Discoveroids’ Top Ten for 2015 — #3 & #2

Mere words cannot begin to express the increasing excitement your Curmudgeon feels as we approach the climax of the Discovery Institute’s list of their Top Ten stories for the year. But before we continue where we left off yesterday, we need a bit of background. Our regular readers can skip over the next few indented paragraphs:

The Discoveroids are 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. We discussed the next items in their series in Discoveroids’ Top Ten for 2015 — #6 & #5, and yesterday it was Discoveroids’ Top Ten for 2015 — #4.

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.

Now that you’re up-to-date, we shall continue. Late yesterday the Discoveroids posted #3 of Our Top Stories of 2015: Introducing The Information Enigma, Intelligent Design in a Nutshell. It was written by David Klinghoffer, a Discoveroid “senior fellow” (i.e., flaming, full-blown creationist), who eagerly functions as their journalistic slasher and poo flinger.

As with so many earlier entries in the Discoveroids’ Top Ten list this year, it’s nothing but a reference to and then copy an earlier blog post. We wrote about this one in October when it first appeared — see Klinghoffer’s Wonderful New Video. Klinghoffer wrote the script for the video, and the Discoveroids produced it. You’ll understand, dear reader, that we’re not going to talk about it again; but we ask you to contemplate that it was one of the Discoveroids’ greatest accomplishments for the year.

And now, as the excitement continues to build, we come to what they just posted today: #2 of Our Top Stories of 2015: Hominid Hype Over a Species of Unclear Evolutionary Importance. It was written by Casey Luskin, our favorite creationist. Once again, all he does is refer to and then copy one of his earlier blog posts, which originally appeared in September.

Your Curmudgeon is embarrassed that we didn’t write about it when the thing first appeared, because we didn’t grasp its importance, but here it is: Hominid Hype and Homo naledi: A Unique “Species” of Unclear Evolutionary Importance.

We did, however, write about Hambo’s reaction to that discovery — see Ken Ham Ain’t No Kin to Homo Naledi, but we can’t understand why we ignored Casey. We can remedy that oversight now, so here are some excerpts from Casey’s very important post, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

It has long been recognized that we are missing fossils documenting the supposed transition from the apelike genus Australopithecus to the humanlike Homo. Despite what you may be hearing in the media, Homo naledi does not solve this problem.

Golly — we’ve got problems, and Homo naledi doesn’t help at all. How very disappointing! Casey explains:

Some have envisioned the hallowed intermediate link being a creature with an apelike body and a human-like head.

Yes, the “missing link” still eludes us. The Precambrian rabbit also eludes the creationists, but they don’t seem to worry about that. Let’s read on:

Numerous recent articles have hailed Homo naledi as the newest human ancestor: [links to news stories]. … Ironically, all of these claims are major hype because, as we’ll see, no one knows how old these bones are, and so it’s entirely possible they’re younger than our own species, making it, at present, a very real possibility that it’s chronologically impossible for them to be anything remotely close to our “ancestor.”

It’s tragic how the press desperately hypes evolution. The Discoveroids, on the other hand, don’t need to resort to such tactics. That’s because their theory is The Truth.

Whoa — we just noticed that Casey’s post is immense! He nit-picks everything, and it’s boring. We’ll ignore most of it out, and jump right to the end:

What will become of “Homo naledi” remains to be seen. So far, though, its pathway reminds me of other hominin fossils whose “transitional” or “ancestral” status ultimately went belly up. A strong dose of healthy skepticism is warranted.

That’s it? Your Curmudgeon is very puzzled. That’s the Discoveroids’ Number Two story for the year, yet it seems to be as trivial and meaningless as the rest of their list. After all the years they’ve been promoting their “theory,” and all the millions of dollars they’ve spent, is that the best they can do?

But wait — it’s not over yet. We haven’t yet seen all of the Discoveroids’ Top Ten list of their greatest accomplishments for the year — only the first nine. They’ll probably get to Number One tomorrow, 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

15 responses to “Discoveroids’ Top Ten for 2015 — #3 & #2

  1. “The Discoveroids are working their way up from the bottom…”

    Oh, if that were only true!

  2. Charles Deetz ;)

    Looks like he is desperately trying to separate Naledi from being related to homo genus, if not us humans. No one at the time really came out and called them transitional either, yet he is fighting that battle too. Basically ‘nothing to see here, we can ignore this evidence’.

    Looking over his post, I am surprised by how strongly Casey sees homo sapiens as distinct separate and unique species. I guess I’ve never taken a look how DI would defend that position, he sounds just like a creationist.

  3. #2 confirms two things about evolution phobia.
    That it is really all about our relationship with the rest of the world of life. My great grandpa wasn’t no monkey.
    And that all that they have to talk about is finding problems with evolution. Do they have any “Intelligent Design” account for H. naledi?
    After all, if this is such an important story for ID, surely there must be some connection with ID.

    Let me guess what would be the most important story of 2015: #1 will be the 10th anniversary of Kitzmiller v. Dover.

  4. Human exceptionalism per Genesis is the sole motivation of the DI.

  5. Nice to see Luskin sticking with the tried and true “Found that transitional? Oops, need two more” formula.

  6. Our Curmudgeon enthuses

    Mere words cannot begin to express the increasing excitement your Curmudgeon feels as we approach the climax of the Discovery Institute’s list of their Top Ten stories for the year.

    Same here! In fact, I have not been so tingling with such thrilling anticipation since Geraldo revealed the hidden wonders of Al Capone’s Secret Vault!

  7. Egad! For some reason, the interweb won’t let me sign on as Megalonyx. Have I been banned?

  8. Anonymous asks: “Have I been banned?”

    Not my me. Ask Al Gore. It’s his internet.

  9. Just testing — am I me?

    This is my version of “the mirror test” which appeared in a recent Creationist Wisdom thread — and may be deleted, please, by the Great Hand of Correction!

    [*Voice from above*] Why would it be deleted? It’s the most sensible thing you’ve ever written.

  10. Wait a minute. I thought this was about IDiot accomplishments. But no IDiot ever had anything to do with finding Naledi.
    So I clicked – for the first time – the nr. 10 post and found this.

    “Welcome to the traditional recounting of our Top 10 evolution-related stories of the past year.”
    This is poorer than poor and sadder than sad. The IDiots admit here that they are not capable of generating their own news. They totally depend on what evolutionary biologists do for them.

  11. i won’t post a spoiler, but having just had a peep over at the DI blog, all I can say is: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

    I am…devastated!!!

  12. OMG! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

    My little Gerbie! So much entertainment! All gone. Just like that.

    Leaning her head against mine Olivia snuggled close as I wept. “There, there, Doc,” she whispered, “you’ll find another Gerbil.” Then she took my hand and led me below deck to begin my long recovery.

  13. Megalonyx says: “i won’t post a spoiler, but having just had a peep over at the DI blog, all I can say is: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

    I’m workin’ on it. Save your comments until I post.

  14. Am I misremembering? In prior years, didn’t the DI do a list of top accomplishments, or at least what they perceived as victories for ID? This year it is just stories. Could it be that they could not think of any accomplishments to list?

    I would help them, but I can’t think of any ID accomplishments either.

  15. Numerous recent articles have hailed Homo naledi as the newest human ancestor: [links to news stories]. … Ironically, all of these claims are major hype because, as we’ll see, no one knows how old these bones are, and so it’s entirely possible they’re younger than our own species, making it, at present, a very real possibility that it’s chronologically impossible for them to be anything remotely close to our “ancestor.”

    But how can Homo naledi be younger than our species if, as creationists, er, intelligent design advocates have insisted all along, all species were created simultaneously?