You remember the recent research about The evolution of puppy dog eyes (that PhysOrg article is where our pic comes from), and you also remember the unsurprising creationist reaction. We posted about what the Discoveroids said as a typical example: Behe Says Puppy Dog Eyes Didn’t Evolve.
Today we have another creationist reaction, this time it’s a letter-to-the-editor in the Sun Chronicle of Attleboro, Massachusetts. The title is Theory behind ‘puppy eyes’ is quite a stretch, and the newspaper has a comments feature.
Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Michael. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, some bold font for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]. Here we go!
The front page article about the evolution of dogs (“Behind those puppy eyes? Evolution,” June 19, 2019) demonstrates the inadequateness of modern evolutionary science.
Michael doesn’t link to the newspaper’s earlier headline, and we won’t bother searching for it because you already know the news. He says:
The premise of the article is that dogs developed certain facial muscles because this “gave dogs an advantage when interacting with people.” Really? Exactly how did this evolutionary process work? Did dogs will it? Did people will it? The sub headline claims “we may be partly to blame.” Did this all happen without any input from a designer?
Michael obviously has a keen mind! He tells us:
It seems that man’s best friend appeared on the scene about the same time as man.
Uh, not quite. The Wikipedia article Origin of the domestic dog says that dogs diverged from wolves “between 40,000–20,000 years ago.” Michael continues:
Dogs are designed [Designed!] to endear themselves to man, and they are designed to be easy to breed. Yet mainstream modern science, with its Neo-Darwinism [Yuk!], postulates that this all happened from random, unintentional processes. [That’s absurd!] To accept that these magnificent creatures resulted from random processes requires an unscientific leap of faith.
Egad, a leap of faith! Let’s read on:
Of course, one advantage of believing in Darwinian evolution is the ability to rule God out of the equation. [Gasp!] An atheistic and agnostic scientific community is grasping at an improbable theory in order to avoid admitting that all of nature exhibits the undeniable evidence of design. [Undeniable!] To admit otherwise would undermine their religious and scientific outlook.
Michael has it all figured out. Another excerpt:
Change is obviously needed in our accepted interpretation of origin science. For starts, in articles like this, I suggest we substitute “design” for “evolution.”
Brilliant! That should be mandatory! Now we come to the end:
And if people like the appealing expressions that give dogs an advantage, let’s admit the possibility that people and dogs were designed this way.
Well, dear reader, why won’t you at least admit the possibility? We know why. It’s because you’re a hell-bound Darwinist fool!
Copyright © 2019. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.