Category Archives: Evolution

Sex Is the Queen of Evolutionary Problems

We’ve encountered this creationist argument before. First at the Jack Chick website: Jack Chick: Sex Is Evolution’s Nightmare.

From there, it found its way to other creationists, for example: Answers in Genesis: Sex Didn’t Evolve, and then Discoveroids: Sex Is Irreducibly Complex, and most recently Self-Published Genius #70: The Fatal Flaw.

After all that pioneering creation science, the argument has become respectable enough to appear at the website Christian Post, which describes itself as “the nation’s most comprehensive Christian news website.” Their article is titled Top 3 Reasons Why the Popular Evolution Story Is a Myth.

It was written by F. LaGard Smith, described at the end as “a professor of law, principally at Pepperdine University School of Law. Smith is the author of over 30 books on a wide variety of legal, social and religious topics. He is most widely known as the compiler and narrator of the best-selling The Daily Bible®, with over two million copies sold.” Here are some excerpts from his article, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections [that look like this]:

We have Charles Darwin to thank for opening our eyes to the forces of natural selection so useful today in medical research, healthcare, and technology. But Darwin also did us a great disservice, all too blithely extrapolating from observable “bounded” evolution to his Grand Theory of microbe-to-man “unbounded” evolution. In a nutshell, Darwin speculated that, since there is evolution within well-defined species, then all species must surely be the result of evolution. Logical enough, but simply wrong. Darwin’s extrapolation is fraught with a host of problems, at least one of which — in three particulars — is fatal to his Grand Theory.

Ooooooooooooh! Darwin extrapolated too far! He went from micro evolution to macro evolution — or in Smith’s words, from “bounded” to “unbounded” evolution. And there’s fatal flaw in his theory. Here it comes:

That fatal flaw? The origin of sexual reproduction. Evolution (and evolutionists) simply can’t explain it, and Darwin himself never even tried. … Darwin discussed sexual selection, gender divergence, and all sorts of matters pertaining to breeding, but, curiously, not a single word about the origin of sex.

What a revelation! Smith speculates:

Did Darwin simply take sex for granted since the biological world is awash with sex? Was he just too close to the problem to recognize it? Or is it possible that this particular difficulty was too much of a threat to his elegant theory to highlight it for his readers and critics? Whatever the explanation, it’s clear that Darwin never seriously dealt with the following three devastating problems with his theory:

Then, in a scholarly way, Smith breaks the sex problem into three “devastating” issues. He discusses each one for a paragraph, but we’ll skip that. Here are the issues:

1. Natural selection could not have “selected” from genderless asexual replication the DNA information necessary for evolving the very first male and female forms necessary for sexual reproduction.

2. Natural selection could not possibly have evolved even the most elementary form of sex by meiosis — a radically-different form of reproduction from “exact-copy” asexual mitosis.

3. Natural selection could not possibly have provided simultaneous, on-time delivery of the first sexually-compatible pair of any species in order to move to the second generation of that species, nor certainly to any other, “higher” species along the supposed chain of common descent from microbe to man.

Stunning, huh? Let’s read on:

Taken together, the first two problems are quietly acknowledged by evolutionists to be the “Queen of evolutionary problems” for which, despite their best efforts, they have no answers.

Wowie — the “Queen of evolutionary problems”! Then what’s the third problem — the king? It’s even bigger than that, as Smith explains at the end of his article:

Remarkably, the third (even more obvious) problem is never once addressed by evolutionists. Could that be because, as with Darwin himself, mentioning it would risk destroying an elegant, but fatally-flawed theory?

We’ve mentioned our own response to this great mystery before, but it seems appropriate to repeat it:

The two sexes exist in hermaphrodites. Some hermaphrodites cycle back and forth from one sex to the other. All that needed to happen is that one individual was mutated so that it was stuck in one sex or the other. This wasn’t a reproductive disaster, as that individual could always find a mate (but probably not a permanent one). If the “sticky” mutation perseveres, in future generations there will be some individuals that are always one gender or the other. That’s how it begins.

