Discoveroids Try To Rebut God of the Gaps

Once again our entertainment comes from the Discovery Institute — which indicates the total absence of actual creationist news in the world. Anyway, the latest gem at their creationist blog is titled Watch: The Multiverse Is Some Scientists’ “God of the Gaps”. It was written by Klinghoffer. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

The “God of the gaps” label is a favorite with critics of intelligent design.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! It’s a “favorite” only in the sense that it’s a fallacy used all the time by creationists, so those of us on the science side of the debate often mention that it’s being used again. Anyway, Klinghoffer says:

It’s a fallacy, of course, since ID theory appeals not to what we don’t know but to what we do know about how creative and intelligent agents operate.

Amazing, isn’t it? More than amazing, it’s revolting. Let’s get serious here. Wikipedia’s article on God of the gaps says:

“God of the gaps” is a theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God’s existence.

God of the gaps is one of the principal arguments of creationists, and we point this out all the time. That bothers them, and sometimes they deny what they are so obviously doing. A good example is this from several years ago: Klinghoffer: “We Don’t Use God of the Gaps”. If you need any incentive to read it, we used Discoveroid logic to explain the origin of the female breast. But we apologize for the digression. Returning to the topic of the day, Klinghoffer tells us:

But it’s not the case that debates about ID are free of appeals to a “Gaps” deity. Philosopher and scientist Kirk Durston identifies “Science’s ‘god’ of the gaps”:

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Yes, it’s the folks on the science side of the debate who use a god of the gaps. Klinghoffer continues:

By “science” he means a rigid, question-begging notion of scientific thinking. [Huh?] As biologist Eugene Koonin put it, “By showing that highly complex systems, actually, can emerge by chance and, moreover are inevitable, if extremely rare, in the universe, the present model sidesteps the issues of irreducibility and leaves no room whatsoever for intelligent design.”

Fortunately there’s just a little bit left to the Discoveroid post. Here it comes:

This brand of scientific ideology requires a “God of the gaps” — Koonin’s “present model” — to explain away mysteries like the origin of life. And it finds its God, as Durston explains, in the form of the multiverse.

The multiverse? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! And that, boys and girls, is how you rebut claims that your “science” of intelligent design relies on the god of the gaps. Oh, we almost forgot — there’s some kind of video you can watch at the Discoveroid post, titled Science’s ‘god’ of the gaps.. Watch it at your own risk.

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

A New Book Explains the Absurdity of Darwinism

This might be the most thrilling news we’ve ever written about, and we found it at the creationist blog of the Discovery Institute. It’s titled In a New Book, Longtime Agnostic Dumps Darwin. The Discoveroid post was written by Jonathan Witt, described at the end as “Executive Editor of Discovery Institute Press and a senior fellow and senior project manager with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.” Impressive, huh? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Neil Thomas was a steadfast Darwinist, until an unexpected event. [What happened?] “I had something of an epiphany in a nightmare that Darwinism could not be true,” he said. “I decided to read around a bit to see if this subconscious flash of insight could be true, and my research (which was diligent) confirmed the theory to be absurd.”

He had “an epiphany in a nightmare”? We need to know more! The quote continues:

“I realized I had been conned,” he said. “I felt there was something dishonest about the huge claims made by Darwinism compared with the negligible evidence to support the thesis.”

This is amazing! We need to know more. Jonathan Witt, Executive Editor of Discovery Institute Press, tells us:

He was so alarmed by this conclusion that he felt impelled to write a book as a sort of warning call to humanity: “Beware! You have been fooled!” That book has just been released by Discovery Institute Press [Ooooooooooooh! The Discoveroids’ own in-house publisher!]: Taking Leave of Darwin: A Longtime Agnostic Discovers the Case for Design..

The Discoveroids link to the book at their own book store, but we hunted for it at Amazon — and we found it! It’s only $14.96 in paperback, and for that you get 166 pages. Amazing! And yes, there’s a “look inside” feature. It seems that there’s only one review so far, but it gives the book five stars. Whoopie!

