had always read that small mammals coexisted with dinosaurs, and both modern and archaic birds existed alongside dinosaurs in the Cretaceous. I’m not sure why the writer thinks that disproves evolution. The writer needs to stretch a bit more – mammals in the Cambrian, for example.

  3. Curmudgeon: “BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Great start. ”

    Unfortunately most of my fellow “Darwinists” will miss the perfect comeback. Which is “Since you obviously parroted your sound bites from the Discovery Institute, are you aware that they want evolution taught and do not want creationism taught?”

    True, the DI only wants evolution taught as long as their misprepresentations get the last word, and they will just look the other way if Biblical creationism is taught, but these clowns will be caught off guard, and have to either disapprove of other evolution-deniers, or retract their initial demand. Either way, they lose the support of the not-so-hopeless subset of their audience.

  4. You need DNA to make protein, and protein to make DNA. This requires creation, but in a fairy tale anything can happen.

    Generalizing this law of creationism …

    If you need A to make B, and B to make A, then creation is required. Any other explanation is a fairy tail.

  5. And also a fairy tale.

  6. Creationists you are dangerous people, blinded by your fanatic love to the only Creator (you know about), and stubborn like donkeys not willing to understand the science. Keep the bloody and cruel religion away from science.

  7. RetiredSciGuy

    Ed says, “The writer needs to stretch a bit more – mammals in the Cambrian, for example.”

    Heck, *any* vertebrate in the Cambrian would be as much of a surprise as neutrinos traveling faster than light, but still would not “disprove” or even discredit evolution.

    Now, finding homo sapiens fossils in 3.8 billion year old strata might throw a “monkey” wrench in things, but then, everyone knows the earth is only 6,000 years old, so that would be impossible.

  8. It’s a rare – and terrible – creationist misconception that any non-dinosaur fossil in the Mesozoic disproves evolution etcetera. See here, for example.

  9. I agree with this article, when have we ever found a “missing link” anywhere, for any creatures. Darwin said it himself, that if the human body is more complex than he envisioned, then his theory would be disproved. that’s true he said that. I’m not religious to any extreme extent, and creationism doesn’t just mean the man jesus and his father in the sky, but how can any scientific person say that evolution is the only way. there are so many holes in that argument.

  10. I agree with this article, when have we ever found a “missing link” anywhere, for any creatures.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

    There’s about 50-100 in that list.

    Darwin said it himself, that if the human body is more complex than he envisioned, then his theory would be disproved. that’s true he said that.

    Lying for Jesus.

    “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.”

    Why lie about what Darwin said when anyone can look it up and read it for themselves?

  11. @Chapskii: typical example of creationist quote mining. Either you truly have only been reading creationist sources and are not yourself trying to be a troll, but are one of the “innocent, confused people just getting started” or you’re a troll. More likely you are a troll.

    It’s very interesting that you can look through creationist literature and first find where a mined quote shows up and you can even follow the changes (“mutations”) that get inserted into it over time, since subesquent creationist articles will only cite prior creationist articles w/o going back to the original sources.