Like all creationists, the Discoveroids sometimes post about specific creatures that allegedly couldn’t have evolved because … well, just because. The Discoveroids also make videos to describe these so-called impossible critters. A typical example is Previewing Metamorphosis: The Case for Intelligent Design, which attempts to dazzle droolers with the wonders of the monarch butterfly.
We usually ignore such things, but every now and then there are indications that they have an impact on some people. A good example is what we just found. Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Daily Citizen of Dalton, Georgia, The letter is titled Evolution can’t explain it. The newspaper has a comments section.
Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Maynard. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!
This letter is intended for all evolutionists who continue to hold onto the failing “theory” of evolution. One thing I’d like for them to consider is the concept of “irreducible complexity (IC).”
Oooooooooooh, Irreducible complexity! Wikipedia describes it as “a pseudoscientific theory promoted by advocates of intelligent design.” Maynard then says:
Simply put, IC is a point in the development of an organ or organism when any further simplification would render it unlivable and it would cease to function or exist as an organ or organism. There are myriads of examples of IC throughout the realm of living things. But perhaps the most graphic example is the monarch butterfly.
Clearly, Maynard has been watching the Discoveroids’ video. He devotes his next paragraph to a simplified description of metamorphosis, after which he tells us:
My question to all evolutionists is simply this: What could the monarch butterfly have possibly been before it became what it is today?
Wikipedia has an entry on Evolution of butterflies, but it’s not particularly informative. Scientific American has an interesting article — How Did Insect Metamorphosis Evolve?, but there are still unanswered questions. Hey, there are gaps! That leaves room for the Oogity Boogity boys, who know how to fill a gap. Maynard, declares:
It could not have evolved over a long period of time in a step-by-step process simply because it is irreducibly complex. All steps in the life cycle had to be there from day one. It could not have developed gradually. It was designed to be the way it is from the very beginning.
Designed — it was designed! Let’s read on:
The Bible tells us that God will never leave himself without a witness, and that nature itself is a manifold witness. And I can’t help but believe that the monarch butterfly is one of his best witnesses.
The butterfly is a witness? Yes, and it testifies to Maynard. He concludes his letter with a massive ark-load:
That is why it is found in every temperate climate on Earth — virtually everywhere mankind lives. Because I think maybe God said, “I will give man the butterfly. I will give man the evidence of the butterfly to teach him the truth about me and my creation. I will give him the mystery of the butterfly to expose the limit of his finite mind and the error of his pride. All he has to do is look at this miracle creature I have created and he can believe in his heart that I spoke, and it was so.”
Are you convinced, dear reader? Hey — what’s that? Oh, it’s a butterfly. How did it get in here? [*Swat!*] BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.