Category Archives: Intelligent Design

ICR Ain’t No Kin to Monkeys, However …

What a happy coincidence! First we have this from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. It’s titled Refuting Ape-Men Myths, written by Brian Thomas.

He’s described at the end of his articles as “Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.” Here’s ICR’s biographical information on him. We’ll give you a few excerpts from his brief post, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

I’m Brian Thomas, Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research. [Hi, Brian!] My wife and I have five college-age kids. We look forward to the day when we can take them and their friends who have heard about evolution their whole lives to the ICR Discovery Center. Powerful, Bible-confirming science will pack every room.

Ooooooooooooh! Bible-confirming science! Then he says:

Ape-men myths are one of the most persuasive icons of evolution. In the Discovery Center, we’ll highlight scientific evidence that shows we descended from Adam, not apes. Genetics confirms this, and all of the relevant fossils look like either apes or men, leaving no support for human evolution.

One more excerpt — a pitch for money:

Please support this project. Your gift will help make this unprecedented creation experience a reality.

But wait! Before you write that check, dear reader, take a look at what just popped up at PhysOrg: ‘Uniquely human’ muscles have been discovered in apes. They say, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Muscles once thought ‘uniquely human’ have been discovered in several ape species, challenging long-held theories on the origin and evolution of human soft tissues. The findings question the anthropocentric view that certain muscles evolved for the sole purpose of providing special adaptations for human traits, such as walking on two legs, tool use, vocal communication and facial expressions. Published in Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, the study highlights that thorough knowledge of ape anatomy is necessary for a better understanding of human evolution.

This is the paper they’re talking about: First Detailed Anatomical Study of Bonobos Reveals Intra-Specific Variations and Exposes Just-So Stories of Human Evolution, Bipedalism, and Tool Use. You can read it on-line without a subscription. PhysOrg tells us:

“This study contradicts key dogmas about human evolution and our distinct place on the ‘ladder of nature,'” says Rui Diogo, an Associate Professor in the Department of Anatomy at Howard University, Washington, USA. “Our detailed analysis shows that in fact, every muscle that has long-been accepted as ‘uniquely human’ and providing ‘crucial singular functional adaptations’ for our bipedalism, tool use and vocal and facial communications is actually present in the same or similar form in bonobos and other apes, such as common chimpanzees and gorillas.”

Egad — we really are kin to the monkeys! PhysOrg continues:

Long-standing evolutionary theories are largely based on the bone structures of prehistoric specimens — and, according to Diogo, also on the idea that humans are necessarily more special and complex than other animals. These theories suggest that certain muscles evolved in humans only, giving us our unique physical characteristics. However, verification of these theories has remained difficult due to scant descriptions of soft tissues in apes, which historically have mainly focused on only a few muscles in the head or limbs of a single specimen. Diogo explains, “There is an understandable difficulty in finding primate, and particularly ape, specimens to dissect as they are so rare both in the wild and museums.”

Skipping to the end, they quote Diogo one last time:

He concludes, “Most theories of human evolution give the impression that humans are markedly distinct from apes anatomically, but these are unverifiable ‘just-so stories’. The real evidence shows we are not so different overall. This study highlights that a thorough knowledge of ape anatomy is necessary for a better understanding of our own bodies and evolutionary history.

One question remains: Will ICR include this new data in their Discovery Center? Perhaps you should ask Brian, before you make that contribution.

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

WND: One of Their Best Creationist Articles Ever

Buffoon Award

Once again, dear reader, our ever-vigilant Drool-o-tron™, with its blaring sirens and flashing lights, compelled us to notice the blinking letters of its wall display, which said WorldNetDaily (WND). As you know, WND was an early Buffoon Award Winner. We’ve described them as a flamingly creationist, absolutely execrable, moronic, and incurably crazed journalistic organ that believes in and enthusiastically promotes every conspiracy theory that ever existed. It’s in their honor that our jolly Buffoon logo adorns this post.

Our computer was locked onto this headline: The desperate atheists’ faith in Darwinism, and above that headline, in red, it says Evolution Watch. The mere existence of that journalistic category tells us all we need to know about the intellectual standing of WND, and that banner always triggers the Drool-o-tron™.

The article was written by Hanne Nabintu Herland. She’s described as “a best-selling historian of religions, author, and founder and host of ‘The Herland Report’.” Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

We all know Darwin. We’ve all been told for decades that he proved [Hee hee!] how man evolved from apes, in a linear evolution from amphibians at sea. They crawled on land, back in the day, and slowly evolved into other species, and here we are – Homo sapiens – the brilliant evolutionary end product. We are also regularly taught that those who disagree with Darwin are the idiots of the world.

