I got clued to a
jack-ass, F. LaGard Smith*, who was published by the Daily Caller. The Daily Caller is part of the alt-right, or full-on Neo-Reich. What follows is the
creatocrap, with my relies posted to the DB website DISQUS feature. I made a
few corrections in this version. The DISQUS thread had the typical creationist
twaddle, with the extra special stupid of Joe “Joke” Gallien posting under the
name “joe moricone.” “Maricon” is Mexican slang for male homosexual. Joe “moricone”
makes enough buttsex, and blowjob comments to earn the title.
JUST SO: The Microbe-To-Man Evolution Story Is Dumb, Bad Science. Why Do Our Kids Learn It As Fact?
JUST SO: The Microbe-To-Man Evolution Story Is Dumb, Bad Science. Why Do Our Kids Learn It As Fact?
9:36 PM 06/15/2018
F. LaGard Smith | Former law professor and the compiler and
narrator of 'The Daily Bible'
Dare suggest that America’s school children should be
alerted to scientific problems with microbe-to-man evolution, and you can
safely predict an outcry from evolutionists along two fronts. First, they
protest, there must surely be a hidden agenda to teach the biblical creation
story (including Adam and Eve), or the suspected subterfuge of “creation
science” or the (even sneakier) argument from intelligent design. Then comes
the usual party-line: “You can’t challenge evolution in the classroom, because
that would violate the separation of church and state!”
1) the so-called "problems" are not specified. No valid problems are ever specified, Some fake problems are mentioned later that count on the ignorance and bias of readers.
1) the so-called "problems" are not specified. No valid problems are ever specified, Some fake problems are mentioned later that count on the ignorance and bias of readers.
2) The "hidden
agenda" of creationists to force a particular, and peculiar religious
faith into public schools is obvious. It is not hidden.
3) Adam and Eve
creationism is just one little variation of the many creationist dogmas. When
the sectarian twits like LaGard Smith spout, they mean their peculiar dogma.
His is obviously a variation of some Christian sect. But there are all sorts of
religious objections to reality. For examples;
Jewish
Spetner, Lee 1997
"Not By Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution" New York:
The Judaica Press
Muslim
Harun Yahya (Adnan
Okbar) 2007 "Atlas Of Creation" Istanbul: Global Publishing
Hindu
Michael A Cremo,
Richard L. Thompson 1998 "Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the
Human Race" Bhaktivedanta Book Publishing
Neo-pagan/Native
American
Deloria, Vine Jr. 1997
“Red Earth, White Lies” Golden Colorado: Fulcrum
Publishing
So, teach pagan,
Hindu, Muslim, and Jewish creationisms as "proof" of their religions.
And then toss Christian creationists on the pile.
Why the religious
should fear adding creationist twaddle to the curriculum is that scientists can
dismiss creationism as the fraud(s) it is.
Why the knee-jerk outcry against nefarious creationism even
if none of the above scenarios are being proposed? Why is the vociferous
protest invariably framed in terms of religion rather than science? Simple
logic. Even Darwin knew that his naturalistic theory had but one real
alternative: the realm of the miraculous, which is to say divine creation.
Which, if taught in the classroom would—God forbid—breach Thomas Jefferson’s
famous (if not strictly constitutional) “wall of separation.”
The second paragraph of this creationist screed had only on
sentence of substance. It was, "Even Darwin knew that his naturalistic
theory had but one real alternative: the realm of the miraculous, which is to
say divine creation."
So, at least we have a
hint of honesty. The only alternative to science is magic. But this claim is
also rejected by the religious. For example here are books by clergy who are
also competent scientists who don't adopt the false creationist doctrines
promoted by cretins like the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in
Genesis, or the Creation Research Society.
Ayala, Francisco 2007
arwin’s Gift: To Science and Religion" (Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press-
National Academies Press)
Collins, Francis S.
2006 "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief"
New York Free Press- Simon and Schuster
Carol, Hill, Gregg
Davidson, Wayne Ranney, Tim Helble 2016 "The Grand Canyon, Monument to an
Ancient Earth: Can Noah's Flood Explain the Grand Canyon?" Kregel
Publications
Hyers, Conrad 1984
“The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science” Atlanta: John Knox Press
Miller, Keith B.
(editor) 2003 “Perspectives on an Evolving Creation” Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing
Ken Miller 1999
"Finding Darwin's God" New York: HarperCollins
Roberts, Michael 2008
"Evangelicals and Science" Greenwood Press
Young, Davis A., Ralf
F. Stearley 2008 "The Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence for the
Age of the Earth" Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press
Now recall those are
all religious scientists. Many are clergy.
There are pro-science
religious. I recommend;
Frye, Roland Mushat
(editor) 1983 "Is God a Creationist?: The Religious
Case Against
Creation-Science" New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, Inc.
Slifkin, Rabbi Natan
2006/2008 “The
Challenge of Creation: Judaism’s Encounter with Science, Cosmology and
Evolution” New York:
Zoo Torah and Yashar Books
But do evolutionists who insist that religion’s creation
story is the only alternative to evolution’s own creation story not realize the
peril of that position? What if those challenging Darwin’s grand theory turned
out to be (Holy Scopes!) not Bible-thumpers, but scientists?
