Creationist Wisdom #1,014: Darwinist Fiction

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the News-Gazette of Champaign, Illinois. It’s titled Let’s base science on fact, not fiction, and the newspaper doesn’t have 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 Bill. We’ve posted about his letters before. The last time was a month ago: #1,007: Atheist Theories, and that links to four others. Excerpts from Bill’s latest letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, some bold font for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]. Here we go!

Darwinian atheists are anti-science. [Wow!] I recently saw an evolutionary tree of dinosaurs. On this chart were 86 different kinds of dinosaurs. They had the total numbers of each dinosaur they had discovered in the fossil record.

Bill doesn’t give us a link to where he saw that evolutionary tree. It was probably in a children’s coloring book, because there are somewhat more than 86 known dinosaur species. Wikipedia’s article on Dinosaurs says: “Using fossil evidence, paleontologists have identified over 500 distinct genera and more than 1,000 different species of non-avian dinosaurs.” Bill is off to a bad start, but it soon gets better. He says:

All of this represents the entirety of evidence discovered. [Hee hee!] Instead of stopping there, the Darwinian atheists had to draw lines from each kind of dinosaur to imaginary, fictitious, non-existent intermediary forms.

Wow — imaginary, fictitious, non-existent intermediary forms. Those Darwinian atheists are outrageous! After that shocking disclosure, Bill tells us:

This is not science when you make up evidence that does not exist. Their train of thought is that they know the evidence is there, but they have just not discovered it yet.

Those so-called scientists are fools! Bill continues:

The actual evidence shows dinosaurs suddenly appeared and were fully formed and functional when they were created.

If that’s what the evidence shows, then we’re gonna go with it. Let’s read on:

Another example of fake science is what the atheist said about DNA. A few decades ago, the atheist said that only 2 percent of our DNA is coded for proteins so the other 98 percent must be leftover junk.

Does Bill have better information? Apparently he does. He informs us:

Since then, we have discovered that 100 percent of our DNA has a purpose and is fully functional. [Gasp!] There is no such thing as junk DNA.

An interesting claim. However, Wikipedia’s article on Non-coding DNA says: “Estimates for the biologically functional fraction of the human genome based on comparative genomics range between 8 and 15%.” That’s more than 2%, but a wee bit less than 100%. Anyway, Bill’s letter ends with this:

It is sad the extent people will go to deny their creator. People need to make sure they know what they are talking about when they say science has proven something.

Bill’s letters are always entertaining. We hope the News-Gazette keeps publishing them.

Copyright © 2019. 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 “Creationist Wisdom #1,014: Darwinist Fiction

  1. The concept of interpolation apparently flies way over and past Billie’s head.
    Of course it’s always creacrappers who claim that science needs to prove something. Those who understand a bit about science know better.

  2. Laurette McGovern

    “imaginary, fictitious, non-existent.” H’mm, sounds suspiciously like the Designer (Praise Be He!)

  3. How many people think that the only evidence for evolution are fossils? And that the only fossils are dinosaurs? Dinometrodons are often mistakemly called dinosaurs, as are other tetrapods.
    BTW if the fossil evidence is so scant, how can one be so sure about the sudden appearance?

  4. Let me cite again T Ryan Gregory’s onion test. An onion has got five times as much DNA as a human. If you regard all DNA as useful, you need to explain this in terms of function. If you accept that DNA can accumulate junk, you don’t have a problem.

    But what does Bill think about all this? Since the paper doesn’t have comments section, sadly we have no way of asking him

  5. Michael Fugate

    Even if all DNA had a purpose why would that prove God exists?

  6. @Michael Fugate, I’m with Bill on this one. One argument frequently and in my opinion legitimately used, is that we have useless DNA which is not readily explainable in terms of special creation. But if in fact all our DNA is useful, as Bill imagines, that particular argument fails. Of course, this would not prove special creation, but it would remove an objection to it.

