The Eleventh Law of Creationism

We were very much surprised by the latest post at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog — Eel Migration Comes to Light. It has no author’s byline.

Our surprise was because we thought we had a complete understanding of the … uh, principles underlying the Discoveroids’ “theory” of intelligent design. We wrote about them years ago — see The Ten Laws of Creationism. But now we learn that there is another principle that can be invoked when needed. Here are some excerpts from their latest post, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

In his new book Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis, Discovery Institute biologist Michael Denton gives example after example of living things — microbes, animals, and plants — whose traits could not have arisen by a Darwinian process. He describes one of the most bizarre of all, a fish whose life cycle and migration has challenged biologists for over a century: the European freshwater eel.

What’s so special about eels? We’re told:

Inhabiting most of the rivers of Europe and the British Isles, the eel undergoes radical metamorphoses, transforming from transparent, flat larvae to cylindrical “glass eels” and then again to yellow eels and, finally, silver eels that migrate to the Sargasso Sea to mate. During these transitions, digestive and sex organs move about the anatomy.

Strange creatures indeed. What do the Discoveroids learn from this? They quote from a recent study (not conducted by Discoveroids, of course), about which they say:

The authors avoided any mention of evolution. We can infer, however, that these creatures are even better designed than previously known. They don’t just drift with prevailing currents. Like sea turtles and salmon, they know where they need to go and will battle currents to get there, even if it requires taking a roundabout path.

After some more information about eels, the Discoveroids tell us:

These new findings pile on problems for functionalist explanations. Neo-Darwinism would predict bare-minimum adaptation sufficient for survival. Travelling 5,000 to 10,000 km in open sea, rife with predators, makes no sense in evolutionary theory. Undergoing major morphological changes makes no sense, either. Evolution is indeed still a theory in crisis.

Aha! The Discoveroids say that eel behavior “makes no sense.” That’s the key, dear reader. Then they briefly mention — and blow all out of proportion — an article in Science: Fossil fishes challenge ‘urban legend’ of evolution. All you can see without a subscription is the abstract, but even that doesn’t support the position of the Discoveroids. They announce:

What urban legend does she speak of? It’s a favorite myth in Darwinian theory: the idea that gene duplication frees up a spare copy to evolve new innovations.

But gene duplication does free up the spare copy to evolve new innovations. See How One Gene Becomes Two Different Genes. Anyway, that’s a side-issue. The Discoveroids return to their main theme at the end of their post:

Evolution is more a theory in crisis than Denton’s first book was published in 1985. These entries show it has gained more crises since his second book was published earlier this year. Things do not look good for Darwinism. There’s an alternative position that doesn’t have these problems. Its evidence is growing year by year. It’s called intelligent design.

So there you are. What have we learned? Well, usually the Discoveroids claim that if something works, it exhibits what they call Specified complexity. Wikipedia says that according to William Dembski, “specified complexity is a reliable marker of design by an intelligent agent – a central tenet to intelligent design.” Today, however, we learn that if something “makes no sense,” that too supports the “theory” of intelligent design.

So now we have an Eleventh Law of Creationism: That which makes sense is evidence of intelligent design. That which makes no sense is also evidence of intelligent design. The Discoveroids’ “theory” is irrefutable! That means it’s The Truth.

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

11 responses to “The Eleventh Law of Creationism

  1. “This animal does something completely stupid as part of it’s life-cycle, and was therefore designed by a supremely intelligent being.”

    So, we’re moving from God being Loki, who disguised His creation to make it look evolved, to God being a first-year bioengineering student. This is not an improvement.

  2. During these transitions, digestive and sex organs move about the anatomy.

    This is particularly true of Discoveroids, where their digestive organs end up where their brains used to be.

    They could add the 11th law to the items they sell from the DI, painting this on one side of their designed pet rock souvenirs:

    Side 1: That which makes sense is evidence of intelligent design.

    Side 2: That which makes no sense is also evidence of intelligent design.

  3. 10,000 km? Lying as usual.

  4. michaelfugate

    Somehow I imagine continental drift is involved…

  5. “…Travelling 5,000 to 10,000 km in open sea, rife with predators, makes no sense in evolutionary theory. …”
    OK! So your IDiot designer is an incompetent ahole to design the system the way it is!

  6. Well, I’m sold. When every – EVERY – answer on the test is

    C: Because Intelligent Design

    life is so much simpler.

  7. If Evolution is a theory with so many problems; if fact every theory has some problems. What issues do the Discovery Institute concede about Intelligent Design? Surly there must be some, or they would have nothing to work on.

  8. “Travelling 5,000 to 10,000 km in open sea, rife with predators, makes no sense in evolutionary theory.”
    Ignoring the overestimate of distance, I suggest that travelling in open sea, full of prey, makes quite a bit of sense.
    As for battling currents to get there, I imagine that if I am an eel trying to reach a suitable breeding area, I might detect current-borne olfactory clues, which I follow up-current, in the direction of increasing concentration.

  9. And again I’d like an explanation why in the heavens an intelligent designer would make those poor eels go through all this trouble. Or why she created thousands of totally bizarre creatures in the first place.

  10. The Discoveroids are getting to the point that the answer to every question is “I have a book!” And it’s not Denton’s book.

  11. In his new book Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis, Discovery Institute biologist Michael Denton gives example after example of living things — microbes, animals, and plants — whose traits could not have arisen by a Darwinian process.

    So because DI quack, ahem, biologist Denton can’t think of any way these species’ traits could have arisen via evolution, that proves there is no way?

    Or is it that he doesn’t even try, being convinced that evolution just can’t be true, and simply claims there’s no Darwinian explanation?

    Naah, couldn’t be. He’s a serious re, heh, research, haha, researcher, hee hee hoo hah, and wouldn’t . . . wouldn’t . . . BWAHAHAHAHAAAAA!