Klinghoffer: Eggs Are Designed, Therefore …

Your Curmudgeon is overwhelmed by what we found today at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog. The thing is titled Eggshell’s Remarkable Design — A Tribute to Mindless Evolution?

It was written by David Klinghoffer, a Discoveroid “senior fellow” (i.e., flaming, full-blown creationist), who eagerly functions as their journalistic slasher and poo flinger. We’ll give you a few excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis.

Scientists have revealed the delicately designed structure of bird eggs, combining remarkable strength with the capability of being cracked and pierced from within by an otherwise helpless chick in the process of hatching. The paper reporting this research, published in Science Advances [Nanostructure, osteopontin, and mechanical properties of calcitic avian eggshell], is striking with its references to “design.” Yet from this they derive a demonstration of…evolution and its mindless genius.

Whoa — hold on a minute! We seem to recall another creationist who went into ecstasy about eggs. Who was that? Ah yes, we remember — see Kirk Cameron (Banana Boy): The Joy of Eggs. Cameron was the co-star in Ray Comfort’s famous “Banana video”. In his revelation about eggs he declared: “Clearly, the egg is a marvel, designed by a creative genius.”

Now Klinghoffer is joining Cameron. Skipping all his extensive quotes from the article in Science Advances, he says:

The researchers admire the “remarkably designed and evolutionarily persistent avian eggshell,” and they enthuse about the implications for developing new biomimetic technologies … .

Ooooooooooooh! They said “designed”! After that he tells us:

It’s “remarkably design,” [sic] it can “inform design concepts.” Yet guess what? It’s all a tribute not to intelligent design but to unguided evolution.

How could the authors of that paper be so blind? They must be fools! Klinghoffer continues:

The complaint about seemingly imperfect design is often heard from Darwinists as a reason to say that apparent design in biology isn’t real design. An atheist brags about flummoxing an argument for ID based on the human eye by pointing out to an interlocutor, making a case for design, that he’s wearing eyeglasses. Yes, the eyes wear out with age. God wouldn’t do it that way! Neither would a clever human designer. After all, we know that human technology never wears out. Ergo, Darwinism.

Your Curmudgeon has been guilty of that — see Buffoon Award Winner — The Intelligent Designer. But Klinghoffer points out how wrong we were:

Here the logic is exactly reversed. The design of the avian egg is so amazing, so worthy of imitation by human technology, that “when you think about it,” it’s all a magnificent tribute to unguided evolution. Boy, any clever human designer should rush to learn from this!

*Curmudgeon hangs his head in shame* And now we come to the end:

Is any observation, along with its opposite, not evidence for evolution? Sometimes, it seems not.

So there you are, dear reader. When two outstanding thinkers like Kirk Cameron and David Klinghoffer both extol the egg as evidence of divine design, we are compelled to agree.

Copyright © 2018. 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

18 responses to “Klinghoffer: Eggs Are Designed, Therefore …

  1. Michael Fugate

    Projecting again David.

  2. All the female animals that tried to lay square eggs quickly died out, hence the current ‘design.’ Maybe in the future square eggs will be back in fashion.

  3. If only there were some precursors to avian eggs so that we could see how they might have evolved in steps…

  4. It would be even more impressive if eggs were banana shaped.

  5. But, but, dear SC ….. there are bananas that are egg shaped! You can find them in Suriname.

  6. Know why eggs are tapered on one end?……..

  7. If something is designed –
    That is not enough. There must also be production. On raw material. Following the laws which the design took accound of.

  8. Michael Fugate

    Did God design the egg or the chicken first?

  9. I noted before that David has stopped posting links to his drivel since November on Twitter.

  10. Michael Fugate

    I am expecting a Klinghofferian rhapsody over the marvelous design (by God, of course) of the head louse egg. A wonder if there ever was – the way the louse secretes protein that wraps around the egg and a human hair shaft anchoring the egg in place while leaving the operculum uncovered for respiration. How does it know to do that with God’s guiding hand?

  11. “Is any observation, along with its opposite, not evidence for evolution? Sometimes, it seems not.”

    Evolution would suggest that the more crucial for survival and reproduction a ‘design’ is, the closer to perfect it will be (i.e. the stronger the selective pressure). I can imagine few more crucial than getting the eggshell right (as the effective of DDT on eggshells, and thus avian populations, has shown).

  12. OT, but since DDT has been mentioned, let me remind you that at the height of DDT use, Americans had concentrations in their fatty tissues above FDA limits and were therefore unfit for human consumption

  13. Klinghoffer: “Scientists have revealed the delicately designed structure of bird eggs, combining remarkable strength with the capability of being cracked and pierced from within by an otherwise helpless chick in the process of hatching.”

    As usual, the creationist grandly exaggerates the perfection of G.O.D.’s design.

    The chick’s egg is not hard enough to prevent accidental breakage from being stepped or sat upon by the hen, or even deliberate breakage by hens who eat their own eggs.

    Nor are all chicks able to escape their shells unaided.

    Natural selection helps eliminate future recurrence of these problems, resulting in a precarious and fluctuating balance between the two conflicting requirements for the eggshell, which as yet are still not completely resolved.

    http://afarmishkindoflife.com/help-chick-hatch/

  14. Nor does the creationist account for the effect of the hen’s diet on the composition and development of the eggshell.

  15. Creationism does not account for anything. It says
    1) there is something wrong with the evolutionist account for X
    therefore the best account for X is
    2) anything is possible, including X

  16. Eric Lipps

    Michael Fugate | 6-April-2018 at 3:46 pm |
    Did God design the egg or the chicken first?

    That’s the fundamental difference between creationists and Darwinians, isn’t it? Creationists believe the chicken came first, on Day Five of the creation week; Darwinians believe the egg came first, with the first chicken hatched out of one laid by a bird which was not quite yet a chicken. ;D

  17. I remember when I was quite young, and one of my elders gave me the chicken or egg problem. I didn’t think that it was a difficult question, and said, “the first chicken hatched out of one laid by a bird which was not quite yet a chicken.” I remember being puzzled by the emotional reaction. Not until many years later did it occur to me the reason for that reaction.
    I think that there are only one of these solutions:
    1) Aristotle’s solution,: Neither is first, there is no beginning.
    2) Nietzsche’s solution: Both give rise to the other, there is an eternal return.
    3) Gosse’s solution: Which is first is arbitrary (probably the hen), the Omphalos Hypothesis
    4) Darwin’s solution: Gradual evolution.
    I think that one can prove mathematically that thse are the only possibilities for a continuous function.