Discovery Institute Adopts a Jack Chick Argument

There’s no doubt — despite their constant denials — that the Discovery Institute promotes creationism, but we never thought things would go this far. Take a look at the latest post at the Discoveroids’ creationist blog: In the Beginning: Male and Female. It’s yet another example of the Great Creationist Coalescence (the GCC) of various creationist outfits. The last one we wrote about was Ken Ham Adopts Another Discoveroid Doctrine.

The title of the Discoveroids’ post suggests things we’ve seen at other creationist websites — for example: Answers in Genesis: Sex Didn’t Evolve. At the time, we suggested that ol’ Hambo’s creation scientists were getting their information from the ultimate creationist, Jack Chick. We said:

Wait a minute! Haven’t we seen that argument before? Oh yes, we saw it (and rebutted it) in April of last year. See Jack Chick: Sex Is Evolution’s Nightmare. Perhaps it was Jack Chick’s website that inspired AIG.

The same thing can be said about the Discoveroids’ latest post. It was written by one of their seemingly vast number of new contributors, a physician named Howard Glicksman, about whom we’re told: “Dr. Glicksman practices palliative medicine for a hospice organization.” Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

Everyone knows that a human being is either male or female.

Note how the good doctor has put those two technical terms in italics. Then he says:

But what most people do not know or appreciate is how the body decides whether to make male or female parts. Although a given person’s survival does not depend on having the right parts for reproduction, we all know that without adequate sexual function human life would be impossible. Moreover, as difficult as it may be for evolutionary biologists to explain the development of the different organ systems and the body’s ability to control them to survive within the laws of nature, because of how human reproduction takes place, they must also explain the simultaneous development of both males and females since neither is of any use for survival without the other.

That’s exactly the dilemma that was pointed out in the article at Jack Chick’s website, which told us:

Believers in evolution have no reasonable explanation for the origin of either male or female organs. Compounding their problem is the fact that both males and females would have to have popped up in the same generation, complete with the correct organs that fit each other and were capable of reproduction!

Returning to the Discoveroid post, we see the same theme presented:

Let’s look at the structures each sex must have to reproduce and how the body decides which ones to develop. The word sex comes from the Latin secare which means to separate or divide. Each of the 23 pairs of human chromosomes are separated from each other and placed within gametes called male sperm and female eggs. Human reproduction requires that the 23 chromosomes in the sperm be joined to the 23 chromosomes in the egg to form a new human being. The natural way this takes place is through sexual intercourse.

Again, we see that the Discoveroid author puts the technical terms in italics. That’s very helpful. He then goes on for several paragraphs, describing the development of the fetus and its sexual organs. It’s stuff you should have learned in high school, so we’ll skip it — although when we were first reading it, we kept wondering why the Discoveroids were bothering to publish this material. That becomes apparent near the end, when the good doctor says:

To paraphrase Stephen Meyer in The Information Enigma, different cell types require different proteins, different proteins require different genetically encoded instructions, and different instructions requires information that all human experience teaches comes from a mind and not material processes.

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh — information! [*End Drool Mode*] See Phlogiston, Vitalism, and Information. This is the good doctor’s last paragraph:

The absence of any one of these results in either female parts or sterile male parts — and the survival of the human race hangs in the balance. Yet at birth and for many years afterward, human beings are incapable of participating in reproduction. What happens to change that? That’s what we’ll look at next time.

We’re all looking forward to the good doctor’s next essay. Meanwhile, we’ve seen the — ahem! — evolution of the creationist view of sex, which started with Jack Chick, was then adopted by ol’ Hambo, and is now embraced by the Discoveroids. Sex is a gift from the intelligent designer — blessed be he! This clearly demonstrates that when you cut through the mumbo-jumbo, they’re all alike. The Great Creationist Coalescence continues.

Copyright © 2016. 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

45 responses to “Discovery Institute Adopts a Jack Chick Argument

  1. The absence of any one of these results in either female parts or sterile male parts — and the survival of the human race hangs in the balance.
    So to speak.
    Yet at birth and for many years afterward, human beings are incapable of participating in reproduction.
    Dang, little babies are unable to have sex. What went wrong? Evolution certainly can’t explain that!
    What happens to change that? That’s what we’ll look at next time.
    How exciting that the Dishonesty Institute now has a serialized program on sex. Chapter one was so breathlessly exciting, I anxiously await Chapter 2’s further adventures into the realm of Dishonesty Institute Sex Education!

