Discoveroids: The Evidence Is Against Evolution

It doesn’t get any more chaotic than the latest gem at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog. It was written by Cornelius Hunter — a Discoveroid “fellow” who teaches at a bible college. The title is Evolutionists’ Certainty Comes from Metaphysics, Not Science.

Ponder that title, dear reader. Cornelius is going to tell us that we — who have confidence in science and its methods — are the wild and crazy people. His essay is difficult to read, and painful to write about, but we’ll do what we can. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

We have seen here and here [links omitted] that a new book, Adam and the Genome, co-authored by theistic evolutionist Dennis Venema is influenced by the mythical Warfare Thesis. The book, for example, informs readers that the basic issue of the 17th-century Galileo Affair was “the veracity of the new science, and its perceived threat to biblical authority.” As we saw, this is the false, evolutionary rendition of history. The Warfare Thesis is a myth, and the Galileo Affair is perhaps the favorite example for evolutionists.

According to Cornelius, the “mythical” Warfare Thesis holds that religion, and Christianity in particular, conflicts with and opposes scientific advances. He disagrees, and claims that religion — his version — doesn’t conflict with true science — i.e., creationism. He discussed that and Venema’s book a couple of weeks ago — see Discovery Institute Defends the Inquisition — but he still has more to say. Here it comes:

After framing the discussion with this bit of Whig history, Venema introduces scientific evidences that he believes make evolution to be compelling. He begins with the fossil record. This is a bit surprising given how badly the theory fares on the fossil evidence.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Cornelius says the fossil evidence doesn’t support the theory of evolution. Expanding on that, he tells us:

As we have explained many times, the general character of the fossil record is precisely the opposite of what evolutionists had expected. Rather than the traditional evolutionary tree pattern of new species gradually appearing over time, the fossil record reveals the exact opposite. The strata show several bursts of new species appearing on the scene, followed by a winnowing.

Like all creationists, Cornelius demands a perfectly preserved fossil of every species from every generation that ever lived. Because we don’t have that and we never will, he claims that the inevitable gaps discredit evolution. There are numerous responses to this in the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims, for example: We should see smooth change through the fossil record, not gaps. Then he says:

[T]he fossil record reveals so many “explosions” of new species. The so-called “Cambrian explosion” (yes, it is called an “explosion”) is the most famous, but there are several others. In these events, new species appear abruptly in the fossil record. Not only do a great many “truly new” features appear, but entirely new lineages appear as well. Clearly, the fossil record repeatedly falsifies this prediction of evolution.

[*Groan*] The Index to Creationist Claims rebuts that clunker too — see Complex life forms appear suddenly in the Cambrian explosion, with no ancestral fossils.

The parade of creationist clunkers continues. Cornelius attacks the evolution of whales:

A collection of fossils can be arranged from land mammals to whales, which is precisely what evolution needs since whales are mammals. The idea is that mammals first evolved on land, and then certain species made their way back into the water, thus introducing mammals to marine environments.


And if these species did arise from evolution, and if the modern whale did arise from such a land-to-sea transition then, as usual, it would be quite a mystery. For a great transition, including the loss of hind limbs, grinding teeth, and pelvises, while developing a host of new features, must have occurred relatively quickly.


Why then are evolutionists so taken with the patterns of the fossil record, and examples such as the fossil sequence that is supposed to lead to the whale? Yes, it provides a good sequence, but there are many questions of just how random mutations could accomplish such heroics. And there are the many other aspects of the fossil data that are problematic, such as the many “explosions.”

We briefly interrupt this multi-paragraph deluge of nothingness to ask whether Cornelius has any evidence — any at all — of the existence of his magical designer. If he does (other than the inevitable incompleteness of the fossil record) he fails to mention it. Let’s read on:

These are serious evidential problems, and it would seem the fossils would be the last thing to which evolutionists would appeal. What’s going on? The answer is, as usual, that the evolutionist’s certainty comes from metaphysics, not science. The idea is not that the whale-like fossils prove evolution directly, but that they disprove any notion that God created them independently. Therefore they must have evolved.

