There a little history leading up to this one. Back in Creationist Wisdom #311: The Ol’ Ranger we discussed a creationist’s letter that was defending an earlier letter by a different creationist. Now that earlier creationist has written again. Here are 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:
The editor’s note on the letter to the editor titled Creationism and evolution once again raised the question of what is considered adaptation and what is evolution in the microbe to man sense.
He’s talking about the letter he wrote back in March that started this series. That was Creationism And Evolution. And as you noticed, his contrast of “adaptation” with what creationists call “evolution in the microbe to man sense” is a reference to the old micro-macro mambo (about which see Common Creationist Claims Confuted). The letter-writer’s creationist rant continues:
Cross breeding and genetic manipulation have never produced a new form (kind) of life. They have produced the appearance of different traits within a kind. These techniques can only work with existing genetic information and cannot produce the addition of new genetic information needed to begin a new form of life.
Ah yes, there’s no way to produce new genetic “information” — except that there is. All that’s required is an instance of sloppy DNA replication resulting in the duplication of a gene, followed over time by mutation of one of those duplicates, resulting in creatures with a new gene that their ancestors never had. See Is Convergent Evolution Explainable?, where we wrote about several known examples. Here’s more from today’s letter:
This [new information] is an absolute necessity for the theory of evolution to be viable. If the mechanism for the addition of new genetic information is not a basic tenant of evolutionary thinking, it can only be because the mechanism is not yet known. Shouldn’t this mechanism be the very foundation upon which this theory is based? Yet it is MIA.
It’s always impressive when a creationist, having made a bad argument, then writes a paragraph that emphasizes the cosmic importance of his bad argument. But he’s not done yet. Let’s read on:
There is actually no foundation upon which to promote this theory! Because of this, I maintain that evidence for evolution is lacking, regardless of what most scientists say.
That “no new information” stuff is really devastating! The letter continues:
In addition, the microbe to man theory of evolution violates many of the tested theories and laws within the sciences. Science has never observed an exception to the cell theory or the law of biogenesis, but evolution insists that there must be exceptions to both.
The cell theory? We’ve never seen a creationist mention that before. As for the “law of biogenesis,” that exists only in creationist literature. We discussed it in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. Here’s more:
DNA is coded information necessary for the existence of life. Information codes always have an intelligent source, without exception.
Ooooooh — coded information! That means so much more than just the way a DNA molecule is arranged. It’s coded information. Really it is. All the creationists say so, and that means it’s true. It’s twue, it’s twue! And it must have an intelligent source. It couldn’t possibly be the result of self-organization. Moving along:
Evolution must make the illogical claim that this code comes from chance and random processes even though DNA is by far the most compact information storage system known to man. It far exceeds man’s best efforts, showing us that the real Creator is much more intelligent than man.
That’s a classic creationist paragraph — all dogma, no data. There’s no rebuttal required. And here’s the end of today’s letter:
For most scientists this logical conclusion seems so very hard to accept. Shouldn’t the logical conclusions be allowed in the school curriculum?
Yes. But that letter contains no logical conclusions. Lots of meaningless creationist vocabulary, however. Very entertaining.
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.