  2. Christine Janis

    Fish. Bony fish (related to us) have no obvious male or female parts. They release eggs and sperm into the water, and fertilization and development is external.

    That’s the basis of human reproductive biology —- it’s all just tinkering from there on in to make things a bit more complex for reproduction on land.

  3. The Sensuous One has experienced another Information-induced Drool Mode. Awaiting DocBill’s evidence-free “facts” about the Dishonesty Institute. I would recommend actually reading the post and then reading TSC’s superficial analysis.

  4. Christine Janis says: “it’s all just tinkering from there on in to make things a bit more complex for reproduction on land.”

    Oh no. There’s much more to it than that. The flagellum was intelligently designed. Therefore …

  5. michaelfugate

    This is simply the argument from design, an argument which was fatally wounded in the 18th c and died in the 19th c. The DI thinks if they continue to ignore it, the Enlightenment will go away.

  6. DavidK, the post was more like Chapter 60 in Glicksman’s series. However, you wouldn’t be expected to know that since you obviously prefer the Curmudgeon’s distilled version of ENV.

  7. jimroberts

    “Believers in evolution have no reasonable explanation for the origin of either male or female organs. Compounding their problem is the fact that both males and females would have to have popped up in the same generation, complete with the correct organs that fit each other and were capable of reproduction!”

    And not only in the same generation, but in reasonably close geographical proximity. And the lucky owners of this novel equipment would have to guess how it could be used. At last I begin to see how illogical it is to believe in the evilutionary worldview! Moreover, evilution would have had to ensure not only that the organs functioned, but that their carriers enjoyed their use, since otherwise they would have decided that, OK, this fits there, but what of it?

  8. It sounds like Glickman believes that according to evolution, every species that reproduces sexually evolved that ability independently. Or that human males were just sitting around, waiting for a female to be born.

    It’s like the “what good is half an eye?” argument.

  9. Mark Germano says: “Or that human males were just sitting around, waiting for a female to be born.”

    Yes, that’s a very embarrassing feature of evolution. We try to keep it a secret.

  10. Eric Lipps

    Believers in evolution have no reasonable explanation for the origin of either male or female organs. Compounding their problem is the fact that both males and females would have to have popped up in the same generation, complete with the correct organs that fit each other and were capable of reproduction!

    Then I guess parthenogenesis doesn’t happen.

    Ah, but (as far as we know, it doesn’t happen in humans! How, then, do those silly evolutionists explain sex? Well, it’s worth noting that there are simpler modes of sexual reproduction, which occurs even in bacteria. Of course, to get from there to human reproduction requires the addition of new information, which of course is impossible, even though it’s not.

  11. I don’t know why the DI is continuing to make anti-evolution arguments. Didn’t they hear the news? They’ve already won!

    I expected just ticker tape and fireworks from here on out. Such a disappointment.

  12. The Principle of Retroactive Astonishment once again establishes itself as a key creationism “science” law.

  13. Our Curmudgeon, taking exception to Christine Janis’ comment on reproductive “tinkering”, inadvertantly reveals the dread secret of the notorious ‘ceremonial cod-piece’:

    The flagellum was intelligently designed

  14. Christine Janis

    “Ah, but (as far as we know, it doesn’t happen in humans! ”
    Silly — don’t you know that the “H” in “Jesus H Christ” stands for “haploid”?

  15. docbill1351

    Mega wrote eloquently:

    ‘ceremonial cod-piece’

    What is it with you guys and fish? Next time I have oysters on the half-shell with Olivia I’ll ask her.

    Anyway, Glicksman has been around for a long, long time churning out stuff like this. The shorter Glicksman is, “Oooooh, isn’t this complicated. Praise the Lord!” It’s just another example of the Tooters descending into bog standard creationism. They’re not even pretending anymore.

  16. “it’s all just tinkering from there on in to make things a bit more complex for reproduction on land.”

    That’s it! Just a bit of tinkering. If I were you, I’d be embarassed by such a statement. Then again, an endearing quality among Darwinists is their shamelessness.

  17. Christine Janis

    “That’s it! Just a bit of tinkering. If I were you, I’d be embarassed by such a statement.”

    I am me. And I can document how the mammalian reproductive system is simply an extension of that seen in in our fishy ancestors. In fact, I not only teach this in university courses, but write about it in scientific textbooks.