Okay, back to the Discoveroids’ blog. They say:

Critics of intelligent design will have a hard time maligning Thomas as a “creationist in a cheap tuxedo.” He isn’t religious and is a longtime member of the British Rationalist Association, a group known for religious skepticism. [Impressive!] The book traces the evolution debate across millennia [Huh?], with Darwin and Darwinism emphasized as a crucial pivot point in the story. The author details key objections raised early on against Darwin’s theory and shows that those objections have been explained away, but never really rebutted.

Wowie — objections to Darwin’s theory were never rebutted! Our professors lied to us! The Discoveroid post quotes the brilliant author:

“One of the things I taught for decades was the language of Nazi propaganda (Dr. Goebbels et al.) and also the political brainwashing via the German language used by the apparatchiks of the old German Democratic Republic. This was most useful in assessing the special pleading and loaded phrases used by such as Richard Dawkins.”

Are you throwing up yet, dear reader? No problem. The Discoveroid post ends with one more quote from the brilliant author, and this is guaranteed to do it:

“The way Darwinism has been hijacked to attack religion is disgraceful, especially when on purely scientific grounds religion seems more logical than Darwinism,” he said. “Nothing comes of nothing after all, and there is no effect without a cause. The mindless automatism postulated for Darwinism on the other hand smacks of nothing so much as magical thinking.”

Okay, dear reader, now now here’s your assignment for the week. Buy the book, read it carefully, then get back here and tell us about the experience. We’ll be waiting!

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

Hambo Wins the Curmudgeon’s Creative Challenge

You probably remember about two weeks ago when we posted Creative Challenge #66: Evidence of Creationism? That was about a recent study, and PhysOrg said: “Just 7% of our genome is uniquely shared with other humans, and not shared by other early ancestors, according to a study published Friday in the journal Science Advances.” Additionally they said: “The researchers also found that an even smaller fraction of our genome — just 1.5% — is both unique to our species and shared among all people alive today.

At the end of our post we asked you: How can this be used by creationists to “disprove” the theory of evolution? Today we have our answer, and it’s from ol’ Hambo himself. His post is titled Humans Only 1.5% Different from Neanderthals and Denisovans? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

What’s the genetic difference between modern man and our so-called evolutionary cousins, such as Neanderthals and Denisovans? Well, a new study [Link omitted!] claims to have determined the number of differences with “shocking” results.

Our blog post linked to the published paper. Hambo links to … well, something else. He says:

The study authors write, “We find that only 1.5 to 7 percent of the modern human genome is uniquely human.” Now, one and one-half to seven percent is a very large margin of error! [Hambo worries about error?] Why might that be? Well, for two reasons.

He tells us the reasons:

Here’s the first, according to Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, a biologist on our research staff [Wowie!] who has worked heavily with DNA and has a PhD from Harvard:

We’ll skip the quote. It’s sufficient to know that Jeanson claims such studies are unreliable. Hambo continues with even more evidence:

And here’s the second reason: the paper relied on evolutionary assumptions [Gasp!] regarding ancestry and descent from a common ancestor. Those evolutionary assumptions appear to be integral to their study methods and since those assumptions are wrong, their conclusions are wrong as well.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Evolution is wrong, so everything those hell-bound Darwinists say is also wrong. Brilliant! Let’s read on:

I suspect that if, someday, we are able to accurately sequence the DNA of Neanderthals, Denisovans, and other so-called human cousins, we will find they are genetically very close to “modern man.” Why? Because they aren’t our distant evolutionary cousins — they are humans just like us and all related. [Hee hee!]

Here’s the rest of Hambo’s post — and it’s absolutely fantastic:

These post-flood peoples [Like the Neanderthals!] are descendants of Adam and Eve (and of Noah and his family), made in God’s image, and therefore fully human. So, creationists don’t expect vast differences between the DNA of those peoples and people living today. Instead, we expect minor variations.

