Creationist Wisdom #700: Evolution’s Problems

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in The Citizen of Fayetteville, Georgia. Their headline is Evolutionary theory fails to explain so many things, and 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 — or maybe her — full name. The first name is Pepper, and we don’t know if that’s male or female. Excerpts from the letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

Good science dictates changing or dropping a theory if it is contradicted by the evidence. This basic premise of science has been ignored when it comes to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! This is going to be good. Then we’re told:

Consider the following examples.

We counted Pepper’s examples. There are nine of them. The letter is a cornucopia of creationist clunkers, far too many for us to wade through here. We’ll give you only the classics, starting with:

Darwinian theory would predict that the fossil record would show the gradual introduction of new species. The fossil record is characterized by the sudden appearance of species.

Darwinian theory would also predict that the fossil record would show species changing over time but the fossil record demonstrates ”stasis” among species, that is, they remain the same over time.

Those were the first two examples. Now you know that the fossil record is useless as evidence for evolution. Pepper continues:

Darwinian theory would predict that every biological form would be built by tiny, functional steps. A biological “machine” that requires every one of its components to be present for the machine to be functional, cannot be the result of tiny, functional steps. The bacterial flagellum is the poster child for these machines but there are many other examples.

[*Groan*] That’s the worthless “irreducible complexity” argument of Discoveroid Michael Behe. See Behe’s Bacterial Flagellum — Debunked.

All of Pepper’s examples seem to come from the Discoveroids. Here’s more:

Darwinian theory would predict an absence of highly complex, specified information in biological systems as that kind of information is always and only the product of intelligence. You would NEVER see “Eat at Joe’s” in the sky and think it is some odd cloud formation. DNA is extremely complex, specified information and more, it is an entire language unto itself.

[*Yawn*] That’s the Discoveroids’ undefined and incomprehensible concept of Specified complexity, conjured up by William Dembski. Moving along:

Darwinian theory would predict that the tiny changes happening in genes would result in every gene being extremely closely linked to other genes from which it came. Think of a chapter in a book where a few letters are different from a chapter in another book. “Orfans” is the term for those genes for which no relationship can be discovered among all other known genes. Orfans have become ubiquitous, numbering in the tens of millions, and continue to grow with each gene sequencing published.

Pepper is talking about Orphan genes, sometimes called “ORFans.” Wikipedia says: “Orphan genes may arise through a variety of mechanisms, such as horizontal gene transfer, duplication and rapid divergence, and de novo origination, and may act at different rates in insects, primates, and plants.” The Discoveroids mentioned them in a few of their articles — for example: A Reader Asks, “Are De Novo Genes Real?”, in which Ann Gauger (a/k/a “Annie Green Screen”) dismissed the evolutionists’ assumption that orphan genes arise from natural processes because it’s “an assumption of naturalism.” She’s right. A good scientist should never rule out Oogity Boogity! as the cause of what we observe.

This is the last example from Pepper’s letter:

And the worst issue of all for the Darwinian worldview, which claims that all living things are the result of Darwinian processes, is the origin of life itself. The Naturalistic origin of life discussion is in an almost hopeless state, the same place it was 50 years ago.

Foolish Darwinists! Pepper (and the Discoveroids) know that the source of life is the intelligent designer — blessed be he!

This is the end of the letter:

These are not all the problems with Darwinian theory, but any one of them should send a scientist back to the drawing board. So when they stomp their feet and insist “there are NO problems with Darwin’s theory,” you know we are no longer talking good science but bad ideology. They are choosing to live with a reassuring fable rather than embracing a hard truth.

That last was a splendidly ironic sentence. This was a great letter! Casey himself couldn’t have done better.

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

8 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #700: Evolution’s Problems

  1. The fact that s/he starts her/his letter with a nice quote mine from Carl Sagan is the definition of ironic. Pepper’s ability to perform introspection is non-existent.

  2. Look, I understand that these people cannot accept the Theory of Evolution because it undermines their concept of “god” (being a substitute word for everything they need and fear). But why do they insist on using … over and over … the tool (reason) they reject for their faith. And they are so bad at it. They are bad at science and bad at theology and they just can’t help themselves … can’t they just go away?

  3. Our Curmudgeon notes

    All of Pepper’s examples seem to come from the Discoveroids.

    One must indeed ask (pace the Creationists): just where does all this misinformation come from?

    It’s almost as if the DI were organising a network of nitwit letter-writers…

  4. Yes, Pepper’s right, why muddle around in the muck when it’s far simpler to say “god did it.” Pepper has thus solved everything to his satisfaction.

  5. Sgt. Pepper got two things almost right!

    “Darwinian theory would predict that the fossil record would show the gradual introduction of new species. ”
    “Darwinian theory would also predict that the fossil record would show species changing over time .”
    Modern Evolution Theory, which is a pretty far cry from Darwinian theory, can explain sudden appearance and stasis.

  6. I am not a scientist, but I dare to offer this opinion:
    Given how fast a new species can show distinctiveness, and how small can be the morphological difference, I would think that the fossil record would often be too course-grained to show speciation. I would suspect that this is something which is better observed in extant forms.
    The evidence for evolution is not confined to paleontology, as dramatic as it can be.
    It is worth mentioning that many creationists insist that they accept (under the name “micro-evolution”) speciation, to the extent that denial of speciation is in those lists of arguments against evolution which are not recommended.

  7. Pepper’s last sentence (“They are choosing to live with a reassuring fable rather than embracing a hard truth”) is priceless.

  8. Holding The Line In Florida

    The comment section is rather interesting. The Lad actually responded to each of the comments essentially calling him a dummy. Hopelessly lost!