Discoveroids’ Top Ten for 2018 — #4

The excitement is almost unendurable as we ascend ever higher in the Discovery Institute’s list of their Top Ten “achievements” for the year now ending. We have already discussed #10, and #9, and #8, and #7, and #6, and #5.

In all of those events, there was no discovery, no experiment, no paper published in a recognized science journal, no science at all from the Discoveroids. Instead, those posts were about public relations, quote mining, misinterpretation, wishful thinking, flogging a book written by a Discoveroid, claiming that the so-called Cambrian explosion is evidence of the miraculous work of their supernatural designer, arguing that the designer is the answer to all that is unknown, and word play. What they’re discussing today involve yet another technique of creation science — the misunderstanding (deliberate or otherwise) of a scientific study. We sometimes suspect that this amounts to intentional perversion, but we’ll let you make that judgement call.

They just posted #4 of Our Top Stories of 2018: A First Human Couple? New Evidence and Arguments, written by Ann Gauger (whom we call “Annie Green Screen”). Like all the other entries in their Top Ten list, it starts with a request for money from their readers. Then it’s a copy of an earlier post — in this case one Annie wrote on 05 March 2018: Is There a First Human Couple in Our Past? New Evidence and Arguments.

As with some other items in this list, we didn’t post about it at the time. In this case it’s probably because Annie was covering old ground. The same book she was writing about came up two weeks earlier, and at that time we wrote The Discoveroids Remember Casey Luskin. The book was Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after Genetic Science (Amazon link), co-authored by Dennis Venema, who argued that Adam and Eve did not exist. The Discoveroids, being hard-core creationists, didn’t agree, and were arguing for some kind of bottleneck at which time there really was an original pair of humans.

Were we wrong? Back in March we didn’t think Annie’s post was worth our time. We still don’t, but the Discoveroids regard it as being of immense significance. We’ve been wrong before, so we’ll let you decide, dear reader.

Okay, now here’s where we are. There are only three more items left to go in the Discoveroids’ Top Ten list, and those three will be of incredible, world-shaking importance. So we’re putting a challenge to you, dear reader. Of all the possible discoveries and breakthroughs that were reported in 2018, what do you think will be the Discoveroids’ Number One story of the year? Even if you’re too timid to venture an opinion, we’ll soon know the answer, so 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

16 responses to “Discoveroids’ Top Ten for 2018 — #4

  1. Trans-species polymorphism; a useful addition to my list of arguments. So once again, thank you DI! And of course, I can’t actually disprove the possibility of separate creation (which could accomplish anything at all, and is therefore irrefutable), or of massive and highly specific parallel evolution.

  2. Michael Fugate

    If standard evolutionary theory can allow for a bottleneck of two 500,000 ybp, then how does this help ID?

  3. I took a look ahead to see what #4 would be, and I was waiting for tis to appear.
    Spectacular!
    Just one problem. (Well, there’s more than one, really.)
    What does the possibility of the existence of Adam and Eve have to do with Intelligent Design?
    Assuming that there were the possibility of a populaton of only two, hundreds of thousands of years ago.
    And, after all, there is no proof that there were no people with the names “Adam” and “Eve”. No proof that they never ate apples. And those “facts” have nothing to do with Intelligent Design, either.
    Of course, there are such minor problems like, How can this be counted as an accomplishment of the workers in Intelligent Design? As I had earlier suggested, the Sensuous Curmudgeon can count in their accomplishments all of the Nobel Prizes which did not prove the falsity of the Cosmic Aardvark.

  4. Michael Fugate

    Do you? We did – ball in your court.

  5. With regards to the Discoveroid frauds the Curmudgeon says” In all of those events, there was no discovery, no experiment, no paper published in a recognized science journal, no science at all from the Discoveroids. Instead, those posts were about public relations, quote mining, misinterpretation, wishful thinking, flogging a book written by a Discoveroid, claiming that the so-called Cambrian explosion is evidence of the miraculous work of their supernatural designer, arguing that the designer is the answer to all that is unknown, and word play.”
    Thank you Curmudgeon for being absolutely relentless in documenting the fraud, deceit, magical claims and complete bankruptcy of the Intelligent Dezine hucksters in Seattle. They do not represent the majority of church going americans but they DO represent the extremist koo koo extremist fringe of science hatred. They cannot escape the review of their preposterous trash “science” and it definitely needs to be done . Lies cannot win. Creationist trash under an unrelenting microscope. Thank you sir.
    We lost our 6 year golden doodle Kula to cancer this week.Kula means peace in Hawaiian and is teals the name of a great little town in upcountry Maui. And she was. Kula the golden doodle.

  6. sorry the not teals

  7. Michael Fugate

    If this is not straight up creationism, then why would ID require only two individuals – why not 10 or 100 or 1000? There is nothing in design that would assume 2, is there?

  8. Karl Goldsmith

    I’m sure they left the research for the top three.

  9. Probably ‘cuz you haven’t honored the creationist commenting rules. It’s the very first (top) link on the right column.

  10. A bottleneck of two that is older than 500,000 years ago cannot be ruled out.
    500,000 years ago is definitely out of the question for Young Earth Creationism.
    (BTW, a bottleneck of two is not the equivalent of saying that there was at one time exactly two and only two individuals.)
    It is not at all clear what this has to do with Intelligent Design. We know of (critically endangered) species with a very small population. Their existence (not only the possibility) is not, I think, taken as being evidence against evolution. (Of course, we can only speak of evidence against evolution, there being nothing substantive to ID which allows us to speak of evidence for ID.) While I, being a layman, can only say that I doubt that a bottleneck of two can lead to a viable, long-term population, I must leave the discussion to the experts.
    As a layman, it does occur to me that there may be evidence other than genetics which indicates a population significantly larger than two (keeping in mind, the difference between bottleneck and population). For example, the large number of paleolithic artifacts – can the transmission of culture survive a small cultural bottleneck? Or the fact of humans – and closely related primates – being social animals, preclude survival of a small population, let alone reproduction? Or would the sibling-mating taboo be compatible with population growth?
    All of this is to distract attention from the basic observation: There has been no description of what Intelligent Design is, as an alternative to evolution. The discussion of evidence for ID must wait for a description of what it is evidence for.

  11. “Could Two People Actually Repopulate Earth?”
    Interesting article found on web site sciencealert.com on this twosome topic.

  12. #1` – Casey Luskin to return in 2019

  13. And this article references another, which gives more details
    http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160113-could-just-two-people-repopulate-earth
    The North American Hutterites are mentioned as a thriving community with a small founder population, but a quick look at the Wikipedia article doesn’t cofirm that – they may have arrived in the USA in the hundreds, but I don’t know.

  14. Thanks. The sciencealert seems to be a summary of the story reportedon at more length in bbc

    The answetr is yes well, maybe, with a little bit of luck. All irrelevant to how small our bottleneck actually was; by all accounts considerably larger