… as opposed to wrecking careers
The Darwinian model of evolution is so durable culturally that Darwin’s followers can afford to be cute. They can indulge themselves in phrases like “Go home, evolution, you’re drunk,” (which turns up as the title of this interesting thread at Facebook).
They can do so without any apparatchik caring, and certainly not daring, to wonder if that means the followers have just plain got it wrong.
It’s the same way that people casually admit to political corruption when it is beyond remedy. The one person most of us don’t want to be is the person who calls for reform. Because it’s not the big thug whose opposition we must worry about, but the armies of apparatchiks defending their pay for enforcing and promoting the indefensible.
The “blobfish” (vid below) associated with the phrase “Go home, evolution, you’re drunk” offers a good example of the corruption. It looks weird to humans because its body form happens to seem like a corruption of the human face, to humans. But does the fish, or any other fish, know this or care? Is there anything the matter with it at all?
More critically, should that matter in any way in the undesigned world Darwin’s followers proclaim, where our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth? So it is only accidental that we notice it?
Darwin’s modern followers shamelessly work both sides and trade on richer intellectual traditions to promote their message (when they are not burdening the taxpayers with it and enforcing it through the courts). Working both sides is key to their success. In North America, they depend heavily on nice people who don’t ask questions and energetic Christians for Darwin/naturalism.
Note: The Science abstract that sparked the thread was
Penicillin may have saved more human lives than any other drug. Yet, almost as soon as it was introduced in the 1940s, researchers found that the antibiotic could not completely sterilize a culture of a Staphylococcus aureus strain sensitive to the drug (1). Shortly thereafter, Joseph Bigger showed that when the few cells that had survived an initial treatment were regrown in the absence of penicillin and then exposed again to the antibiotic, the proportion of survivors was similar to that found after the first treatment (see the first figure). Therefore, the survivors were not stable drug-resistant mutants, but transient drug-tolerant persisters (2). In the past decade, a resurgence of interest in persisters has revealed some of the molecular mechanisms that stimulate their formation. It has become clear that intracellular toxins present in virtually all bacteria control reversible bacterial growth arrest, explaining their antibiotic tolerance. (paywall)