Discoveroids’ Top Ten for 2015 — #6 & #5

We know how much it means to you, so we’re continuing our coverage of the Discovery Institute’s list of their Top Ten stories for the year. They’re working their way up from the bottom, and they’ll probably reach their Number One creationist news story on New Year’s day.

We mentioned their first two items, numbers 10 and 9, in Christmas 2015. Then we wrote about the next two in Discoveroids’ Top Ten for 2015 — #8 & #7. As we move up the list, one might expect that the quality of the stories should steadily improve, but no such trend is apparent — at least not to us. That doesn’t matter. The purpose of their series is to impress their generous patrons with the progress they’ve made this year.

Here’s the next item in their series. In #6 of Our Top Stories of 2015: Peer-Reviewed Paper Reveals Darwin’s Unavoidable Catch-22 Problem, Casey Luskin, our favorite creationist, refers to and then copies one of his earlier blog posts. He had written about a silly paper by some silly “researchers,” and although it appeared in a real journal, it made no impression whatsoever. We wrote about it back in April — see Casey Explains the Catch-22 of Junk DNA, so we won’t waste your time going over it again.

That was the Discoveroids’ post yesterday. Today they added the next item in their series: #5 of Our Top Stories of 2015: C. elegans and the Problem of Evolving Animal Body Plans. It was written by Ann Gauger, whom we shall refer to as “Annie Green Screen.” She’s best known for the clandestine nature of what she does and where she does it. Annie is a “a senior research scientist” at the Discoveroids’ Biologic Institute, where the research is so sensitive that the interior of the lab must never be seen by outsiders. You can read all about that in Klinghoffer Defends Photo Trickery.

The work done in that secret facility sometimes appears in the Discoveroids’ captive “peer reviewed” journal, BIO-Complexity. That lab, plus the Discoveroids’ own “peer reviewed” vanity press operation (Discovery Institute Press) constitute their imitation of the accouterments of science, and have caused intelligent design to be described as a cargo cult.

We know you’re eager to learn what Annie has for us today. Here are some excerpts from her new post:

Oh, wait — Annie’s post is nothing but a copy of something she wrote for the Discoveroids’ blog back in May — Heads or Tails: The Problem of Evolving Animal Body Plans. It was one of a series of posts she wrote claiming that evolution is impossible.

We must not have thought it worth bothering about, because didn’t write about it at the time. How embarrassing, now that we realize it was one of the Discoveroids’ Top Ten creationist events of the year. In that post, which is copied at their blog today, Annie Green Screen writes about “simple little worms like C. elegans,” and concludes with this:

First there is the problem of getting a cell, then of getting a eukaryotic cell, then of getting a multicellular animal, and now of getting one with a head and a tail and multiple cell types. Saying C. elegans didn’t have to solve the problem all at once is merely to suggest that the problems are easier if taken one step at a time. They are not.

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] That little worm couldn’t possibly be the result of evolution. It had to be the work of the intelligent designer — blessed be he!

By the way, we wrote about some recent research (real research) involving C. elegans three weeks ago: Meet Your Ancestor — The Roundworm. We haven’t seen any creationist reaction to that news.

So there you are, dear reader. By now there should be no doubt that it’s been a great year for the Discoveroids, and we’ve only learned about the bottom six of their Top Ten accomplishments. They’re saving the best for last, so stay tuned to this blog!

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

9 responses to “Discoveroids’ Top Ten for 2015 — #6 & #5

  1. michaelfugate

    If ID doesn’t know who the designer is, then how does Casey know that the designer wouldn’t put “junk” in a genome? Why does he believe every nucleotide was put there for a purpose? Even is the designer were his God, how would Casey know that said God wouldn’t put in extraneous material?

  2. Would the purpose(s) of the designer(s) respond to material, natural causes?
    Why would the designer(s) resort to physical structures to effect their purposes?
    How can we expect to recognize what the purposes of nucleotides are? They might not be there for their effect on the genetics, or even on the creature bearing the DNA!

  3. Being a serious student of the scientific theory of intelligent design, I’ve compiled my own list of Discovery Institute’s important scientific breakthroughs of the year, to wit: 1) Y 2) A 3) W 4) N, and we mustn’t forget 5) C. 6) H. 7) I 8) R 9) P

  4. I really dont’t want to insult Casey’s intelligence by thinking that he actually believes the drivel that he puts out.

  5. What intelligence?

  6. Annie says,

    First there is the problem of getting a cell, then of getting a eukaryotic cell, then of getting a multicellular animal, and now of getting one with a head and a tail and multiple cell types. Saying C. elegans didn’t have to solve the problem all at once is merely to suggest that the problems are easier if taken one step at a time. They are not.

    And why not? Annie doesn’t say. It’s a statement of faith.

    Oh, wait. Annie’s a creationist, so of course it’s a statement of faith. Actual facts, let alone conclusions drawn from those facts, are to be ignored unless they can be made to fit into the Procrustean bed of ID.

  7. Charles Deetz ;)

    Doesn’t the development of every living animal go thru this process from cell to multifunctional animal as it develops before birth? So why can’t evolutionary development do the same thing?

  8. @Charles Deetz;)
    Yes.
    Many an argument against evolution “proves too much”, in the sense that the argument is (at least as much) against reproduction or development. (In fact, they have often been used in the 18th century as an argument for preformation.)
    When I come across a new argument against evolution, I use the test: How well does it work against reproduction? (The other test being: How well does creation/design fare in treating the argument?)

  9. Does Annie comprehend how many generations of tiny replicating organisms must have existed (some multiple generations each day) over the billions of years that they were evolving – before simple multi-cellular versions appeared that were big enough for us to see? Does she actually believe that those bazillions of generations and with their bazillions of organisms could not evolve the basic cell structures – in the presence of all the varied and continually changing selection pressures that must have existed throughout that time? Really?

    But, yeah, the odds of a non-material all-powerful designer are so much greater….