Custom Search

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Canadian columnist David Warren takes on a Darwinist, on the subject of whales

I love to present the views of Canadian columnist David Warren, a Catholic, like me, and a relentless critic of Darwinist nonsense - and never more timely, it seems. Here he is talking about the bowhead whale:

And then there's the bowhead whales. Imagine something that weighs more than a hundred tonnes, is seventy feet long, & one-third head. According to the engineers, they can crack through six feet of ice by head-ramming alone (never witnessed). But as I was discussing with a certain male offspring: check out their powerful blowholes. Maybe they could do better than six feet of ice, by blowing while butting at surprising angles, on the principle of the icebreaker's bow thruster; for the blowholes are V'd back on this animal, just as if designed for that very purpose. Plus, shaping the shock wave on their approach, at speed. They can make a mighty, deep noise with their vocalizations, too: so why not add some accoustic trauma for the poor defenceless ice. I don't think it has a chance with them.

Of course, they are tiny compared with one of Uncle Sam's submarines. But they can go where no sub has gone, do what no sub has done.

So how did it evolve? That's a slam-dunk for a Darwinist, you had these little whales needing to breathe & the bigger ones had a survival advantage, & the bigger butt-heads an advantage over the relative pin-heads. They had blow-holes anyway, but confer an advantage to the slightly-angled. And so on. Complete absence of evidence for this ancestry, but hey, the argument will make the clever freshmen STFU, especially when sutured together with jargon.

As the lad says (rude language warning), "That's the great thing about being a Darwinoid. You can pull pure hypotheticals right out of your ass, & then use them as if they were facts. You needn't trouble yourself with a soupçon of evidence. And if you can't fart out the hypotheticals on the spot, you just tell the freshman it is a young science, another Darwinoid will fart that out for you tomorrow."
And he adds,

The whales & seals of the arctic are generally very good at judging the thickness of ice from submarine lighting conditions & in some whale cases just possibly by echolocation effects. Like every other creature in nature they know what they are about in their own environment. This is because they are intelligently designed to survive in it. A blundering animal, who looks for a breathing hole by trial & error, in anything but the most extreme circumstances, would soon be extinct. Trust God on this: it is, after all, your national motto.

The bowhead blowhole is of a radically different design & angle from other whale blowholes. Again, trust God: there will be a reason for it. There is probably a reason (other than purely aesthetic) for the narwhal's tusk, but on that, at the moment, we must not only trust God but ask Him for a hint.

Our own hypotheses on bowheads, &c, are based on observed & testable features of the living animal, considered explicitly from a design point-of-view. This yields rich results, without fail: alike for us & for the Darwinoids, when they are examining the evidence "unofficially."

By comparison, the official hypotheses of the Darwinoids are based on zilch that can be observed or tested. Naturally, that makes our flatus more poignant than theirs, & explains why they need to remove us from the polite environment of the classroom, where children must be indoctrinated in the Darwinian form of "dialectical materialism" without such powerful distractions.

As we observed of the former Soviet Union, the Ideology of the State must be given lip-service in all textbooks & other official publications. Hence the flowery praise for Darwin in the prefaces of all these texts, which could as relevantly be replaced with praise for Marx or Lenin as the "pioneer of settled science." But unofficially, the Soviets survived as long as they did only by ignoring Marx, & doing whatever was thought necessary for the moment, when presented with actual empirical problems. I mean this analogy strictly.

Can't find by quick Google-search, but one of the things I remember from the past was the giant cut-out profiles of great socialist heroes in Marxist tank parades. Occasionally good old Charlie Darwin would be up there in the row with Karlo Marx, Freddie Engels & the rest. This is guilt by association of course. But it often works in the civil courts, so I'll toss it on the Darwinian pyre for kindling.
earnest Darwinists (or Darwinoids, as Warren prefers to call them, because they certainly do not represent the original idea, only a stale subsequent rant, heard way, way too often) have tried to shut Warren down. But if anyone ever did, it would probably be a partisan of some political correctness other than Darwinism - which is simply not as hot a topic here in Canada as it is in the United States.
Darwinism just isn’t as controversial here in Canada as in the United States - not principally because it is widely accepted but rather because the electorate is not divided along party lines, as it is in the United States - so few politicians could benefit from making it an issue.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:


Who links to me?