Uncommon Descent linked to my criticisms of the Biology of the Baroque
, Intelligent Design creationism’s latest misconception, that biologists believe every detail of every organism is the product of natural selection…but they didn’t bother to quote any of my criticisms. It’s weird. They could have quoted the gist of my complaint:
So evolution should produce only the biological equivalent of sterile gray Soviet architecture, and if you find something that is the equivalent of a Baroque church, then evolution is refuted. This entire argument is built around what Michael Denton calls the fundamental assumption of Darwinism…that all novelties are adaptive. To which biologists around the world can only say, “Fu…wha?” in total confusion. That is not one of our assumptions at all. Novelties are going to arise as a product of chance mutation; if they are not maladaptive (and sometimes even if they are), they can spread through a population by chance-driven processes like drift. And some elaborate fripperies can acquire a selective advantage, like that example of Soviet architecture, the peacock’s tail, which this video actually uses as an example of non-adaptive order.
But instead they quote my introduction, where I state that the Discovery Institute is always trying out new slogans and hoping that they’ll hit a sweet spot with the public…which history shows is also true, by the way. But my main point was that their new slogan, non-adaptive order
, relies on lying about what mainstream biology argues.
They can’t say that, though, so instead they suggest that I’m just a big meanie who calls them names, and then proceed to say that I’m a senile old fool
, and a malignant narcissist and psychopath
. While I’m quite savoring the irony, I’d rather they tried to wrestle with their real problem: modern evolutionary biology actually predicts that a majority of the fine details (and some of the major features) of organisms are not the product of selection, and that there are distinct limits to how precisely natural selection can work. Yet their non-adaptive order
argument rests entirely on the claim that biology insists that every feature is adaptive.
When your premises are totally false, shouldn’t all your conclusions be rejected?
Apparently, not if you are a creationist!
By the way, if miss the opportunity to rip into some old-school clueless creationists, they’re hanging out on my scienceblogs page.
“rip into”…that reminds me of the very first predators :-)
“What sparked the Cambrian explosion?” http://www.nature.com/news/what-sparked-the-cambrian-explosion-1.19379
Also, the creationists somehow make me think of the phrase “bacterial mat”.
I am jealous that they called you a “malignant narcissist and psychopath”. I can only dream of mine enemies being so over the top that they befoul themselves with their own spittle.
That’s certainly the way to bet, yes, but it doesn’t logically follow:
– All whales are fish.
– All fish live in the ocean.
– Therefore, all whales live in the ocean.
The premises are false, but the conclusion happens to be true. But as I said, in the real world, that’s called “a broken clock is correct twice a day.”
No. A stopped clock is correct twice a day (assuming it’s a 12-hour clock, and ignoring cases involving daylight savings time etc etc). There are many ways a clock can be broken other than its being stopped for instance, by gaining or losing some time every day. Indeed, not every stopped clock is broken; it’s more likely that its energy source—be that a spring, a pendulum, an electric motor powered in various ways, etc etc—is temporarily off-line one way or another.
This PSA was sponsored by Pedants-R-Us.
So they are worshiping PZ now.
(emphasis mine)
This is just bizarre. There are numerous studies, across the spectrum of species, on trade-offs and how it affects an organisms fecundity. An organism’s fecundity is a sum or all their traits.
Also, for them evolution only occurs via natural selection, which why I assume they use Darwinism and Darwinist a lot.
@6
sum OF all their traits.
Besides being insulting blah blah blah, it’s very unfair. As I recall, early mats were a significant source of Oxygen in the atmosphere, ultimately resulting in monkeys too intelligent to turn in humans.
@4
a stopped clock will coincide with the correct time twice a day regardless of whether it is day light time, standard time or local solar time .
making the statement mean that much more . even a complete idiot can be right once in a while
uncle frogy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_dolphin
Creationists are right like a clock wot the hands fell off of.
@9
In US jurisdictions that have “daylight savings time”, on the appropriate morning DST begins at 2 hours after midnight—the next second is 3:00:01 AM. So if the clock is stopped at (say) 2:30, on that day it shows the correct time only at 2:30 PM DST: there is no 2:30 AM DST on that day in that jurisdiction. A similar analysis applies to the day DST ends, on which a clock can be stopped in such a way that it shows the correct time at three distinct instants.
@11
Interestingly, some clocks without hands seem to have fingers (if you can trust what they’re called).
Stop the sundial, I want to get off!!!
Yes, they’re lying, but they are lying for Jesus. That makes it ok.
“So evolution should produce only the biological equivalent of sterile gray Soviet architecture” (which incidentally proves all atheist evilution believers are commies at heart, and we should donate all our $$$ to Ken Ham).
“When your premises are totally false, shouldn’t you”…
(get a job at Fox News )?