As it happens, there’s already a hush-hush open secret among
scientists: the quietly acknowledged “Queen of evolutionary problems” — the
origin of sex — which, after countless studies, stubbornly defies evolutionary
explanation.
We need to smush two tiny paragraphs by LaGard Smith to get anything to refute.
We need to smush two tiny paragraphs by LaGard Smith to get anything to refute.
So what of substance?
Some people with
desperate need to believe in magic have Ph.D.s in science. There is even a book
full,
Ashton, John F. 2001
"in six days: why fifty scientists choose to believe in
creation" Green Forest AR: Master
Books
If you read the book
you will learn that these creationists were creationists before they studied
any science. And most chose to collect science degrees merely as a way to
attack science.
And the next false
claim by LaGard Smith is that there is
a, “Queen of evolutionary problems” —
the origin of sex."
What?
If "sex"
evolved then there ought to be physical intermediates either as fossils, living
species, or genetic relics.
Well, too bad for Mr.
Smith, but we are all good on the evolution of sex.
I'll start with the
most basic surviving example of the most primitive sexual critter. It is the
modest slime mold. It reproduces by both Mitosis, and Meiosis.
http://bioweb.uwlax.edu/bio203/2010/renner_brad/reproduction.htm
Those primitive cells
preserve the some of the biochemistry of your testes, or ovaries.
I find it amusing to
mention the sexual apparatus of the most primitive sexual fossil, an extinct
ostracod. The males had a penis nearly as large as the rest of their body;
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/males-penises-ostracods-extinction-sexual-selection/557756/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4452-fossilised-crustacean-boasts-oldest-penis/
So maybe they were
over-equipped.
And then there are the
functioning hermaphrodites. Most mollusks, and especially snails are
functioning hermaphrodites with simultaneously functioning sexual organs. But
they are not alone. One of my favorite fish to catch is a cyclic hermaphrodite.
When there is a large dominant male, the females flock. If there are none then
a female becomes a dominant male. The species is Semicossyphus pulcher.
Finally we must mention the true virgin births of the
parthenogenetic whiptail lizards. They "don' need no sex. They don' got
no' need for stinking males..." (Apologies to "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" fans).
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/asexual-lizards/
Why is evolutionary sex so threatening that it dare not even
be mentioned in textbooks or science classes?
So on to the next bit
of creato-trash;
"Why is
evolutionary sex so threatening that it dare not even be mentioned in textbooks
or science classes?"
Try harder LaGard. I
have a copy of the best selling High School Biology text in the United States
by Ken Miller, and Joe Levine published by Prentice Hall.
They have pages and
pages on reproduction from fungi to humans.
Because of freaky
creatoids they play down a bit. Their books sells even in the Bible Belt.
Yes, Ken Miller is the
same man who wrote;
Ken Miller 1999
"Finding Darwin's God" New York: HarperCollins
and, 2008 “Only a
Theory” New York: Viking Press
And then there is my
old copy of Neil Campell's first year college biology textbook,
"Biology." There are pages on the evolution of 'naughty bits' in
nearly every section. After all, as one of my old professors remarked,
"Biology is the 4 F's, "Feeding, Fighting, Fleeing, and
Fucking."
Maybe you can fool the
far-right, but you cannot fool an educated man.
Given the unique nature of gendered, sexual meiosis compared
with non-gendered, asexual mitosis, the first-ever generation of sexual
reproduction would have required 1) a never-before-seen male organism and a
novel female organism, 2) magically having compatible chromosomes, and 3) a
death-defying process of precisely halving their chromosomes, mixing them
together in a revolutionary way, and then recombining to produce, not a clone
(as in asexual replication), but a unique offspring unlike any on the planet.
Not to mention the minor details of geographic proximity and an evolved
instinct to mate—all absolutely required in round one of sex to get the sexual
ball rolling.
We did a lot of this
silly sex denial already. The tight biochemical analysis of evolutionary sex
can be found by first understanding that asexual reproduction is not cost free.
See as an introduction to real science;
Uyenoyama, M.K., 1986.
"Inbreeding and the cost of meiosis: the evolution
of selfing in
populations practicing biparental inbreeding" Evolution, 40(2),
pp.388-404.
And the famous book;
Margulis, L., 1981.
"Symbiosis in cell evolution: Life and its environment on the early
earth"
You might try to catch
up with the smart kids.
Staley, J.T., 2017
"Domain Cell Theory supports the independent evolution of the Eukarya,
Bacteria and Archaea and the Nuclear Compartment Commonality hypothesis"
Open biology, 7(6), p.170041.
But I doubt it is in
your path.
That’s only for starters. What school children must also
never know is that the familiar “tree of evolution” (illustrating evolution’s
bedrock assumption of common descent) could never have happened in actual fact.
