The newest entry in the Discovery Institute’s list of their Top Ten “achievements” for the year now ending is a strange one. We’ve previously written about the first four items in the Discoveroids’ impressive list — see #10, and #9, and #8, and #7.
Those were about some triumphs in public relations, quote mining, misinterpretation, wishful thinking, flogging a book written by a Discoveroid, and claiming that the so-called Cambrian explosion is evidence of the miraculous work of their supernatural designer. What they’re bragging about today involves another argument for creationism — the argument from the unknown.
They just posted #6 of Our Top Stories of 2018: Dickinsonia Probably Not an Ediacaran Animal. It was written by Günter Bechly. He’s the Discovery Institute “senior fellow” whose website used to say:
I despise the dogmatic and sometimes even fanatical stance of some evolutionists like P.Z. Myers (Pharyngula blog), Laurence Moran (Sandwalk blog), Jeffrey Shallit (Recursivity blog), Jerry Coyne (Why Evolution is True blog), freelance writer John Farrell, the anonymous coward behind The Sensuous Curmudgeon blog, and other infamous web activists against Intelligent Design and religion. [Emphasis supplied.]
From what we’ve seen of Günter’s posts at the Discoveroids’ blog, he goes into ecstasy whenever some evidence is found that requires changing some detail of evolution — like the time or place when something first appeared, which may require revising some species’ timeline of evolution. Such things happen all the time, and whenever it does, Günter imagines that the whole theory of evolution is about to collapse. His approach to such things seems to be this: Anything not yet known, or which previously wasn’t correctly understood, is evidence of a fatal crisis for the theory of evolution.
That’s what’s going on in Günter’s post today. It’s a copy (preceded by a request for money from their readers) of his earlier post from 27 September 2018, which was Why Dickinsonia Was Most Probably Not an Ediacaran Animal.
We ignored it when it first appeared for two reasons. First, because it’s very long, and dealing with it properly would take too much time. We do this for fun, not for a career. The second reason we ignored it was because it’s about Dickinsonia fossils from around 600 million years ago that have so far been difficult to classify. We considered the subject to be interesting only to a few specialists.
But if you care — really care — about Dickinsonia, then go ahead and read Günter’s post. He doesn’t manage to clarify anything, nor does he make much of a case for creationism; but his post is in the Discoveroids’ Top Ten, and that counts for something.
Well, dear reader — now we’ve seen the bottom half of the Discoveroids’ Top Ten list. The best is yet to come. What further wonders await us as they continue telling us about their glorious accomplishments? Stay tuned to this blog!
Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.