    How can I do this? Because I know the scientific evidence. You should try science sometimes, it’s very enlightening and edifying — and actually a lot of fun. Ignorance may be bliss, but bliss has a short lifespan. Bliss don’t last but knowledge do. I’d be embarrassed by resorting to bliss, if I were you.

  18. Ken Phelps

    Mark Germano – “Or that human males were just sitting around, waiting for a female to be born.”

    Well everyone knows they take forever to put on their makeup.

  19. docbill1351

    I am Janis.

  20. I don’t think that this argument is due to Jack Chick, I recall reading it from the 18th-19th century, perhaps in favor of preformationism. Unfortunately, I have lost the citation.

  21. Shadow knight

    KevinC

    That’s it! Just a bit of tinkering. If I were you, I’d be embarassed by such a statement. Then again, an endearing quality among Darwinists is their shamelessness.

    You being a creationist should be the greatest embarrassment any human being could endure but the ONLY quality among creationist is there ability to lack any quality at all

  22. Shadow knight

    DavidK, the post was more like Chapter 60 in Glicksman’s series. However, you wouldn’t be expected to know that since you obviously prefer the Curmudgeon’s distilled version of ENV.

    yup 60 chapters of the same crap i take back my earlier statement there is qualities creationists have

    the wonderful capacity to not only believe their own [edited out] but be able to stomach at least 60 chapters of writing it to convince morons it true only to have legit thinkers tear it to pieces in a few sentences truly a marvel

  23. Shadow knight

    jimroberts

    for the love of bacon i hope your just mocking that paragraph quoted and aren’t taking it as a legitimate criticism of evolution because if not i can only weep at the state of our education

  24. Shadow knight

    The Sensuous One has experienced another Information-induced Drool Mode. Awaiting DocBill’s evidence-free “facts” about the Dishonesty Institute. I would recommend actually reading the post and then reading TSC’s superficial analysis.

    nope merely an a headache from all the facepalming from all the creationist stupidity and doc bill really doesn’t need to devastating fact rich about the disco tute and the brain dead gang and I’d avoid the post like the plague for the sake of your IQ and your sanity TSC’s analysis.is more then good enough while deflecting the stupid rays that come off every creationist hell im shock were not all dead due to the small amount we’ve been exposed to from this sad little post

  25. jimroberts

    “for the love of bacon i hope your just mocking that paragraph quoted and aren’t taking it as a legitimate criticism of evolution”

    Evilution isn’t just wrong about sex, it’s wrong about everything. Look at, for example, a cat. You will usually see that it has holes in its fur at exactly the right places for its eyes to see through. How often do you suppose that could happen, as evilution demands, by random chance?

  26. A cat’s legs also go all the way to the ground. What good is a leg that doesn’t reach the floor?

    Checkmate, Darwinists.

  27. Christine Janis

    A real question for the creationists? What use is half a brain?

  28. “I’d avoid the post like the plague for the sake of your IQ and your sanity TSC’s analysis.is more then good enough”
    Shadow Knight
    See comments on ignorance and bliss by Prof. Janis

  29. @Prof. Janis
    I want to retract my earlier statement that I would be embarrassed. Given your background, you should be humiliated with such a statement. Your thesis title says it all. “Tinkering” was probably the most technical term you could muster for grasping the science of embryology. “Tinkering” to describe the embryological development of humans is like saying the origin of life can be explained by “mixing”.

    Isn’t evolution wonderful? As long as you have a vivid imagination and don’t look too closely, evolution can do anything! Coyne was right; there’s a reason why evolutionary biology is at the bottom of science’s pecking order.

  30. And how could mammals get four legs? Their evolutionary precursors would have to have three legs, then three and a half legs, …

  31. Intelligent Design proponents always demand more precise explanations from evolutionary scientists than Intelligent Design practitioners are willing to provide about their theory.

    Authoring a textbook means nothing if there’s a comment on a blog that uses a figure of speech.

    Now, I know what a YEC would say about a biology textbook: lies, a hoax, Piltdown Man, materialism and atheism something something. I’m very much interested in the what an ID proponent would say about the textbooks used in high school and college classrooms.

  32. Christine Janis

    “Your thesis title says it all. “Tinkering” was probably the most technical term you could muster for grasping the science of embryology.”

