Intelligent Delivery Storkism versus Uterine Development Theory

This stork is actually owned by a gynaecologist. What more proof do you need?

British and American schools are teaching the Uterine Development Theory of where babies come from, without even considering the well-established alternative theory, Scientific Storkism. This means that they are neglecting their duty as educators which, as the initiator of the Louisiana Science Education Act tells us, is to promote critical thinking

Scientific Storkism is confirmed by direct observation (J.P. Jekowski, personal observation, above), and by a rapidly expanding scientific literature (see also Stein et al.), although Dawkins dismisses the theory in his usual militant closed-minded manner.

Birth congratulations cards from all over the world show of storks carrying fully developed human children (in East Asia, they are replaced, appropriately enough, by their close relatives the cranes), and the actual process of delivery by stork has even been captured on film by Brazilian gynecologists,[1] as also by Disney in his 1941 zoological study, Dumbo.

There is a strong positive correlation between the stork population and the birth rate.

Now consider the weaknesses of Uterine Development Theory (UDT).

Millions of parents prefer to offer their children stork-only education. Thus the compulsory teaching of UDT in schools undermines the family, which is the basis of all morality. (Scotland, I am proud to say, gives parents the right to withdraw their children from Relationships, sexual health and parenthood education, which includes UDT).

We should never forget that UDT claims to be a scientific theory. But according to Popper, a scientific theory is always open to being disproved by further evidence, so we should never teach it to students as if it were proven fact.

Despite numerous claims to the contrary, no one has ever actually seen the development of a baby in a uterus. There are a large number of images of what supporters of the theory claim are different stages of development, but all of these fall into one of two classes. Either there is insignificant change between successive images (microdevelopment, which is not in dispute), or there is significant change between successive images (in which case there are Missing Links). Besides, as Jonathan Wells argues[2] (Icons of Evolution, Ch. 5; this book now comes with its own study guide), Haeckel’s 1874 sketches of embryos were misdrawn, which proves that we cannot trust the scientists who claim evidence for uterine development.

UDT postulates the existence of a disposable organ known as the placenta. A little bit of calculation shows that if the theory is true, and if we modestly estimate the number of human babies delivered to date as ten billion, enough placentas must by now have been generated to cover the entire State of Texas with placentas to a depth of 20 feet. But the State of Texas is not covered with placentas at all. This alone should conclusively refute the theory.

The UDT theory also requires that the process be initiated by a procedure so grotesque that it can only be the product of a diseased imagination. Do we really want people with diseased imaginations deciding what is taught in our schools?

Finally we have the mathematical argument in favor of Storkism (casual readers may if they wish omit this part). Consider Mrs Smith living next to Mrs Jones and Mrs Robinson. Invariably, Mrs Smith’s baby will be born to Mrs Smith. The probability of this happening by chance os only 1 in 3. Then Mrs Jones gives birth to her own baby, not Mrs Robinson’s; probability 1 in 2, for an overall probability of 1 in 6. This is not an inherent property of Smithness or Jonesness; as it happens, both Mrs Smith and Mrs Jones have given birth to Mr Robinson’s baby.

Clearly, a sophisticated selection process is at work. How sophisticated? Consider a set of only 20 separate mother-child pairs. Invariably, each child is paired with the correct mother. Extending our earlier calculation shows that under UDT the probability of this happening by chance is no more than one in 20 Factorial, or 1 in 2,432,902,008,176,640,000. Considering real populations, the odds become hyperastronomical, and even 100 families suffice to take us beyond Dembski’s 1 in 10^150 ultimate probability limit.

Under Storkism, this apparently insuperable problem is immediately solved by the intervention of ID, or Intelligent Delivery. Intelligent Delivery is the only known effective means to achieve such a feat, as demonstrated daily by the operations of the Postal Service, and Occam’s Razor shows on philosophical grounds that no other process is necessary. As Alastair Noble of Glasgow’s Centre for Intelligent Delivery has pointed out, we know of only two cases of such improbable specificity. One is child delivery, and the other one is mail delivery. But we know that mail delivery shows the operation of an intelligence, and therefore reduction to best explanation requires us to say the same of child delivery. The case is completely analogous to that of biological complexity, in which each protein has its own protein sequence and not a different one.