Natural selection could not possibly have provided simultaneous, on-time
delivery of the first compatible male/female pair of each of millions of
sexually-unique species. (Merely consider the weird, cannibalistic sex of the
praying mantis! Or, even more problematic, the first-ever male and female
reptiles, mating and reproducing as no amphibians before them.)
So there is a major load of lies, (or just really stupid) in this paragraph.
First, that the “tree of evolution” (illustrating evolution’s bedrock assumption of common descent) could never have happened in actual fact.”
The fact is that the branching pattern of species relationships was known before Darwin. Darwin’s life work was to try to explain what was already known in the 1700s. LaGard’s next lie is that there is any barrier to sexual reproduction. Every single step in biological evolution is still preserved either in survivors, or in our genes. LaGard goes into the crazy land with the assertion that there were, “… the first-ever male and female reptiles, mating and reproducing as no amphibians before them.” That is either dishonest, or insane. To the best of my knowledge, and a solid literature search, amphibians are mostly sexual. There are some asexual amphibians. There are more asexual reptiles than amphibians. Oddly, the genetics of the reptiles are more permissive than others. They occasionally allow all female populations to persist.
His biggest lie is that we want to hide this “fact” from school children. It is frauds like him that want to lie to children.
So there is a major load of lies, (or just really stupid) in this paragraph.
First, that the “tree of evolution” (illustrating evolution’s bedrock assumption of common descent) could never have happened in actual fact.”
The fact is that the branching pattern of species relationships was known before Darwin. Darwin’s life work was to try to explain what was already known in the 1700s. LaGard’s next lie is that there is any barrier to sexual reproduction. Every single step in biological evolution is still preserved either in survivors, or in our genes. LaGard goes into the crazy land with the assertion that there were, “… the first-ever male and female reptiles, mating and reproducing as no amphibians before them.” That is either dishonest, or insane. To the best of my knowledge, and a solid literature search, amphibians are mostly sexual. There are some asexual amphibians. There are more asexual reptiles than amphibians. Oddly, the genetics of the reptiles are more permissive than others. They occasionally allow all female populations to persist.
His biggest lie is that we want to hide this “fact” from school children. It is frauds like him that want to lie to children.
In his best-selling book, Why Evolution is True, even
skeptic Jerry Coyne keenly appreciates where the crux of the evolution debate
lies. “A better title for The Origin of Species,” says Coyne, “would have been
The Origin of Adaptations. While Darwin did figure out how and why a single
species changes over time (largely by natural selection), he never explained
how one species splits in two.” (Would it breach “the wall of separation” to
share an evolutionist’s corrective with school children?)
Coyne’s own attempt to hypothesize how species might have
“split” has to do with “geographic isolation” causing genetic diversions.
Problem is, there simply aren’t enough isolating mountains, rivers, or lakes on
the planet to explain the origin of tens of millions of different species. So,
we’re back to hard scientific reality. If there’s no evolved first generation
of any given species, then there could be no evolution into any other species,
nor certainly any higher species, most especially us humans.
LaGard closes with a misreading of Jerry Coyne. It is easy to misread Jerry Coyne.
The particular problem is that the “cladistics” fanboys insist they are smarter then Darwin, and have destroyed the old (dead) man’s taxonomic approach.
LaGard closes with a misreading of Jerry Coyne. It is easy to misread Jerry Coyne.
The particular problem is that the “cladistics” fanboys insist they are smarter then Darwin, and have destroyed the old (dead) man’s taxonomic approach.
Worse is that LaGard
totally missed is that there is not merely abundant geological diversity to
create new species, but that species in a sense collaborate in their mutual
evolution. Even Darwin recognized this dedicating two books to various aspects
of the problem. These were, 1874 “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation
to Sex,” and 1862 "The Fertilisation of Orchids."
What I find amusing is
that Richard Lewontin comes around eventually, and didn't know he was meeting
Darwin (again).
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2011/05/26/its-even-less-your-genes/
Forget religion. Forget the Bible. Forget teaching
creationism. On its own terms, the romanticized, politicized, (increasingly
even theologized!) microbe-to-man evolution story presented as undeniable fact
in the schoolroom is simply bad science. Why should anyone insist that students
be taught bad science?
You say not even serious problems with evolution ought to be
objectively presented in the classroom? I understand the danger. Do that, and
bright young minds might well conclude that the sacrosanct evolution story is
not science at all, merely science fiction. Then what creation story will they
believe?
* From the Daily Caller, “LaGard Smith is a former law
professor (principally at Pepperdine University) and scholar in residence for
Christian Studies (Lipscomb University). He is the compiler and narrator of The
Daily Bible and is the author of over 30 books. His most recent book is “Darwin’s
Secret Sex Problem: Exposing Evolution’s Fatal Flaw—The Origin of Sex.”
2 comments:
I believe that you are mistaken as to the publishing entity for this. It is not the Daily Beast (which is typically described as "liberal") but the Daily Caller, a creation of Tucker Carlson.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/15/evolutionists-defend-their-own-creation-story/
D'oh!
You are correct!
Fixed it.
Post a Comment