Discoveroids’ Top Ten for 2018 — #8

Your Curmudgeon was good all year, so Santa didn’t let us down. Under our Christmas tree we found exactly what we were hoping for — the next entry in the Discovery Institute’s list of their Top Ten “achievements” for the year now ending.

We’ve already written about the first two items in the Discoveroids’ impressive list — see #10 and #9. Those were about some triumphs in the field of public relations. A talk show host and a novelist declared their devotion to the Discoveroids’ “theory” of intelligent design.

What they’re bragging about today involves another aspect of creationism — quote mining, misinterpretation, and wishful thinking. They just posted Merry Christmas! #8 of Our Top Stories of 2018: Humans and Animals Are (Mostly) the Same Age?

It was written by Andrew Jones, who has been a Discoveroid blogger for the past year. They say he has a PhD in Computational Molecular Physics from the University of Edinburgh, and he’s now a software developer who used to work for Google. He wrote the original post six months ago. It’s copied today at their creationist blog (preceded by a request for money from their readers), and it begins like this:

Could it be that animals were designed together with humans and instantiated at the same time too? Or did they get off the same spaceship? Or off the same boat?

Wild stuff, huh? We wrote about Andy’s post back in June when it first appeared. Ol’ Hambo had already written about the same thing, so our post was titled Discoveroids and Hambo, Together Again. It was another example of the Great Creationist Coalescence (the GCC).

You can read what we wrote about those posts by Hambo and the Discoveroids, but trust us — it’s not necessary. Hambo, the Discoveroids, and an ark-load of other creationists all saw only what they wanted to see in some newly published research, and they ignored what Mark Stoeckle, one of the researchers, said.

According to PhysOrg in Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution:

“The simplest interpretation is that life is always evolving,” said Stoeckle. “It is more likely that — at all times in evolution — the animals alive at that point arose relatively recently.” In this view, a species only lasts a certain amount of time before it either evolves into something new or goes extinct.

That’s it, dear reader — the latest Earth-shaking development in the Discoveroids Top Ten list. We can’t wait to learn about the next seven items. What further wonders await us? Stay tuned to this blog!

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

10 responses to “Discoveroids’ Top Ten for 2018 — #8

  1. “Could it be that animals were designed together with humans and instantiated at the same time too? Or did they get off the same spaceship? Or off the same boat?”

    Could it be that all creationists are actually located within the same long ago sunk box?* Could it be that they are so stupid because all of them have to share just a single brain?

    *An ark is a chest or box.

  2. The University of edinburgh produced this ignoramus??? I find that very sad if it’s true. The home of The Enlightenment’s greatest minds gave academic credentials to this nut case? Say it isn’t so Curmudgeon.

  3. This now at the head of the original paper (on which the PhysOrg article is a commentary):

    Note added by authors December 4, 2018: This study is grounded in and strongly supports Darwinian evolution, including the understanding that all life has evolved from a common biological origin over several billion years.

  4. Paul Braterman, knowing how creationists distort and pervert what they read in science journals, I have often thought that every paper should include that.

  5. This goes to show how powerful and pervasive is the evolutionist conspiracy. You’d better not cross Them.

  6. @Zetopan

    And a “sunk box” is a “time capsule”?

  7. @Paul B. I’m sure the creationist crowd would complain even louder about an “evolutionist” conspiracy against them. But, I wouldn’t say no to such a disclaimer. I recall that when Coppedge cherry picked from scientific papers he’d often remark that the paper made no mention of evolution, as if that favored his distortion.

  8. @SC: “knowing how creationists distort and pervert what they read in science journals, I have often thought that every paper should include that.”
    Unnecessary – every mentally healthy person learns quick enough that creationists are pathetic liars and that the IDiots from Seattle belong to the worst ones.

  9. @FrankB
    In the English-speaking world, there seems to be decided lack of the necessity.