Did you follow that? Cornelius explains what he just said:

These metaphysics render the scientific evidence irrelevant and, ironically, make evolution untestable and not vulnerable to the evidence. Fossil species appearing abruptly in the strata don’t matter when your philosophical argument makes creation untenable. As usual, the evolutionary argument is guilty of the very criticism is casts.

Isn’t this great? Let’s read on:

In my studies of the arguments for evolution, I find they fall into two broad categories: philosophical arguments about man, knowledge, and science; and religious arguments about God. … If the evolutionist’s premises are correct, then evolution is a no-brainer. We must be evolutionists — regardless of the scientific evidence. The species arising from random causes, such as mutations, makes no sense scientifically, but would be a must. As usual the religion and philosophy steer the science.

In his final paragraph, Cornelius once again bashes Venema’s book:

This new book is yet another example, in a long line of works going back to Darwin and before, of how evolution is our modern-day mythology. New species appearing out of nowhere. Fantastic designs arising from random mutations. And all of this mandated to be a fact. If you cannot see a problem with this, then you must be an Epicurean.

That last sentence came out of nowhere. Wikipedia’s article on Epicureanism says:

Epicureanism is a system of philosophy based upon the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus, founded around 307 BC. Epicurus was an atomic materialist, following in the steps of Democritus. His materialism led him to a general attack on superstition and divine intervention.

Cornelius really knows how to hurl an insult. He’s a great Discoveroid.

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

12 responses to “Discoveroids: The Evidence Is Against Evolution

  1. Michael Fugate

    Here’s Nick Matzke from the Panda’s Thumb archive on Hunter’s tactics (they haven’t changed one bit).

    I wonder why whales still have remnants of hind limbs? Did the designer draw them in and then erase incompletely before construction plans were carried out?

  2. MichaelF wonders why.
    Corny Hunty’s answer is of course “Goddiddid”.

  3. Pete Moulton

    Our Curmudgeon rhapsodizes: “[Corny]’s a great Discoveroid.”

    Now THAT’S how you hurl an insult! I can’t think of much worse that could be said of anyone.

  4. Michael Fugate

    I always thought it was creationists who believed species came from nowhere. Isn’t that what creatio ex nihilo means.

  5. “creatio ex nihilo” That is exactly what I have told creationists including Ray Comfort, many times.

  6. “New species appearing out of nowhere”

    They appear out of nowhere until their ancestor is found. Then, the ancestor is the one appearing out of nowhere, until it’s ancestor is found. And so on.

    Just because we find a new fossil creature doesn’t mean it was poofed into existence.

    From Hunter’s deep study of the subject, I wonder if he can identify which of the various fossilized creatures along the path of cetacean evolution was poofed into existence and which evolved from earlier forms. What evidence does he has of “poofing?” What animals in existence today were designed rather than evolved? How does he know?

  7. Trace your own family tree back. Eventually you’ll come to ancestors who “appeared out of nowhere”–because we have no record of their ancestors. Does that mean they literally “poofed” into existence?

    Of course not. Even creationists would reject that; they only need Adam and Eve to have magically appeared, not anyone later.

  8. Ross Cameron

    When you`re in the grip of a delusion, evidence has to be twisted to suit. Wonder if Corny would take a stab about asteroid craters-another something not mentioned in the bible. Or Ice ages.

  9. Michael Fugate

    You can hear Hunter chanting in the background, “Were you there?, Were you there?” Ken would be proud.

  10. “The strata show several bursts of new species appearing on the scene, followed by a winnowing.” How do the creationists explain this? perhaps the Designer has a particularly inspired day, but isn’t all that competent because so many of the new species go extinct.

  11. As far as I can see, anti-evolutionists are not in the business of explaining anything in the natural world. To invoke an agency which is consistent with any result does not distinguish, and distinguishing is what explanations do.

  12. Michael Fugate

    As Paul points out, if Hunter is correct, won’t we all wake up one day and find thousands of new species in our local community that weren’t the day before?

Make a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s