Creationist Wisdom #568: The Witness

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.

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

22 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #568: The Witness

  1. “…to expose the limit of his finite mind and the error of his pride.” This is usually the creationist’s final argument against evolution, science and examination/discovery of the natural world. Obviously my finite mind cannot understand how virtually all of science tells me that the universe, the earth and life is very, very old when obviously the ancient desert dwellers knew that everything came into being 6000 years ago. And my pride makes me think that I am right.

  2. michaelfugate

    Butterfly apologetics – even if biologists figure it out tomorrow, they will continue to use it until it no longer works to keep the sheep in the fold.

  3. IC is a point in the development of an organ or organism

    What could the monarch butterfly have possibly been before it became what it is today?

    A caterpillar.

  4. I suspect this letter was written by Maynard G. Krebs

  5. “… Irreducible complexity! Wikipedia describes it as “a pseudoscientific theory promoted by advocates of intelligent design.”

    Unfortunate reference to Irreducible complexity as a “theory.” Idea, assertion, joke, anything but a theory.

  6. docbill1351

    Speaking of the Disco Tute and metamorphosis, a couple of years when Luskin’s pitiful homeschool book, “Discovering Intelligent Design” came out, there was a chapter on metamorphosis cram-jammed with oogity boogity and a very strange quote by “a biologist.” The quote was something like “metamorphosis is a mystery” or something like that, but Googling the quote led me directly to a website where, sure enough, a biology grad student had written a thorough review of metamorphosis evolution.

    And, there was the quote, but, of course, Luskin had truncated the quote and the full quote was completely opposite to what Luskin made it imply; par for the course for the little lying Gerbil.

    But what I found even more striking was how Luskin’s chapter paralleled the biology review – paragraph by paragraph and word by word. Using Look Inside I printed out Luskin’s chapter and compared it to a printout of the review and right down the line there were 15 direct similarities, and in the same order.

    What was missing from Luskin’s plagiarized chapter, however, was the thorough discussion of the evolution of metamorphosis in the original source. It’s a perfect example of the dishonesty and total lack of ethics practiced by the Tooters. Of course, Luskin provided no attribution to the original scientist, he just lifted the work and presented it as his own. No matter. Hovering around 1 millionth in ranking, the Gerb, once again, has had zero impact on education or science.

  7. @ docbill1351: Great analysis of Luskin’s quote-mining and plagarism–but it would be really wonderful if you were to write up a little article based on your research! Have at it!

  8. @<docbill1351

    I strongly second the suggestion of Megalonyx!

  9. docbill1351 said:
    But what I found even more striking was how Luskin’s chapter paralleled the biology review – paragraph by paragraph and word by word. Using Look Inside I printed out Luskin’s chapter and compared it to a printout of the review and right down the line there were 15 direct similarities, and in the same order.

    What was missing from Luskin’s plagiarized chapter, however, was the thorough discussion of the evolution of metamorphosis in the original source. It’s a perfect example of the dishonesty and total lack of ethics practiced by the Tooters. Of course, Luskin provided no attribution to the original scientist, he just lifted the work and presented it as his own.

    Gosh, you’d think an attorney like Casey Luskin would have the honesty and integrity to not need to plagiarize someone else’s work. Oh, wait, he’s a creationist, and creationists do that sort of thing. Let’s sue Luskin.

  10. When a student realizes that he is unable to write the assigned essay he is tempted to plagiarism.

  11. docbill1351

    I defer to the great philosopher Maynard G. Krebs.

  12. docbill1351

    OK, I’ll write it up and submit to the Hand of the Blog.

  13. docbill1351 says: “I’ll write it up and submit to the Hand of the Blog.”

    Hold on. I never hesitate to say they’ve written something I think is goofy, but it’s a bit more serious to literally accuse someone of plagiarism. You can post links to Casey’s work and the work you think he used as a source, but that’s as far as I think we should go. You can also send the author of the original paper a copy of Casey’s writing, and let him decide what he wants to do about it.

  14. docbill1351

    To the Hand, well, duh!

  15. docbill1351

    I mean, let the students decide!

  16. docbill1351

    The Hand comments:

    You can also send the author of the original paper a copy of Casey’s writing, and let him decide what he wants to do about it.

    Yes, I sent that to the Lanister’s. He was quite amused and we had a bit old laugh about it. It wasn’t a published review that Luskin stole, rather a blog that he figured none of his homeschooled dolts would ever check. So, the original author blew it off. It doesn’t make Luskin any less of the little [edited out] he is but it only points to the desperation and total lack of ethics the Tooters have in their daily lives. Sad to be them. I can’t imagine living like that.

  17. “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.”

    So this idiot thinks butterflies are found worldwide because of what he thinks “God said”? He doesn’t half think well of his own opinions, does he?

    Oh, I know: that’s (probably) just a grammatical blooper on his part. But that’s not much better, since even a charitable reading of what he might have meant to say suggests he’s not shy about putting words in the Deity’s mouth.

  18. Our Curmudgeon prudently notes:

    Hold on. I never hesitate to say they’ve written something I think is goofy, but it’s a bit more serious to literally accuse someone of plagiarism.

    Fair point! It is an absolute defence, if accused of making libellous statements, to demonstrate the accuracy of ones statements, and the goofiness of Creationists is incontrovertible

  19. On further reflection: to detect ‘plagarism’ in the screeds of Creationists is doubtless another fell symptom of the rampant evils of materialistic Darwinist thinking.

    Consider: one is presented with two very similar articles by different authors. The diabolical Darwinist wrongly interprets this as evidence of ‘common descent’ and thereby falsely accuses one writer of stealing from the other.

    The enlightened Creationist, however, correctly interprets the case here as further and compelling evidence for the Hand of the Grand Ole Designer, who efficiently reuses His/Her/Its wonderful designs again and again to fill our Privileged Planet with its manifold beauties and wonders!

    And, as Creationists have repeatedly demonstrated, no new Information (I swoon at the very word!) can arise in the world with out the direct intervention of Divine Oogity-Boogity, from which we must conclude that anyone undertaking to write anything without first performing a prayer to invoke such supernatural aid will be incapable of penning a single original thought…

  20. Megalonyx says: “It is an absolute defence, if accused of making libellous statements, to demonstrate the accuracy of ones statements, and the goofiness of Creationists is incontrovertible”

    Yes, truth is a defense; but a trial over the truth of creationists’ claims could be as burdensome as the Kitzmiller case, which is why such disputes are often settled. Fortunately, my position is even more defensible, because my statement is that I think what they’ve written is goofy.

  21. Aha, SC – you’re statement that what they’ve written is goofy is just a theory, not a fact.

  22. The whole truth

    “Hey — what’s that? Oh, it’s a butterfly. How did it get in here? [*Swat!*] BWAHAHAHAHAHA!”

    Not funny. Butterflies should never be swatted.