We thank the Delivery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture for unprecedented insights, and J.P. Jekowski for the pictorial evidence presented. An earlier version of this post appeared here.

[1] An alert reader has pointed out that this link no longer exists. Clear evidence of uterine developmentalists suppressing contrary opinion.

[2] This is exactly what Wells argues.

The Creationist Obsession with Darwin; from Louisiana to Discovery Institute to Glasgow

From Louisiana through the Discovery Institute to Glasgow, examples of the creationist obsession with Darwin (and inability to quote him correctly) continue to accumulate.

You may have heard of the Louisiana Science Education Act (how’s that for protective colouring?), which allows creationism to be taught in the State’s publicly funded schools in the name of “academic freedom.” The law was apparently suggested to State Senator Ben Nevers by the Lousiana Family Forum, whose upcoming Leadership Academy, to be addressed by Governor Bobby Jindal, promises to “teach you how to defend Conservative principles within policy!” (Exclamation mark in original. I set the last two links at “No-Follow”)

And now here’s the bit that’s relevant to my theme, courtesy Zack Kopplin. To quote Sen. Nevers, the Louisiana Family Forum “believe that scientific data related to creationism should be discussed when dealing with Darwin’s theory.” So there are scientific data relevant to creationism (what, I wonder?), but a century and a half of evolutionary science are merely “Darwin’s theory”. As in, the Earth goes round the Sun in an elliptical orbit is “Kepler’s theory”, and stuff is made out of atoms is “Dalton’s theory”.

Stephen Meyers’ Darwin’s Doubt uses similar tactics, from the title on in. The contents give us three references to Darwin in its 23 chapter and section headings; “Darwin’s Nemesis”, “After Darwin, What?”, and “The Post-Darwinian World and Self-Organisation”. Darwin’s name also occurs seven times on the book’s front flap. This (free view on Amazon) presents one short argument, to introduce one very long book, based on compressing the Ediacaran and Cambrian radiations, ignoring everything we know about the events leading up to them (see Robert Hazen’s Story of Earth for a good brief overview), and comparing the resulting mystification with the problem of the origin of life. The index gives ten subheadings and 21 page references for Darwin, and sixteen subheadings and 43 page references to “Darwinian evolutionary theory”. These include six to “Agassiz’ challenge”; that’s Louis Agassiz, who was generously acknowledged by Darwin for his discovery of the Ice Ages, and died 1873. And I nearly forgot: twentysix subheadings and 38 page references for “neo-Darwinism”.  For comparison, Carl Zimmer and Douglas J. Emlen’s Evolution; Making Sense of Life (one of the few textbooks I have come across that is actually a pleasure to read) has 16 subheadings and 33 page references to Darwin. And for “Darwin’s theory”, “Darwinian theory”, or “neo-Darwinism”? None at all. Indeed, I cannot recall when I last came across those expressions, other than from a historian or a creationist.

And of course Glasgow’s own Centre for Intelligent Design, a Discovery Institute echo chamber, has done its poor best to support Stephen Meyer. How? By mangling Darwin to totally shift his emphasis, and refocus it on Meyer’s chosen pseudoproblem. You will find the full gory details here on my friend Robert Saunders’ blog, Wonderful Life. There is also more about Meyer’s book on the BCSE website; I discussed it here, but think Nick Matzke’s dismemberment may be impossible to improve on. Disclosure: I lectured about “Dalton’s theory”, though I didn’t call it that, to Alastair Noble, now the Centre’s Director, many years ago. I like to think my teaching has improved since then. But at least I wasn’t responsible for teaching him about biology, or geology, or complex systems theory, or elementary logic, so perhaps I shouldn’t blame myself too much for what he’s been up to since.