The existence of sex is a major problem for creationists, but that doesn’t stop them from engaging in it. Maybe, each time they do so, they imagine they’re striking a blow at evolution. That would explain their fecundity.

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

Self-Published Genius #74: The Church Elder

Verily, this is a golden age for creationist authors. They just keep coming, and today we have another addition to our series about Self-Published Geniuses, where we bring you news of authors with a vanity press book in which the author claims to have made paradigm-shattering discoveries, and announces his work by hiring a press release service.

The press release is titled Jerry Smith’s Newly Released “A Logical Case for God and Creation: A Layman’s Perspective on Creation vs. Evolution” Provides a Common-Sense Argument for Creation, issued by PR Web, which describes itself as “the leader in online news distribution and publicity.” It says, with some bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections [that look like this]:

“A Logical Case for God and Creation: A Layman’s Perspective on Creation vs. Evolution” from Christian Faith Publishing [Hee hee!] author Jerry Smith is a striking and authoritative book that takes into account all the knowledge available to the layman on the quest for truth, submits these findings to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and emerges with a dynamic argument for the reasonable existence of God and the resounding truth of the Bible regarding the Genesis story.

Wowie — it’s a “striking and authoritative book” that considers “all the knowledge available to the layman” and “emerges with a dynamic argument for the reasonable existence of God.” This is exactly what you’ve been looking for all your life! Then the press release says:

[The book] is the creation of published author Jerry Smith, a Presbyterian Church Elder with a BSBA and no formal theological training. Jerry Smith’s knowledge stems from decades-long active participation in Bible study groups and in his church in Ohio, where he lives with his wife of fifty-seven years.

Ooooooooooooh! The author is very well informed! The press release quotes the author:

Smith writes with a plea for God-given common sense, “If one were to place a brand-new automobile in front of an audience of thousands, or even millions, and attempt to convince them, that the automobile suddenly appeared out of a ‘big bang’, without a doubt there would not be even one single person who would agree.”

Brilliant! The author’s quote continues:

Likewise, no one could possibly be convinced that that automobile started out as roller skate and evolved over millions of years into the fine vehicle it is today. Yet that is in fact what the evolution proponents would have us believe regarding creation, but on a scale that would make the appearance of an automobile seem like a grain of sand to a mountain. They would have us believe that our own existence came about by a single cell.”

Amazing, isn’t it? We’ve already been told that the book was published by Christian Faith Publishing — a name we keep running into. Here’s their website: Christian Faith Publishing. It leaves no doubt — they’re a vanity publisher. They even let authors pay their fees on a monthly installment plan. Okay, with that, and the press release, we know the book qualifies for our collection.

There’s nothing else of interest in the press release, except that they link to a promotion on YouTube. It’s the sort of thing we’ve seen from this publisher before — less than a minute long and not terribly informative.

So we looked for the book at Amazon. Here it is: A Logical Case for God and Creation: A Layman’s Perspective on Creation vs. Evolution. It’s 136 pages long and only $13.95 in paperback. There are no customer reviews yet. Hey, Amazon gives us even more information about what’s in the book. They say:

[L]ooking at the universe–including the existence of billions of galaxies and trillions of stars, the planets that make up the universe and our solar system — the author argues it is not possible for the universe to have come about by accident or as a result of an accidental “big bang.”

Then considering our marvelous bodies, the massive number of other species on this earth, the beauty of the flora and fauna, and the tremendous resources available to us, he demonstrates that it is not probable or possible for all that exists to have evolved over millions of years, or come about without a design or a designer.

The author points out, “To say that we evolved is an insult to our God given, human ability to reason, and to our intellectual capacity to logically evaluate the truth.”

