The latest edition of That’s a Fact is called Evolution in Action, and consists entirely of a straw man (that is, once we get past the usual lengthy intro). Behold!
In other news, embedding is working again.
Let’s just fast-forward through the start…
It’s easy to see that puppies grow to become dogs, and that kittens become cats. But what about animals that look very different when they are babies? Like Tadpoles. When Frog eggs hatch the tiny tadpoles live in water and swim around, a lot like small fish, and as they get older they grow legs, lungs, and they lose their tails. Eventually, they can leave the water and hop around on land, just like grown up frogs. Some say that tadpoles becoming frogs shows evolution in action – the same has been said of caterpillars and butterflies.
Who say that? I don’t, but I could find on the ICR’s FAQ page an entry for When a Tadpole Turns into a Frog – Is This Evolution in Action? In it, John Morris defends against that silly question, as he does in other similar articles against similarly silly questions.
On a related subject there is another FAQ called How Long is a Billion Years?, which I suspect the first That’s a Fact is a bastard child of.
But that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense when you think about it – after all, a puppy never grows into an ostrich, and a kitten never becomes and armidillo. In the same way, a tadpole never grows up to be anything except a frog.
It may not make a lot of sense, but this is not why. That FAQ page answers it a lot better – in summary the tadpole may have changed, but it hasn’t really changed. Nobody thinks that tadpoles -> frogs is evolution, and the only conceivable reason that such an ‘FAQ’ is even there is if people were getting confused. Nevertheless, rather than taking the ‘if you were thinking…’ line, this video tries to take the ‘stupid scientists’ line, at least implying that that is the case without actually saying it.
That’s because the bible says God specifically and purposefully made every creature, from the birds in the air to the fish in the sea, and he gave them the ability to reproduce after their kind, so that they could multiply and fill the earth. If monkey’s had fish for babies they wouldn’t be around very long.
Wouldn’t they? At any rate, evolution would say that such a state of affairs could not survive.
So, while a baby penguin is puffy and cute, it loses its fuzz when it grows up and instead gets a nice, streamlined body that’s perfect for swimming.
The ‘purpose’ of the puffy coat of the penguin is not to be cute, but to keep it warm while it is small. Again, evolutionary advantage and all that.
It’s the same when tadpoles lose their tails or when caterpillars are given beautiful wings. All of it showcases the wonderful design and artistry of our creator.
Yeah, yeah, yeah – art proves design. Or something. Anything can be beautiful, you know – even random, purposeless things.
So, yeah, the only thing to say about this video is that embedding works again, and I’ve already said that…
Yesterday, Dec. 5, I posted on this ICR video asking the ICR to please reply with an answer to who the “some” are that claim ontogeny of a frog or a butterfly is equivalent to evolution. I defined evolution as a change in the frequency of alleles over generations and finished scolding the ICR for this pathetic straw man. The comments were shut down again about ten minutes later. I can’t say for sure the ICR is shutting down the comments because of me, or if the ICR is really responsible for the shut down. The last time they shut down the comments was right after I made a comment on this blog about being able to comment on their vimeo videos. My paranoid side thinks the ICR read this blog and responded by shutting down the comments. My nonjudgmental side says it’s a server error or something. The last time they shut down comments they did come back up a few days later. We’ll see if they come back up this time.
As for your previous question: they are blocking my email address on Science Essentials, not my IP address. One more bit of news. ICR recently sent out an email about a law suit Dr. David Hillis of U.T. Austin is filing against them to remove them from tax exempt charity status. I have word that, yesterday, the U.T. lawyers contacted the ICR about their illegal use of the Longhorn logo in the email I received. Keep an eye on this one. Should be interesting.
Interesting timing, whatever the reason. I know they know I exist – I’ve seen, for example, a few hits coming from their video stats page, checking out my embedding – but I can’t prove that they read it on such a regular basis. If they turn off commenting for such a small thing I can’t believe I missed out on commenting there on the ‘imitating humans’ video. Oh well…
It get the impression that the ICR isn’t overly happy with vimeo. Vimeo offers two paid services called vimeo plus and vimeo pro. These can’t be combined, but at the same time include features independently of each other. The set that most fits their need is pro, which they use, but I believe they tried plus for a while recently, which allows them to prevent me embedding their videos here. Reading on their website I couldn’t find much at all about commenting, and I suspect that all the control that they have amounts to a master switch, which is what they are using.
What’s your take on the competition? I suppose we’ll have to wait until the questions arrive, but I for one think that she’s not providing enough info on how it will work.
The UT thing is an interesting development that I hadn’t heard – I had just assumed that they were able to use the logo. It’s nice to see that the ICR’s daydreaming that some sort of disciplinary action could be taken by the uni against Dr Hllis is looking even less likely.
I think you were right that the contest is just a way to get viewership up again now that they shut down constructive commentary. There are over 200 comments there now, though every tenth one is rforlow. I did enter my favorite Christmas song and did so under my real name, but a different email than had been blocked. So far they left it up. Hope I win! Should ICR permanently shut down comments on their videos, I am thinking about starting a parallel video series of rebuttals. I’ll let you know if I do.
It’s still there too. Wow!
We’ll have to wait and see if the comments return with the next video. The advantage with commenting there rather than doing a review elsewhere is that people are much more likely to see the criticism. But if there’s no alternative…
How would you do the videos if you do decide to do it?
Video structure would all depend on how much time I want to put into it. Haven’t even decided if I want to pursue it yet. I’ll let you know if I do.
Well, with a new video out and no commenting available, it’s looking pretty permanent. Have fun if you do chose to do it.