  7. Michael Fugate

    But I can find a use for any damn thing I want. I could say non-transcribed regions exist as places for “novel genes” to form. It is meaningless either way.

  8. chris schilling

    It’s a very rash creationist, indeed, who claims the genome is fully 100% functional. I’ve always found them very cagey on this subject — including the Discoveroids: most unwilling to be pinned down on the exact percentage; taking refuge in generalities. Dan Grauer and Larry Moran, among others I believe, put it at much less, closer to the figures SC cites.

    But if the genome is as Bill claims, then that’s carrying a high genetic load, which means a hell of a lot of mutations. That would raise a whole other set of issues, but Bill would probably try to spin that as due to “sin”.

  9. Bill’s series of letters consistently reveal a profound (deliberate?) misunderstanding of biology, particularly paleontology, genetics and evolution. He’d do well to follow his own advice and learn the correct facts. In this letter he’s wrong about the number of dinosaur species, and he’s wrong about DNA. As others have pointed out, eukaryote genomes, including humans, are mostly “junk” DNA (admittedly a bad name). Its high variability compared to sequences with known function is perhaps the best clue to its nonfunctionality. There’s a great university in Champaign; Bill should take a course.

  10. Richard Staller

    Bill, like many of his neo-con ilk, are amazingly fact free. Confronted with facts they just tilt at the next windmill abandoning any semblance of logical argument or discourse. In other words, they just feel the world, debate is futile.

  11. @Michael Fugate, ” I could say non-transcribed regions exist as places for “novel genes” to form.” Indeed you could, as I expect you know. But why shuld onions have a greter need to produce orphan genes than onion-sellers?

  12. The Grand Old Designer’s ways (blessed be MOFO!) are mysterious, PaulB. You’re asking too much.

  13. Again I can’t wait for the next FFZ; Dutch creacrap is on a roll. And there’s something in for you Americans as well.

    “Why the Big Bang model refutes itself”
    Admit it – this sparks your interest.

    “In January astronomer Spike Psarrus released a new DVD ….”
    No. Psarris is not an astronomer. He’s an engineer who worked at NASA, became a creacrapper and then an atheist, if we are to believe his blog. You can easily google it; it’s worth the effort if you’re in for a laugh.

    “There are quite some problems with the Big Bang theory. One of them is fine-tuning.”
    Huh? Many apologists (not YECers of course) think that the Big Bang is evidence for fine-tuning. So what could be the problem?

    “Als er bij de oerknal maar één zandkorreltje aan massa meer of minder was geweest, had er geen universum gevormd kunnen worden. Een beetje teveel en alle materie zou in een zwart gat terugvallen, één zandkorreltje minder en de ruimte zou te snel zijn opgerekt.”

    “If during the Big Bang there had been the mass of just one grain of sand more or less, no universe could have been formed. A bit too much and all matter would have fallen back into a black hole; one grain of sand less and space would have been stretched too fast.”
    Let’s forget about the total nonsense in terms of physics. This confirms the Big Bang instead of (self-)refuting it.
    What follows is predictable (I paraphraze because it rapidly gets less interesting): “this could not have happened by chance, so atheists have invented the multiversum”.

    Now I wonder: is this manure the result of a Dutch YECer understanding so little about physics that he (Gert-Jan Van Heugten is the name) has butchered that American engineer or did the latter produce it himself? In the latter case I can understand why he quit NASA.

  14. Oops, I got something wrong: Psarris didn’t work at NASA, but at an unspecified “US military space program”. Plus this is a silly typo:

    “became a creacrapper and then an atheist”
    should be

    “became a creacrapper and then a Christian.”

  15. I found the answer to my question. Psarris is on the same intellectual level (regarding physics) as Ray Comfort on biology.

    So of course promotes him as an astronomer.

  16. Michael Fugate

    Psarris according to his LinkedIn page was production controller for 20 years in the US Air Force. What that has to with astronomy – who knows. I like how he claims he became a young earth creationist before he became Christian and this validates every thing he says about the universe.