    “TInkering” is the term used by many evolutionary biologists, including Neil Shubin in this book. Shubin is not only an excellent author, but he is a member of the National Academy of Sciences. You should perhaps think of reading what is written by prominent scientists before you imagine that you can humiliate others.

    https://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0307277453/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1466949356&sr=8-1&keywords=your+inner+fish

    “Tinkering” is a perfect description of how, over evolutionary time, animals do not remake themselves out of whole cloth but tinker with what they already have — this being an excellent example of evidence for common descent versus design. Why else would humans retain all kinds of aspects of the reproductive system that can be seen in fish? (For example, the testicles of men starting off their development high in the thorax, above the kidneys?)

    “As long as you have a vivid imagination and don’t look too closely, evolution can do anything! ”

    If you had read anything that real evolutionary biologists, including Jerry Coyne, rather than simply getting sound bites and quote mines from creationist sites, then you would know modern evolutionary biology is a highly rigorous and quantitative science.

  33. KevinC has had a long run here, but he’s getting tiresome. I don’t see any amusement value in his recent comments; but if y’all want to keep him around a bit longer, let me know.

  34. Isn’t that what the Intelligent Designers do, tinker?

  35. Just a bit, dear SC, just a bit.
    God has given the creationist not only a full surname, but also a full family name. What use does a creationist have without a full family name? The fact that KevinC calls himself KevinC conclusively disproves evolution. Checkmate, Darwinistis!

  36. If he has something positive to say, some description of what a designer might do that shows up in the world of life, what parameters that a design must satisfy, that sort of thing, then that would be interesting. If we’re just going to hear about how much cleverer the ID folks are, how they can clean our clocks if they would want to, then forget it.

  37. michaelfugate

    As with most creationists, KevinC suffers from ED* and it is hampering his performance.

    *evolution disparagement

  38. docbill1351

    Kev-C Minus gets it right!

    is like saying the origin of life can be explained by “mixing”.

    One thousand quatloos awarded to our Kev-C Minus with a full promotion to Kev-C Plus!

    As a chemist I appreciate the importance of mixing. Mixing is key to all chemistry. (I recommend Kitchen Aid for all your mixing needs.) Mixing, equilibrium, gradients, oh my, it does give me the vapors! Oh, vapors, too.

    It was a LOT of mixing. About 2 billion years of mixing. Ever been to the hot springs at Yellowstone National Park? The place stinks like an organic chemistry lab (sorry, organicers but you know it’s true). The early Earth was even worse with a reducing atmosphere and nasty vapors. Total chemical chaos.

  39. docbill1351

    Physics of life, another interesting topic of research. This from a report in Nature earlier this year:

    First, Zvonimir Dogic and his students took microtubules — threadlike proteins that make up part of the cell’s internal ‘cytoskeleton’ — and mixed them with kinesins, motor proteins that travel along these threads like trains on a track. Then the researchers suspended droplets of this cocktail in oil and supplied it with the molecular fuel known as adenosine triphosphate (ATP).

    To the team’s surprise and delight, the molecules organized themselves into large-scale patterns that swirled on each droplet’s surface. Bundles of microtubules linked by the proteins moved together “like a person crowd-surfing at a concert”, says Dogic, a physicist at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts.

    There have been many, many experiments that demonstrate the self-organization of molecules, chains, polymers and stuff like that. Sadly, with a creationist the conversation turns from fascinating chemistry and physics to a declaration that all experiments are “intelligently designed,” ergo, Praise the Lord. And that in a nutshell is why “intelligent design” creationism is a science stopper.

  40. @SC: You’re the boss, but I would like to see KevinC around a little longer, in the hope that in the meantime someone more entertaining turns up.

  41. jimroberts says: ” I would like to see KevinC around a little longer”

    Okay. We’ll see how it goes. Perhaps I was being too protective of Christine Janis. I’m a bit old-fashioned that way.

  42. Christine Janis

    A kind thought, Curmie, but I”m quite enjoying the banter!

  43. Shadow knight

    “See comments on ignorance and bliss by Pro

    ignorance implies there is knowledge missing there is no knowledge in the original post (I’ve read it I’m still facepalming ) so sparing the reader the agony of reading it will not decrease or deny them knowledge because as i said there is no knowledge to be acquired

  44. Shadow knight

    Evilution isn’t just wrong about sex, it’s wrong about everything. Look at, for example, a cat. You will usually see that it has holes in its fur at exactly the right places for its eyes to see through. How often do you suppose that could happen, as evilution demands, by random chance?

    good one jimroberts your better at being a creationist then they are

  45. Keep Kevin. C. It is long odds, but he might actually learn something and convert.