Stop the Darwin Silliness

OK, lazy materialists in
the press: it is WAY past
time to shape up

Boxers get fat and lazy when they don’t have to fight. Ever since their propaganda victory at the Scopes Trial a century ago, reporters have cordoned themselves off from Darwin skeptics, getting dumber and more reckless without opposition. No more.

It’s cleanup time in American politics as the administration cracks down on federal employees “working” in bubble baths from home, not able to think of five things they accomplished in a week. CEH proposes a crackdown like that on Darwin reporters. Your silliness is showing, and we’re going to hold it up on public display. We’re naming names. Prepare to be held accountable.

If life can exist in your stomach, it can exist on Mars. Here’s what it might look like (Live Science, 1 March 2025). Live Science re-posted this article from The Conversation, one of the goofiest ‘science’ websites around. Its material is most often composed by far-left radicals. Once in a great while, the site posts something worth reading, but most of it is anti-Trump pro-LGBT, pro-Darwin propaganda.

Dr María Rosa Pino Otín is a professor and researcher in Microbiology at San Jorge University in Spain. She may have aced DODO grad school, but time for a remedial course in logic. Here is the gist of her argument:

The study of extremophile micro-organisms offers the hope that on other bodies in the solar system, or on one of the 5,500 known exoplanets, even in extreme conditions, the extraordinary phenomenon of life may be present. The Martians we dream of today might look more like H. pylori than anything else.

In the form of a syllogism, this commits the undistributed middle fallacy: ‘Major premise: All known ulcer microbes live in an extreme environment. Minor premise: Mars has an extreme environment. Conclusion: Life can exist on Mars.’ But Mars soil does not represent all known extreme environments; should we include the core of a neutron star? Does Mars have stomach acid? It has highly reactive perchlorates, static electricity, dust storms and deadly radiation. Such a lively environment.

This argument also commits the fallacy of possibility: just because you imagine something could be true, you cannot argue that it is true. This is like saying, ‘All skyscrapers contain iron. Mars has iron. Mars could have skyscrapers.’ No life we know of is found beyond the earth. On what basis can one assume it “might” exist beyond earth? See also our definition of the perhapsimaybecouldness index, which has redlined in this article.

Professor Otín, certainly you realize that, unlike Mars, your gut biota is part of an ecosystem. Darwin doubters have good reasons to argue that the simplest microbe is irreducibly complex. If you had done a proper scientific literature search, you would have addressed those arguments rather than assume that ’emergence’ of life is a magical power of matter. Such a circular argument (‘I believe life emerged on earth by a material unguided process; therefore it could have emerged on Mars’) is not likely to impress anyone but a Darwine Drunk. If anyone, a microbiology professor should know that a microbe is extremely complex and based on a digital code: DNA. Did she not call life an “extraordinary phenomenon”?

Black squirrels may be evolving due to roadkill in cities (New Scientist, 25 Feb 2025). Get suspicious whenever a science article claims to be witnessing evolution in real time. If reporter Chris Simms had prepared more diligently, he would have known not to confuse microevolution with macroevolution. This is similar to the Peppered Myth. Coat color is a trivial difference between squirrels in the same genus, and this is the same species! Good grief; if you see a horse of a different color, or a black lab in a litter of golden retrievers, does that prove evolution? Even the staunchest Biblical creationist knows that variations occur widely within species. YECs even allow for changes up to the family level in just a few thousand years. Look at the differences in people, Homo sapiens. Is that evolution? Come on; don’t be silly.

How evolution might explain impatience (The Conversation, 28 Feb 2025). Here’s another gem from The Conversation (aka, The Indoctrination). This one is written by a professor of behavioral science at the University of Warwick, Daniel Read. Behold the wisdom, insight and understanding that his favorite deity, the Bearded Buddha, delivered into his material skull:

Although models like this are simplifications of the real world, they are valuable for conceptualising how evolution might have produced particular tendencies in humans and other animals. But this model doesn’t do a lot to explain the human impatience we see now.

Scientist with Yoda Complex entering trance to meditate on the idol and on 747s emerging from tornadoes in junkyards (Grok/XI)

His article is a brew of blather about evolutionary game theory and what it might have done to the evolving mush inside our skulls. With this kind of illogic, you have no hope. You are a pawn of evolutionary forces in an unobserved past that drove you to impatience, and drove Darwinist professors toward a mental illness known as the Yoda Complex.

Evolutionary theory is an essential tool for thinking about the foundations of human decision making. The modern world is, however, very different from the environment in which we evolved.

Ay, there’s the rub. He wants to engage in thinking. But thoughts are not material things. C.S. Lewis said,

The Naturalists have been engaged in thinking about Nature. They have not attended to the fact that they were thinking. The moment one attends to this it is obvious that one’s own thinking cannot be merely a natural event, and that therefore something other than Nature exists. The Supernatural is not remote and abstruse: it is a matter of daily and hourly experience, as intimate as breathing.

If Daniel Read is a philosophical naturalist, then his “thinking” is mere ink on a page or pixels on a screen, signifying nothing. Cue sound of implosion after reading his statement. Then move along; nothing to think about there.

Smart is sexy: evolution of intelligence partly driven by love (Australian National University, 20 Feb 2025). Smile for the camera, Dr Ivan Vinogradov, before we hold you accountable for promoting nonsense. So intelligence is a bequest of sexual selection, you say?

“Our findings imply that the evolution of cognitive abilities may have been driven by sexual selection for males who gained more mating opportunities,” study co-author Professor Michael Jennions said.

These geniuses are talking about… get this… mosquitofish. Not you. Mosquitofish. Make like a mosquitofish if you want to catch a mate. But what’s love got to do with it? Do mosquitofish even know what love is? If you are a man, not a fish, you might want to imitate Stephen Miller, one of the sexiest men in Washington according to some women on Fox News. I seriously doubt these “professors” would want their readers to imitate Elon Musk who has fathered 13 offspring so far.

Good grief, this is so stupid an article. What does it accomplish? Nothing! In typical Darwin just-so story fashion, Ivan and Mike dream up an idea to honor Charley, submit contradictory evidence, raise the perhapsimaybecouldness index, and delay the proof to futureware. From inside the echo chamber of academia, Ivan and Michael probably have no clue about how silly these ideas sound to ordinary people. Could such storytellers hold a job in the real world? Stop the silliness. Get back to real science.

Darwin explains his TOE (Theory of Everything) in a junkyard. (Grok/XI)

Giant ice bulldozers: how ancient glaciers helped life evolve (Curtin University, 25 Feb 2025). Glaciers made you what you are today, says press office reporter Lucien Wilkinson at Curtin University.

“When these giant ice sheets melted, they triggered enormous floods that flushed minerals and their chemicals, including uranium, into the oceans,” Professor Kirkland said.

“This influx of elements changed ocean chemistry, at a time when more complex life was starting to evolve.

Uranium? That’s deadly to DNA. Stop. Time out. You’re fired from the court of public opinion. Curtin U evolutionists, it’s curtains for you.

There’s more like this in the news, but we can only tolerate a few of these at a time. Maybe these Darwin drunkards will spread the word that they can’t get away with this pseudoscientific laziness any longer. See the tragic case of Dr Darwinlover (16 July 2014 commentary).