Finally, considering the harmonious nature of the universe, the author further demonstrates that it is not logical to believe that the trillions upon trillions of objects being propelled through space at such incredible speeds could have accidentally fallen into such a harmonious and orchestrated relationship to each other. Absent these objects having been purposely put into a predetermined, perpetual path in our incredible universe by an intelligent designer, logic would suggest that the universe would be in complete chaos without a design.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Galaxies are colliding, stars are exploding, and the surface of every solid planet and moon we can see is covered with impact craters. Harmonious and orchestrated indeed!

But don’t let the Curmudgeon discourage you, dear reader. This could be the book that changes your life forever. Go ahead and buy the thing.

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

AIG Explains Creation Science

This is a bit of a classic from Answers in Genesis (AIG), the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.

It’s titled Feedback: “You Can Question Science”, and it was written by Avery Foley. AIG says she has a masters of arts in theological studies from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary. We’ll give you some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections [that look like this]:

It begins with a Twitter comment ol’ Hambo received from someone named Steve:

You can question science. That’s the beauty of it. However you’d most likely be wrong. Science has no other agenda but to seek the truth. I think this maybe [sic] why you have a problem with it, because the truth contradicts the earth being 6,000 years old and us all coming from 2 people.

Naturally, the creation scientists at AIG think that Steve is horribly confused. Avery says:

Steve begins his tweet by claiming that the beauty of science is the ability to question it. Of course, those familiar with science know that scientists try to disprove, not prove, their hypothesis. And future evidence can overturn what was already believed to be established science. So, of course, scientific findings can be questioned.

Surprisingly, that’s not bad. Then Avery tells us:

However, in context, Steve is referring to millions of years and evolution. And what he overlooks is the difference between observational and historical science. Observational science is directly testable, observable, and repeatable. … Historical science is very different. This kind of science is not directly testable, observable, and repeatable because it deals with the past. And the past cannot be directly tested, observed, or repeated.

[*Groan*] Not that old clunker again! It’s dealt with in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. She continues:

What a scientist believes about the past will determine how they interpret the evidence. Each scientist comes to the evidence with a preexisting set of beliefs that determines how they view and interpret the evidence. The evidence does not “speak for itself.” It must be interpreted, and that is where the disagreement between creationists and evolutionists comes from. They approach the evidence with different starting points (God’s Word vs. man’s word), and therefore arrive at different interpretations of the exact same evidence.

So far, it’s the same old stuff. Let’s read on:

While science has no agenda, scientists do! Many people perceive scientists as unbiased pursuers of the truth. But each scientist approaches the evidence with a preconceived set of beliefs. And they interpret the evidence through that lens, which, for many scientists, is molecules-to-man evolution and billions of years of history.[U]nobservable molecules-to-man evolution and ancient ages for earth and the universe do not come from the evidence. … They are assumed and then used to interpret the evidence.

Hambo’s creation scientists would never behave that way! Here’s another excerpt:

Steve concludes his tweet by claiming “the truth” contradicts what the Bible says about the age of the earth and the origin of humanity. Really, he is taking an interpretation of the evidence, and calling it “truth” when it is no such thing. It is simply a constantly changing interpretation.

Truth is ultimately found in God’s Word and the person of Jesus Christ. God cannot lie and the Scriptures come from him Therefore, we know the Scriptures are truth. [Scripture references omitted.]

Are you paying attention, dear reader? That’s where The Truth is found. Here’s more:

Now, the Bible is not a science textbook, but it is the history book of the universe. When it touches on fields such as astronomy, biology, geology, cosmology, and anthropology, it is always accurate and trustworthy, since it was written by the Creator of the universe who also maintains it [scripture reference].

Ponder that, dear reader. When you’re done, we’ll continue:

We can take the framework the Bible gives us (i.e., young creation, organisms reproducing according to their kinds, mankind created specially in God’s image, a global flood, and the Tower of Babel) and use that to create hypotheses and models, which are subject to change as more evidence emerges. [Really?] These hypotheses and models include understanding speciation within kinds, models of deposition during the flood, what mechanisms could bring light from distant stars to earth in only thousands of years [Hee hee!], and many more. Because God’s Word is the starting point, these models will not contradict what Scripture tells us. But we can use them to create testable predictions, the gold standard of science. As that research is done, the model can be modified or discarded if need be.

