More pathetic evolution propaganda

A story repeated on BBC radio and in this morning’s newspapers concerns the fact that when we are too long in the bath our fingers and toes get a bit wrinkly. This, of course, is more evidence for evolution. It might have helped our ancestors pick things up and so people with this characteristic might have had an evolutionary advantage. The research was published by the pro-Darwin Royal Society, the same organisation in which  the Reverend Professor Michael Reiss was bullied out of his job in science education in a zero tolerance witch hunt a few years back. Although a convinced Darwinist, his crime was to suggest that students who questioned Darwin should be treated respectfully and asked to explain why they thought so rather than simply silenced and humiliated. That of course would never do.

The BBC, always eager to promote this sort of story, discuss it here. A Google on (evolution + wrinkly + fingers) will bring up many more reports. Obviously someone has done their job effectively at placing this story all round the news media, as if it proved anything.

If this evolutionary assertion were true, in Darwinian terms it would imply (A) that there were once two populations of humans, one of which had a genetic tendency to get wrinkly fingers and soles when immersed in water, and another which did not, and (B) the survival advantage this inheritable feature gave was so great as to force the elimination by natural selection of those who did not have it.

This speculation, and that's all it is, seems extremely far fetched. But even if it were true, how on earth is this sort of temporary minor change in skin texture, probably just due to swelling caused by water absorbtion,  supposed to explain the development of people from pond life?

It is this sort of pathetic nonsense that always makes me say, contrary to the plea that follows nearly all published research in whatever sphere. ‘LESS research ought to be done.’ The vast majority of research of this kind is of course done to provide employment for researchers.

This story and the ridiculous level of publicity given to it on today's news follows the typical pattern established by Darwin in 1857. Make a banal, everyday observation about something in nature, then say that ‘Evolution could have done it’ and then call this evidence for evolution. It is this sort of stuff that they are referring to when they say that ‘There are mountains of evidence for evolution!’

Mountains of something certainly, but not evidence. I would say that the prominence given to this ridiculous hype while ignoring the serious arguments about information and irreducible complexity coming from the Intelligent Design movement, plus recent discoveries about non-coding DNA (dismissed by evolutionists as junk but now increasingly being shown to have a vital role, as predicted by Creationism and Intelligent Design) is evidence of systematic self deception.

An evolutionist in Scientific American recently wrote "Creationists begin with answers and work to prove that those answers are right. This is antithetical to the scientific process."

Pot calling the kettle black or what?  Remove the log from your own eye and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your neighbour's eye. Perhaps wrinkly fingers would also help when scraping the bottom of a barrel.