Category Archives: Evolution

Creationist Wisdom #805: Evolution and Sin

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Amarillo Globe-News of Amarillo, Texas, known as “The Yellow Rose of Texas” because the city takes its name from the Spanish word for yellow. It’s titled Look to God for defense not lawyers. The newspaper doesn’t have a comments feature.

Unless the letter-writer is a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name — but today we think we’ve got a preacher — Arlin Smith. After Googling around, we’re pretty sure he and his wife preach on weekends, but we can’t find any website for their church — if they have one. We’ll give you a few excerpts from rev’s letter, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

Increases in technology go on continuously. It is happening as scientists apply the natural laws of the earth and its universe.

Okay. No problem so far. Then the rev says:

There is no natural law in the theory of evolution. Therefore — through it — there would be no earth and all that is within the earth.

Stunning, isn’t it? After that he tells us:

Things that often happen on the earth can be described as good and evil. How an event is labeled good or evil is done in the Bible. The first two humans were the man, Adam, and the woman, Eve. Eve decided she would take the opportunity to decide for herself whether something was good or evil.

Ah yes, Adam & Eve. The rev continues:

For years now, liberal women of America have chosen to label things good or evil. One of the first, and most obvious, is the sex of a person. When they decide a person is male but has a body with the parts and functions of a female, and someone does not accept the label of a man for this person, this person is declared evil.

Liberal women are responsible! Let’s read on:

God is absolute and he has made everything through his absolutes. To rebel against his way of doing things is sin. The wages of sin is death. … Eve has birthed us all with a sinful nature. We naturally rebel against God.

Eve, how could you have done this to us? After some more bible stuff, the rev’s letter ends with this:

We have been told America is no longer a Christian nation. The effort to eliminate the public exercise of Christianity is underway. We must defend our rights by openly expressing our Christian experience — whatever this brings. But depend on God for defense — not lawyers. Their continual fees can crush you.

So there you are. The rev doesn’t like evolution, liberal women, or lawyers. And neither should you, dear reader.

Copyright © 2017. 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

Intelligent Design — A Progress Report

From time to time it’s good to step back and look at the big picture. How are things going for the Discovery Institute and their “theory” that the intelligent designer — blessed be he! — magically created the universe, life, and you?

As we did back in 2013 — see The Collapse of Intelligent Design? — let’s look at the latest search engine statistics. Check out the history of Google searches on “intelligent design”.

The picture is dramatic. Interest in the Discovery Institute’s “theory” peaked during the Kitzmiller trial in 2005, and it’s been steadily — precipitously — trending downward ever since. It’s now 2% of what it was in December of 2005. What happened?

Just before Kitzmiller, it seemed as if the Discoveroids were on an upward trend. You know about their manifesto — the Wedge Document. That’s a link to the Wikipedia article which describes it. You can read the actual document at the NCSE website: The Wedge Document.

The Wedge Document states in its “Five Year Strategic Plan Summary” that the intelligent design movement’s goal is to replace science as currently practiced with “theistic and Christian science.” Also, among the intelligent design movement’s “Governing Goals” are to “defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies” and “to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” Listed among their “Twenty Year Goals” is: “To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.”

Despite their grandiose goals, the Discoveroids have failed. Totally. Their grand crusade has gone absolutely nowhere. You may recall Intelligent Design’s Brief Shining Moment. It was in 1999, when the Discoveroids actually had a center established at Baylor to study and teach their version of creationism. But the faculty rebelled, and the center was dismantled.

Nevertheless, the Discoveroids kept plugging away. They had what seemed like momentum due to their so-called “documentary” Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, starring Ben Stein. But the firm that produced the thing ultimately ended up in bankruptcy — see View the Bankruptcy Court Bids for “Expelled”.

In 2008, the Discoveroids had their first legislative success — see Louisiana Senate Passes House’s Creationism Bill. The Democrat controlled legislature overwhelmingly passed the badly misnamed Louisiana Science Education Act. No other state has been so foolish, except for Tennessee. Year after year they keep trying — there’s no shortage of idiots in state legislatures — but they’ve had no other legislative success.

Nevertheless, the Discoveroids’ generous patrons keep the funds flowing, and the Discoveroids keep blogging, producing podcasts, and writing vanity press books. They won’t stop until the money dries up. Eventually that will happen — but things may drag on for years until then.

Meanwhile, be of good cheer, dear reader. The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but reality ultimately prevails. That’s what natural selection is all about.

Copyright © 2017. 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

ICR: Dino Coprolites Prove the Flood

If you’re still in denial about the Flood and Noah’s Ark, this is going to change your mind. It’s an article at the website of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. And it’s another example of what we call the Creationist Scientific Method:

1. Select a conclusion which you hope is true.
2. Find one piece of evidence that possibly might fit.
3. Ignore all other evidence.
4. That’s it.