Great, huh? Then she says:

Yet, the evolution from one species to another has never been proven, only slight variations within species. Yet, Darwin is still widely used as an example of how “modern empiricism and science” demonstrate how stupid believers in God have been in history.

Gasp — it’s never been proven! She goes on to tell us:

What English naturalist Charles Darwin outlined in “The Origin of Species” (1859) remains a theory. It is unproven hypothesis regarding the development of the species from the lower and simple to the higher and more complex, through the process of natural selection and the survival of the fittest. It still relies on a long number of assumptions. In essence, Darwin’s evolution has to be accepted by faith – they believe in it, regardless of whether it has been empirically proven or not. Verifiable proof still is missing. Despite its obvious flaws, the theory still remains at the forefront of atheist “enlightened” thought.

You’re probably feeling pretty stupid right now, aren’t you? Hanne Nabintu Herland continues:

Scientists have been totally unable to prove development from one species to another. The only element that is a documented fact is that all species derive from one common ancestor, as pointed out by biology professor at Lehigh University, Michael J. Behe in “Darwin’s Black Box. The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.” [Behe? Hee hee!] The forming of new species – “macroevolution” has never been observed, only variations within each species – “microevolution,” such as birds getting longer or shorter wings. Evolution beyond variation remains a hypothetical assumption. Darwin, as we know, could not even explain the complexity of a human cell. As Behe states, the universe as a whole is extremely fine-tuned for life, suggesting that nature exhibits evidence of intelligent design.

Lotta clunkers in that paragraph. See “Micro-yes, Macro-no” in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. While you’re there, scroll down to “Evolution is only a theory” As for fine-tuning, we’ve written often about that — see, for example: The Discoveroids’ Proof of Fine Tuning. Okay, let’s get back to Hanne Nabintu Herland:

Another intelligent-design theorist, Michael A. Cremo, points out in “Rethinking Darwin: A Vedic Study of Darwinism and Intelligent Design and Forbidden Archaeology,” that not only did the Neanderthals live on earth in the same time period as Homo sapiens, as modern science now acknowledges, but human remains have been found in the earth’s layers from millions of years ago. [Huh?] So, it is documented that previous human-like creatures cannot be called “human ancestors,” as they lived on the earth side by side with homo sapiens.


Cremo suggests that the current paradigm and “academic” belief in Darwinism suppresses data if it does not coincide with evolutionary theory. New revelations and findings are simply silenced, in order not to challenge the current understanding of evolution.

Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis both evolved from earlier ancestors. As for Cremo, we rarely see him cited by creationists, because he’s too far out even for them — see Michael Cremo — Cutting Edge Creationist.

Skipping her discussion of the expanding universe, and how Einstein denied it for a while, she ends her brilliant post with this:

So, for now it is we who are stuck with the desperate atheists’ desire for Darwinism to be true, regardless of documentation or proof. So, a Darwinist is someone who believes in an unproven theory and desperately hopes for it one day to come true.

Well, dear reader, that was certainly entertaining. We hope WND continues to post articles by Hanne Nabintu Herland. She’s a great creationist.

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

Creationist Wisdom #865: The Ultimate Test

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Baker City Herald, published three times a week in Baker City, Oregon, population 9,828. The title is Schools should teach evolution and creation, and the newspaper has a comments section.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote her by using her full name. Her first name is Judy. Excerpts from her letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, some bold font for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]. Here we go!

It has come to my attention that science classes are studying evolution.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s one of the best opening lines we’ve ever encountered in one of these letters. It appears that Judy was either home schooled or church schooled, and never had a real science class. Then, somehow, this shocking information has come to her attention. She says:

Of concern to me is the issue of indoctrinating students. Education should be teaching all sides of an issue. No one wants religion in the schools but let’s face it — there is religion in the schools and it is called anti-religion!

Was Judy ever taught all sides? We doubt it. Anyway, she explains the problem for us:

I say this because both evolution and creation are based on one’s world view. We cannot go back to witness our origin, so both are based on a belief system or religion. Both sides use the same evidence such as fossils to support their belief and draw conclusions based on their world view.

No need for us to comment. Judy’s brilliance speaks for itself. After that she tells us:

Scientists are obligated to explore all possibilities, aren’t they?

It’s difficult to explore creation. It happened so fast! Okay, here comes an old clunker:

Many great scientific discoveries in the past made by Kepler, Newton, Faraday, Herschel, Joule, Lister, Maxwell, etc., resulted because these scientists viewed the world through biblical glasses. I wonder if they would be allowed in today’s classrooms?