But somehow, creationist “models” are never discarded. And now we come to the end:

Steve is wrong — “truth” has not, does not, and will never contradict God’s Word. God’s Word will stand forever [scripture reference], long after man’s ideas have come and gone.

Now that you understand how creation science works, perhaps you’ll abandon Darwinism and embrace The Truth.

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

Why Are There Still Horseshoe Crabs?

It’s difficult to classify creationist argumsnts according to their degree of stupidity — because they’re all stupid. But among the dumbest is one that comes up all the time around here: If We Evolved From Monkeys, Then Why …? There are numerous variations, all equally silly. For example, see Casey: Why Are There Still Walking Lungfish?, and also Klinghoffer: Why Are There Still Insects?, and also ICR: Ancient Algae Disproves Evolution.

Our answer to those creationist questions is always the same: If America was founded by England, why are there still Englishmen? If dogs evolved from wolves, why are there still wolves? If everything evolved from early one-celled organisms, then why are there still bacteria? If the emergence of a new species demands the disappearance of its ancestral stock, then why is there anything on Earth other than humans?

With that introduction, you’re ready for this at the creationist blog of the Discovery Institute: Bechly: Why the Phenomenon of Living Fossils Is Under “Massive Attack”. 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]:

If you ever encounter a horseshoe crab on the beach, you are a looking at a creature that would not have appeared out of place hundreds of millions of years ago. Arthropods breathtakingly similar to this, says paleontologist Günter Bechly, go back “almost a half billion years without significant morphological change. And you really have to let this number sink in.”

Ooooooooooooh! Why are there still horseshoe crabs? Then Klinghoffer says:

On a new ID the Future episode, host Sarah Chaffee talks with Dr. Bechly [Hee hee!] about the challenge posed to Darwinian gradualism by animals that manifestly don’t change – aka, “living fossils,” a phenomenon that Darwin himself grappled with. Listen to the podcast or download it here. [Link omitted.]

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! See ICR: “Living Fossils” Prove Creationism. Klinghoffer tells us:

Says Bechly, living fossils stand as “empirical refutations” of traditional evolutionary theory. That is one reason their very existence is coming under a “massive attack” by Darwinian evolutionists … . Some are in denial, while other equivocate. The latter try to explain that “these living fossils do evolve but they evolve toward keeping their particular form, which is optimized.” In other words, they evolve toward not evolving.

[*Groan*] He continues:

It’s another case, according to Bechly, where evolution acts as a “magic wand,” wondrously encompassing all evidence however plainly contradictory of its expectation. Under the theory, things evolve when they evolve and do not evolve when they do not evolve. Can you beat that? No, you can’t beat it. An idea like that that can never be falsified.

Isn’t this grand? For years, we’ve seen the Discoveroids claim that everything, no matter what, is the purposeful handiwork of their intelligent designer — blessed be he! — which makes their “theory” impervious to disproof. Evolution, on the other hand, could be disproved, but at this point, with all the evidence that’s been piled up, it would be difficult. If one wants to seriously challenge evolution, he should take a look at Advice for Creationists, and also Where’s the Proof — Evolution’s “Smoking Gun”?

Here’s the end of Klinghoffer’s post:

On the other hand, groups of creatures that slip into existence and remain in stasis for long periods fits well with the theory of intelligent design. ID predicts discontinuities in the fossil record in keeping with deliberate infusions of information. [Hee hee!] Species might go extinct, as trilobites, for one, did. What they don’t do, not through random, unguided processes, is gradually transform into totally different species.

What did he say? Stasis proves intelligent design. So does extinction. So does everything. With a “theory” like that, the Discoveroids are on the fast track to … to what? You decide, dear reader.

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