Creationist Wisdom #270: Mr. Potato Head

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears at the website of Today, published by MediaCorp, which says it’s “Singapore’s leading media company.” The letter is titled Creationism still part of the evolution debate. We’ll give you a few excerpts, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, and some bold font for emphasis. As we usually do, we’ll omit the writer’s name and city. Okay, here we go:

There are problems with the idea that creationism has never posed an intellectual challenge to evolutionary thinking.

Really? Let’s see what that “intellectual challenge” might be:

First, creationists do not pose a threat to scientific thinking. The founders of modern science and many modern scientists are creationists who study an orderly, non-random universe.

Yeah, we’ve seen that one before about the founders of modern science. It’s true that Isaac Newton didn’t know about the theory of evolution, but he didn’t use the “theory” of six-day creation or Noah’s Ark in his work. As for present-day creationists — somehow they all seem to be working at creation museums, bible colleges, or a certain “think tank” in Seattle. Let’s read on:

Dr Marc Kirschner of Harvard Medical School has remarked that almost all of biology over the last 100 years has proceeded independent of evolution.

We Googled for that and found it everywhere, but we never found the source. It’s probably phoney (or out of context) because it’s obviously absurd. We continue:

In fact, evolution hinders medical discovery. The writer himself highlighted the crisis in traditional evolutionary thinking, which has been so dogmatic as to not even consider creationism as a viable option.

Hey, that’s a new claim. For authority, the letter-writer cites himself. Here’s more:

Whilst science comprises experimental and historical types, the issue of beginnings and the past falls within the latter and should not be accorded the same authority as the former.

Right. Historical science is useless. There’s no way to know what caused Meteor Crater in Arizona, because we weren’t there to see how it happened. Moving along:

Natural selection and mutation do not equate to evolution. The former is a principle also recognised by creationists. It might explain the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. One cannot modify a Mr Potato Head into a GI Joe.

That’s great! We used it for our title. Skipping a bit, we arrive near the end where we come to this:

There are many questions for evolutionists:

Okay, what are the questions? Here ya’ go:

How did life originate? Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment, with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed long age of the universe, not one average-sized functional protein would have formed.

He’s got more questions:

So how did bacteria form? How did the DNA code, biochemical pathways, multicellular life and gender all originate?

Good, huh? We’ll wrap it up with the best questions of all:

From where do natural laws come? From where does logic come? These are non-material stuff but often taken for granted.

So there you are. And remember: Evolution is false because one cannot modify a Mr Potato Head into a GI Joe.

Copyright © 2012. 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

10 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #270: Mr. Potato Head

  1. The author is right! Mr Potato Head is not nearly as big as a GI Joe just for starters!
    Plus, because Mr Head’s legs are so short, theres no way he could run the obstacle course every morning and keep up with Casey going over the wall……..Aha.
    So once I realized this, I went magical designer, modifying my Mr Potato Head by attaching legs from a model dinosaur etc. I came up with something that looked like that thing from ‘Alien’.
    We’re running it through the blender right now to see if the dog will eat it.
    Its a corgie, dachsund mix named Smeagol.
    I hope hes not the original ‘kind’ of dog though. What a genetic mess.

  2. Perhaps, but as every Twilight Zone buff knows, you can modify a Brikette doll into a Talky Tina. Another brilliant creationist analogy bites the proverbial dust.

  3. NeonNoodle says: “you can modify a Brikette doll into a Talky Tina”

    But you can’t modify Rubik’s Cube into a Barbie doll.

  4. Yes, but a Potato Head can self modify into a Mr. Tortilla Head, and, after some natural selection, a Mr. Cucumber Head.

  5. If they think Kirschner has a problem with evolution or is in any way a Creationist, this is part of a quote from him in an interview:
    “As Darwinian evolutionary theory closes its gaps and adds more layers of consistent evidence, opponents need to develop their own theories, too, if they seek debates in the educational forum. Theories in science are meant to be useful—to explain and predict. Darwinian theory does both, every day, on the large scale and the small. It pervades biology because it facilitates biological and medical research. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the alternative theories?”

  6. Here’s a link to the article the quote mine is taken from:

  7. And here is the context of the quote:

    Kirschner likes to invoke the much-quoted declaration of famed 20th-century biologist Theodesius Dobzhansky that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (the title of a 1973 essay). “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself,” Kirschner declares. “Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”

    As a result, scientists working on genetics, cells, and molecules-a background Kirschner and Gerhart share-have not always considered how components of an organism reveal both its physiological properties and evolutionary properties and provide a window into the history of the organism. Evolutionary science, argue Kirschner and Gerhart, will advance as more biologists place their lab research within this evolutionary framework.

  8. Thanks for the context, johnpieret. I assumed it was something like that.

  9. Some of the comments at that Singaporean newspaper are pretty smart. Better than NRO!

  10. SC said:

    But you can’t modify Rubik’s Cube into a Barbie doll.

    Bull puckey. As my junior high school shop teacher said, “Every machine part fits every other machine part. Some just take bigger hammers than others.”
    Or, in this context, a bit more temperature and the right mold.