Ultimate Evidence of Intelligent Design

Whether it’s bible-based creationism or its slick and stealthy revised version called intelligent design, we’re always being told that life is a miracle, wondrously designed by a benevolent creator.

We found some undeniable evidence of that in an article at PhysOrg: Insidious wasp gets ahead by tunneling through host’s head. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Gall wasps may feel confident as they infest oak trees for shelter and sustenance, but their wasp enemy has an even more insidious agenda, according to Rice University scientists. The wasp known as Euderus set, or E. set, deposits an egg in the developing gall wasp’s woody haven. The young E. set eventually chews its way to freedom – through its host’s head.

[*Curmudgeon sheds tears of joy*] That’s beautiful. Absolutely beautiful. The article then says:

Rice researchers nicknamed it the “crypt-keeper” wasp and said it’s a rare example of hypermanipulation, in which a parasite is manipulated by another parasite. E. set and its gory emergence are described in two papers led by Rice evolutionary biologists Kelly Weinersmith and Scott Egan. The first paper, in the open-access journal ZooKeys this month, describes the new wasp species in detail. The second, released today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, details the species’ ghoulish strategy.

Here’s the article in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Tales from the crypt: a parasitoid manipulates the behaviour of its parasite host. You can read it online without a subscription, but we’ll stay with PhysOrg, which tells us:

The discoverers named their wasp for Set, the Egyptian god of evil and chaos who trapped his brother Osiris in a crypt, killed him and then cut him into little pieces.

The tiny, iridescent parasite hijacks its host, Bassettia pallida, which would normally mature inside the crypt (aka the gall) and tunnel its way out to freedom in the spring. A female E. set deposits an egg into the crypt, where it manipulates the growing gall wasp, typically making its emergence hole too small.

When the wasp tries to escape, its head lodges in the hole. E. set can then consume the gall wasp’s internal organs and emerge, “Alien”-like, from its head case.

[*Curmudgeon swoons*] We’re not even half-way through the article, but we’ve excerpted enough. If that doesn’t convince you of the glorious existence of the benevolent designer — blessed be he! — then there is no hope for you.

Copyright © 2017. 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

22 responses to “Ultimate Evidence of Intelligent Design

  1. Adam and Eve’s fault.


  2. Michael Fugate

    Which begs the question as to what Euderus set‘s ecological role was before the Fall.

  3. Michael Fugate

    I am only doing this to piss off KevinC, but O’ Grand Master of the Bloggy Universe could you fix my tag issue? I imagine it was a backslash hash …

    [*Voice from above*] Because of your humility and the purity of your motive, all is now as it should be.

  4. Re, Michael Fugate. This also invites the question as to what the gall wasp itself did before the fall. In such a perfect world, surely it didn’t cause galls in oaks. I marvel at all the ecological relationships changed by the simple act of a couple of humans nibbling on some tree fruit.

  5. MF, your comments don’t anger me. In fact, I’m delighted Curmudgeonites like yourself and Megalonyx serve a certain Leninesque usefulness by your comments. They allow me a springboard from which I can offer my own contributions.

    Oh Sensuous One! I must humbly remind you that Behe anticipated your post 10 years ago in The Edge of Evolution:

    Wasp larvae feeding on paralyzed caterpillars is certainly a disquieting image, to say nothing of malaria feeding on children. So did Darwin conclude that the designer was not beneficent? Maybe not omnipotent? No. He decided—based on squeamishness—that no designer existed. Because it is horrific, it was not designed—a better example of the fallacy of non sequitur would be hard to find. Revulsion is not a scientific argument.

    Darwin could have learned something from the hard-boiled Yiddish proverb, “If God lived on earth, people would break his windows.” Maybe the designer isn’t all that beneficent or omnipotent. Science can’t answer questions like that. But denying design simply because it can cause terrible pain is a failure of nerve, a failure to look the universe fully in the face. pp 238-238

  6. The designer had ALOT of time on his hands in order to come up with this particular Rube Goldberg design.

  7. What about the Intelligent Designer of the laws of the universe who designed the Law of Conservation of Complexity, and fined tuned the parameters for life, and who designed Earth as a Privileged Planet, and ended up with an Earth which could not support life, but one where it took Intelligent Design to bypass all of that previous design to make life.
    BTW, there are those YECs who say that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was a consequence of the Fall. If so, then entropy was not a barrier to the appearance of life. But that is not a concern of ID.

