ADVERTISEMENTS

There is a fascinating (as in rubbernecking a car wreck) insight into creationist thinking at examiner.com in the person of one Clyde Middleton, including a truly lunatic "summation" of the theory of evolution that reveals an absolute absence of any knowledge of science.

The interesting part involves his mocking of Darwin's attempt to deal with the fossil record. Darwin, of course, straightforwardly addressed what he saw as a valid objection to his theory, namely: the absence of innumerable transitional links showing species transforming from one into another. This Darwin largely attributed to the imperfection of the fossil record and proposed that a research program be undertaken to determine just how imperfect it is. This led to the field of science called taphonomy.

But imperfection of the fossil record was not Darwin's only proposed explanation ... ironically something that Middleton picks up on but does not understand. He quotes Darwin to the effect:

... and asks:

John Wilkins has explained this well as a confusion over what "gradualism" means. Commenting on that passage, Wilkins notes:

The important point here is that, if Middleton is really confused, why would he assume that Darwin (and scientists who have had 150 years to contemplate it since) are wrong and he, a layman, has seen something they have not considered? A rational person in that situation would seek to end his confusion rather than basing his acceptance or rejection of an idea on it.

If he had investigated, Middleton would have found out that taphonomy, along with plate tectonics, the clarification of what evolutionary change would look like in the fossil record and the tremendous increase in discovered transitional forms since Darwin's day (that Middleton, no doubt under the influence of Morton's Demon, simply denies, even while referring to another, though over-hyped, example) has convinced scientists that the fossil record is a positive support of common descent instead of a liability.

All that goes to explain why Middleton is spectacularly wrong about the science but, to me, this is the interesting bit:

A quick answer is that a clock has a "face" too but even Middleton should agree that there is something unique about living organisms that suggest a closer relationship to humans than a piece of machinery. It is a whole suite of traits unique to particular taxa that make "monkeys" more likely ancestors of humans than chipmunks, with a foot bone perhaps distinguishing which "monkey" is closer still to the line that lead to humans.

But what I find fascinating is that Middleton, here, is doing exactly what he mocks Darwin for: proposing an explanation (common design) of empiric evidence that does not, on its face, support his "theory" of the origin of species (creationism). There is one difference, naturally: Darwin's proposal can be scientifically examined, while Middleton's cannot. But why should Darwin be mocked for doing the same thing Middleton himself does?

Now, we are all heir to inconsistency in our thinking. But it is rare, I think, to find such blatant self-contradiction so cheek by jowl ... except perhaps in the case of creationists.
.

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.