We debunked that in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. If you go there, scroll down to “Great scientists of old were creationists.” Judy continues:

An article [we won’t bother linking to it] discusses “kinds” and “species” and its contents accentuate how the goal of education is compromised by excluding creation simply because it brings up the creator, God. Evolution has a god as well; it is man.

Ooooooooooooh! Man is the god of evolution. Let’s read on:

In the study of origins, it is either man’s word or God’s Word and students should have the opportunity to hear both sides and let them decide!

Yes, let the kiddies decide. Okay, dear reader, now brace yourself. Here comes the best part:

Each individual will be given the opportunity at their own death to validate which world view is correct.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We’ve seen that as a threat, but no one ever said was a scientific experiment to validate creationism. Creationism is testable after all! Skipping a bit, we come to the end:

My opinion is that God is as integral to creation as Darwin is to evolution in teaching the subject of origins. We should give the students the tools to think critically and make up their own minds.

Now that this issue has come to Judy’s attention, we can expect some changes to be made in Oregon. We’ll be watching for it.

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

Discoveroids: The Wisdom of Testicles

We thought the issue of how “intelligently” we were “designed” was settled years ago when we wrote Buffoon Award Winner — The Intelligent Designer. In that post, we considered the “design” of the human body and decided:

No other conclusion is possible except that the so-called Intelligent Designer is a boob. A dunce. A clown. Or, as we have now officially designated him, a buffoon.

But there was one feature we didn’t mention in that post. The Discovery institute is now filling that gap with a new post by Michael Egnor — that’s his writeup at the Encyclopedia of American Loons. His post is titled Nathan Lents and the Wisdom of Testicles. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections [that look like this]:

Egnor begins by linking to a blog article — Evolution’s Worst Mistake? How About External Testicles? — by respected biologist Nathan H. Lents, and he says:

Darwinist Nathan Lents thinks testicles are nuts.

The Discoveroids are a classy outfit. Egnor’s beginning paragraph goes on:

Or, at least, he thinks they’re poorly designed. He thinks they should be inside the body, not outside. Says Lents, author of the new book Human Errors: A Panorama of Our Glitches, from Pointless Bones to Broken Genes [Amazon listing] … .

You may want to read Lents’ blog article for yourself, but here’s a bit of what Egnor quotes from it:

From an evolutionary standpoint, after all, testicles are the most important thing about a man — without them, he wouldn’t exist at all. And there they are, just sitting out in the open. Exposed. Vulnerable. What kind of design is this? … . If nature had an intelligent designer, he or she would have a lot to answer for. But since natural selection and other evolutionary forces are the true designers of our bodies, there is no one to question about this. We must interrogate ourselves: Why are we like this?

You get the idea. Egnor gives his thinking on the subject:

Is testicular design “an example of poor design”? Perhaps not. Testicles, unlike bone marrow, make cells that are used only intermittently. They are stored until just the right moment, and then it’s a dash to the finish line. From a design perspective, it makes perfect sense to grow and store sperm outside the body, where it’s cooler (in the fridge, so to speak), where their metabolic needs are reduced. Why have them all revved up in the scrotum, wasting energy swimming in circles, doing nothing? When they are released into the female reproductive tract, sperm warm up and come to life, and, expending prodigious energy, race to the ovum. Sperm are produced and stored in a cooler external environment for the same reason we refrigerate food; for preservation, until it’s needed.

He continues:

So is testicular design pretty good? I suspect so, but maybe it is a design flaw. Reproductive physiology is elegant and complex, and there’s much to be learned. What Lents does, ironically (Darwinism is nothing if not ironic), is use intelligent design science to discredit… intelligent design.

Aaaargh!! Let’s read on:

After all, if there is no design in nature, there is no poor design. Lents makes the classic Darwinist blunder: he denies that intelligent design is science, and, in the same breath, provides devilishly cunning scientific arguments against it.

Are you following this? Really? We’re not. Here’s another excerpt:

“Poor” design presupposes the inference to design. But there are poor arguments — like Lents’s argument against the wisdom of testicles.

The “the wisdom of testicles”? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We found the title for our post. Here’s more:

Design science compels us to look for deeper purposes in biology. That is exactly what Lents is doing with his arguments that some design is “poor design.” He is relying on intelligent design science to explore purposes in biology.

And now we come to the end:

The investigation of purpose in biology — the evidence-driven exploration of good design and poor design — is not nuts at all. It’s just good science.

At least we learned one thing from Egnor’s post. If we ever find ourself in a conversation with a Discoveroid, one thing we’ll never do is demand that he show us his evidence.

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