  8. Darwin could have learned something from the hard-boiled Yiddish proverb, “If God lived on earth, people would break his windows.” Maybe the designer isn’t all that beneficent or omnipotent. Science can’t answer questions like that. But denying design simply because it can cause terrible pain is a failure of nerve, a failure to look the universe fully in the face.

    Twaddle. Design predicated on the presumed existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing and benevolent God is the “failure to look the universe fully in the face.”

    The real question is whether Michael Behe has ever actually believed this tripe or simply followed the smell of money to the Discovery Institute, where he could get paid for writing nonsense to rook the rubes.

  9. IS Behe a huckster? Or does he really have such a bungled mind that he actually believes his magical claims? I think one has to refer to an earlier Curmudgeon post that mentions mental illness, religious zealotry, deceitfulness, stupidity and bad education as the ultimate brain frenching recipe.

  10. Michael Fugate

    So KevinC, what you are saying is that based on the evidence ffom nature your God is not good?

  11. och will

    Or does he really have such a bungled mind that he actually believes his magical claims?

    As Heinlein pointed out, “Belief gets in the way of learning.” Also we have the oft-quoted, “The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it.”

    Given all of that, its not surprising that the creationists ignore data, evidence, logic and anything else that disagrees with their beliefs.

  12. @Coyote
    … and what they, or the Bible said …

  13. I was hoping somebody would quote the Discovery Institute’s staff entomologist, but I guess I’ll have to wait.

  14. Or, maybe this is a good example of one of the “certain features” that is not evidence for intelligent design.

  15. Kevin C, thanks for demonstrating that Behe is a liar. See, Darrwin did not do such thing at all. He did what all scientists do: present a natural explanation – exactly what Behe and you and every single other creationist don’t do.
    Of course all sensible people here (ie not you) know that the one time Behe felt forced to speak the truth (in courtroom) he was a total failure. He had to admit that astrology according to him is also science, thus disqualifying himself as the arbiter of what constitutes a scientific argument and what doesn’t.
    Lovely how creacrappers manage to undermine their own views over and over again.

  16. @mnbo
    a natural explanation
    And what the advocates of ID do not do is provide an explanation (of any sort, natural or supernatural or preternatural or whatever). The most that they can do is to cast doubt on natural explanations, and to claim that there is an alternative explanation. But they never get around to describing that alternative. Yes, they might say that design is a part of such an explanation, but not how design works in an explanation.

  17. mnb0, I’m not feeling the love my friend. Things have not been going well for Darwinists lately and I understand their need to lash out. So go ahead; unleash yourself. I was going to give 1st prize for the dumbest comment here to Eric Lipps until I read yours. As for Behe and astrology, you need to keep up. We’ve had this discussion here recently. So I’ll ask my question again since no one answered me the first time.

    Someone tell me please: is weird science real science? If the answer is yes today but proven wrong tomorrow, doesn’t “real” science then become pseudo- or non-science? A simple yes or no to each question will suffice.

  18. You have your responses ready for whatever anybody answers, so why wait? Show us all just how smart and witty you really are.

    Then, you can provide us that list of non-irreducibly complex, yet intelligently designed, things.

  19. KevinC, to get good answers you first must ask good questions, something you are obviously not capable of doing. To begin with you must explain what you mean with “weird” science. Otherwise it’s totally meaningless, just like your beloved goddiddid.
    And thanks for the 1st price. I’m flattered. I’ve years of experience with creacrappers like you and have learned a long time ago that coming from you it’s a compliment. I would only start worrying if you called me smart.
    Of course also thanks for not addressing anything I wrote. Though it’s totally unsurprising, given that every single creationist is dishonest until proven otherwise.
    But honest is honest as we Dutch say – you got two things right. No, I don’t waste any love on crap like you produce with every single comment. And indeed things are not going well for darwinists lately. They never have been going well. Because there are no things called darwinists. There are people who accept science – like most of the regulars here – and those who don’t – like all creacrappers, including you.

  20. Michael Fugate

    If KevinC doesn’t realize that scientists change their conclusions in response to new data, then there isn’t much hope for him…

  21. I don’t know much about astrology, but apparently there were various systems by which falsifiable predictions could be made based on the positions of celestial objects. That is a good start for counting as scientific. Unfortunately, the predictions of astrology usually didn’t work, and when they seemed to, there were readily available alternative explanations. So astrology counts as a failed scientific endeavour, and Behe was sort of right to call it scientific. If the Discoveroids could get so close to being scientific, it would be a triumph for them.

  22. Does one include the predictions of the positions of the heavenly bodies as part of astrology? Were they thought of that way up until the early modern period?