So… I haven’t posted in absolutely ages. But I do have some interesting things to say, partially because of two newspaper opinion columns, which were, not too unsurprisingly, consecutive. I mean, it is a current event, even if it’s been so for, well, thousands of years.
By the way, I’m typing this in very low light, so please forgive me if I misquote the article.
Actually, hang on…
*unplugs speaker system*
*plugs in bedside lamp*
Let there be light!
Yes, I’m in bed; I’m not feeling too well at the moment.
(Audience: Start the post, already!)
OK, OK…
Actually, I’ve only just done all the above actions between the last paragraph and thi- *is hit by a rotten tomato* *wipes sauce off* Social commentary coming right up.
The first column is “Science Notebook”, The Times, Sunday 30 October, 2006, authored by Terence Kealey. Whilst talking about the rift between the Gouldian and Darwinian camps of evolution (and concluding that they’re both right, in a way), he makes this little comment (emphasis added):
They [religious fundamentalists] therefore seize on any apparent weakness in the data to proclaim that the world was created at 9am on October 23, 4004BC, as Archbishop Ussher calculated from Genesis (or at whatever date their different holy books determine).
At the risk of sounding pedantic, may I point out that Archbishop Ussher calculated Creation to have occurred at 6pm on 22 October 4004 B.C.? (The Jewish day runs from 6pm to 6pm.) Kealey is probably mixing this up with John Lightfoot’s chronology, which, although also placing Creation at 6pm (in 3929 B.C.), was once misquoted as putting it at 9am.
So, please, Mr Kealey, know thine enemy before thou speakest of him. For thine enemy shall not be well pleased upon hearing thy words, and, as thou art naughty in his sight, he shall blow thee to tiny bits, and snuff thee.
In any case… Mr Kealey goes on to explain that by combining Gould with Darwin, one can “explain the missing links”:
If evolution is compressed into short bursts, then the chances of the transient missing links being fossilised are small… As for the missing links, bring them on, because thanks to Gould and Pagel we know that their very absence only strengthens the evidence for evolution.
Erm, no, it doesn’t, Mr Kealey. This is a basic law: if event E is explained by Theories A and ~B, E is evidence for neither. But E is for evidence. (Sorry; I couldn’t resist.)
Do you see? Missing links are explained by creationism, because one wouldn’t expect to find links of that sort. Missing links are explained by evolution, because the links shouldn’t be fossilising in the first place.
Let me break it down for you:
#1. Creationism says you won’t find links.
#2. Evolutionism says you won’t find links.
#3. There are no links.
#4. There is no cabal.
Does this prove that evolution is true? No. Does this prove that creationism is true? No. As far as this debate is concerned, it’s irrelevant. Or a hippopotamus, depending on whether you’re Chico.
Now, onto the meatier stuff, which, incidentally, is earlier on in the article. Hoodwinked! must be rubbing off on me with all its nonlinear storytelling.
Religious fundamentalists of many stripes hate evolution by natural selection.
There are actually certain creationists who do happen to believe in devolution by natural selection. In fact, natural selection is the greatest idea that Darwin ever presented to the world, because it’s actually evidence for creationism - at least, against evolution.
Now, I’m not committing the same error for which I just corrected Mr Kealey above.
Because it is against evolution.
Let me explain:
#1. I am a creationist, and I do actually believe that the earth is roughly 6,000 years old.
#2. I believe that God created original “kinds” of animals. Many people (including some creationists) read this as “species”, but it’s not, partially because it was written over 3000 years before Carolus Linnaeus.
#3. Said original kinds had far more genetic information than today’s animals. As these kinds bred, genetic information was transferred from generation to generation… however, various information was lost in each offspring. This would explain, for example, different types of dog/wolf/dingo/etc. - there was an original dog “type”, which has devolved (by losing information) into the vast range we have today. (Think of inbreeding amongst modern pets, but on a larger scale.)
#4. Now, after the Flood, the animals on the Ark bred, and their descendants moved around. Different groups of descendants had different concentrations of information. Those with the information to survive in that environment did; those who didn’t didn’t (natural selection). But - and here’s the important thing - all the information was originally present.
That’s quite diffent from “goo-to-you-via-the-zoo” evolution, where huge amounts of new genetic information are added (unless you think that an amoeba has more genetic information than you do).
So, now, that’s all wrapped up (the first column, that is), and I’ve pretty much exhausted myself.
I must go now… and have dinner. At almost 9pm. 
Wow.
Next post expected not any time soon.