Well, dear reader, when you look in the mirror, do you see your Neanderthal ancestors looking back at you? Hambo does, and he knows what he’s talking about. That makes him the winner of the Creationist’s Challenge. You must admit — ol’ Hambo is amazing!

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

ICR’s Evidence Says We Didn’t Evolve from Apes

This is from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the granddaddy of all creationist outfits, the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. Their new post is titled Man: Smart from the Start, and it was written by Frank Sherwin, described at the end as “Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research. He earned an M.A. in zoology from the University of Northern Colorado and received an Honorary Doctorate of Science from Pensacola Christian College.” Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

People have been created with a three-pound brain that scientists [The fools!] will never fully understand. Evolutionists have tried to trace the evolution of the human neurological system (including the brain and spinal cord) from supposedly “lower life forms” without success.

Egad, scientists have failed! Frank says:

There is a clear absence of evidence: “Surprisingly, little is known about the evolutionary origin of central nervous systems;” [footnote 1] “the origins of neural systems remain unresolved;” [footnote 2] “when and how the animal nervous system arose has remained murky.” [footnote 3]

Frank has footnotes for his claims, but they don’t link to anything, and it’s too much trouble to search for his sources. If you like, you can click over to ICR and check it all out, but we have better things to do. He tells us:

One of the three major parts of our created brain [Created!] is the cerebellum, long known to be involved in coordination, regulation of balance, and other motor activities. The cerebellum contributes to our five senses, sits close to the brain stem, and is called by some the “little brain.” Recent research at San Diego State University has shown that the human cerebellum is more complex than realized.

He continues with a quote he attributes to footnote 5:

In their investigation, evolutionists compared the brains of people with the brains of the macaque, an Old World monkey. “An SDSU [San Diego State University] neuroimaging expert discovered the tightly packed folds [of the cerebellum] actually contain a surface area equal to 80% of the cerebral cortex’s surface area. In comparison, the macaque’s cerebellum is about 30% the size of its cortex.”

The brains of people are more complex than the brains of monkeys? Shocking! Let’s read on:

The researchers revealed some heretofore unknown anatomical information regarding the human cerebellum, but they then attempted to put an evolutionary spin on such discoveries.

[Frank quotes from something cited in footnote 5 but no link is provided:] “The fact that it has such a large surface area speaks to the evolution of distinctively human behaviors and cognition,” [Gasp!] said Martin Sereno, psychology professor, cognitive neuroscientist and director of the SDSU MRI Imaging Center. “It has expanded so much that the folding patterns are very complex.”

Frank disagrees with that blasphemous evolution stuff. He declares:

Creationists, on the other hand, would say, “The fact that the cerebellum has such a large surface area speaks of God’s design of distinctively human behaviors and cognition.”[Yeah!] Furthermore, since there is no evidence of people evolving from ape-like ancestors, we would say the human cerebellum was designed with very complex folding patterns from the beginning.

Brilliant thinking! Here’s more:

Who wouldn’t applaud such ongoing scientific research revealing the mysteries and complexities of the brain? But the evidence does not compel one to draw unscientific connections between people and monkeys. [Hee hee!] For the [hell-bound] evolutionist the only option is to embrace a non-biblical worldview, despite the scientific evidence.

Yeah — all the “scientific evidence” points to design, not evolution. Then he gives us an amazing quote which he attributes in footnote 6:

“When you look at the narrative for hominin [bi-pedal apes including modern humans] origins, it’s just a big mess — there’s no consensus whatsoever,” said Sergio Almécija, a senior research scientist in the American Museum of Natural History’s Division of Anthropology.

After that powerful declaration, Frank ends his post with this:

The evidence pushes us toward the truth: God created people as people and apes as apes from the beginning.

Only a fanatical Darwinist would disagree. Would that be you, dear reader?

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.