ICR’s article is titled Plant-Eating Dinosaurs Consumed Crabs. It was written by Brian Thomas. He’s described at the end of his articles as “Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.” This is ICR’s biographical information on him. Here are some excerpts from his new article, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Paleontologists found bits of crustacean shell inside well-preserved dinosaur dung. Besides being a first-time discovery, these dietary supplements challenge the herbivore status of the hadrosaurs that ate them. They also raise questions about why dinosaurs would deviate from their normal diet.

You can read about Hadrosaurids at Wikipedia. They say: “This group is also known as the duck-billed dinosaurs, for the flat, duck-bill appearance of the bones in their snouts.” They have a separate article devoted to the subject of Hadrosaur diet which says that they were herbivores. Also:

The diet of hadrosaurid dinosaurs remains a subject of debate among paleontologists, especially regarding whether hadrosaurids were grazers who fed on vegetation close to the ground, or browsers who ate higher-growing leaves and twigs.

[…]

Coprolites (fossilized droppings) of some Late Cretaceous hadrosaurs show that the animals sometimes deliberately ate rotting wood. Wood itself is not nutritious, but decomposing wood would have contained fungi, decomposed wood material and detritus-eating invertebrates, all of which would have been nutritious.

So what’s the big issue here? Brian refers to this article in Scientific Reports: Consumption of crustaceans by megaherbivorous dinosaurs: dietary flexibility and dinosaur life history strategies, and says:

Researchers found dark, shell-like material in 10 of 15 fossilized excrement specimens called coprolites. … Hadrosaurs were supposed to be strict herbivores. Why would they eat crabs?

Wowie — that’s a serious question! The entire rickety structure of evolution is in danger here. Brian tells us:

The coprolites with crab shell fragments also contained rotten wood fragments. Surely old wood and crabs were not the ideal diet for animals with hundreds of razor-like teeth designed to slice plant matter with their scissor-action jaws. Perhaps the dinosaurs ran out of regular food and died with substitute food still inside them.

What does Brian have in mind? Here it comes:

The only way to know with certainty why these hadrosaurs deviated from their otherwise very herbivorous diet would be to travel back in time to watch them, their surroundings, and behaviors. But if they were forced into a diet of last resort, then times were tough — just as one would expect during continent-covering floods.

Yes — oh yes! — that’s the explanation. There can be no other! It’s interesting to see how the authors of the Scientific Reports paper try to minimize the significance of their discovery. The end of their abstract says:

This surprising fossil evidence challenges conventional notions of herbivorous dinosaur diets and reveals a degree of dietary flexibility that is consistent with that of extant herbivorous birds.

Foolish scientists. They found undeniable evidence of the Flood, and they ignored it. The ability of Darwinists to delude themselves is limitless. It’s a good thing we have ICR to tell us The Truth.

Copyright © 2017. 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

Creative Challenge #48: Anti-Evolution Argument

We’ve challenged you before to present good creationist arguments, most recently #47: Best Creationist Argument. But all you’ve done is give us the arguments that creationists actually use, such as: it’s in the bible, it’ll keep me out of the Lake of Fire, evolution isn’t nice, it’s the devil’s work, etc.

All of that stuff is fine — for creationists — but it doesn’t begin to do the job of persuading rational people. Today we’re looking for a serious intellectual challenge to evolution, not merely something that will satisfy a drooling idiot.

Creationists sometimes attempt to make serious arguments, but the best they can do is to point out something not yet explained — origin of life, consciousness, etc. They fail to grasp that something not yet explained doesn’t disprove evolution, it’s just a research project that needs to be worked on. What creationists need is something that literally can’t be explained because it demonstrably contradicts the laws of nature. We discussed this before in Advice for Creationists.

Creationists attempt to do that by citing the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but they obviously don’t know what they’re talking about. They also cite what they claim are the “odds” against something, but they fail to grasp that the odds are literally against everything — see Discoveroids: The Odds Are Against Evolution.

So we’re challenging you once again, and this time we want you to think like a scientist, not a creationist. The form of today’s challenge is that you must tell us, with reasonable brevity:

What is — or could be — the best logical, scientific argument against evolution?

You know the rules: You may enter the contest as many times as you wish, but you must avoid profanity, vulgarity, childish anatomical analogies, etc. Also, avoid slanderous statements about individuals. Feel free to comment on the entries submitted by others — with praise, criticism, or whatever — but you must do so tastefully.

There may not be a winner of this contest, but if there is, your Curmudgeon will decide, and whenever we get around to it we’ll announce who the winner is. There is no tangible prize — as always in life’s great challenges, the accomplishment is its own reward. We now throw open the comments section, dear reader. Go for it!

Copyright © 2017. 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