The Don takes evolutionists to school.

I have the greatest readers ever. A very special Sunday Night Sermon shout out goes to Robert, a reader of Skepchick who decided that I didn’t have enough assclowns in my life. Robert alerted me to Don Walton, a frontline Creationidiot who spews absurdities at a faster rate than the average world wrestling champion. He’d at least be more entertaining if only he were wearing spandex tights and screaming things like “The Don ain’t uh-ceptin’ no fossil evidence what ain’t in Genesis, bizznitch!”

“The Don” Walton wrote a fascinating little article for “Florida Baptist Witness,” your regular source for Fundie-mental news. You can read it here. Go on, I’ll wait a second while you look it over.

The Don begins his diatribe by talking about the failure of the Genesis space capsule, leading eventually to this insightful comment:

Now I don’t know about you, but as far as I’m concerned, scientists who can’t figure out which way to put in a parachute have no chance of figuring out the origin of the universe.

I don’t know about you, but as far as I’m concerned, Bible literalists who can’t figure out that 30 million animals can’t all fit on a boat have no chance of figuring out much of anything else.

The Don then sets his super-fundie powers on the discovery of a pulsar. Honestly, I’ve read and reread that paragraph and I have no idea what he’s complaining about. I get the feeling that researchers haven’t fully explored the new find yet, and for some reason that means evolution is wrong. Look, stop asking your stupid questions and just trust the Don.

Finally we’re on to the main event: the discovery of a 375-million-year-old transitional fossil that God planted in the Canadian Arctic to test us. The Don’s rebuttal? The coelecanth.

Yes, The Don claims that this hideous fish

…has not only given evolution a black eye, but left evolutionists scratching their heads for an explanation to why the Coelacanth failed to evolve into an amphibian and has remained virtually unchanged for the past 400 million years.

Yes, many a scientist was forced to put down his test tubes and crack a Bible due to the overwhelming evidence for creationist nonsense presented by the lowly coelacanth. After all, no where else have we ever seen an animal remain unchanged for such a long time! Except for the gingko tree. And the dogfish. Uh, plus the bishir, the gar, hagfish, lamprey, lungfish, paddlefish, sturgeon, giant sequoia trees, millipedes, armadillos, crocodilians, and some bacteria. OH, and horshoe crabs, I think. But that’s besides the point! Clearly, evolution is wrong because these things have not evolved into other things.

It’s like the monkey argument in a different format. If humans evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys around? You see? It’s crazy! Oh, and my cousin. Tell me this, evolutionists: if I evolved from my cousin, then why is my cousin still alive? Why isn’t my cousin me? You have no answer, do you? WHERE IS YOUR SCIENCE NOW?

The Don has delivered the final slam from the top rope, leaving evolution broken and bleeding on the mat. In your face, science. In your face.

Rebecca Watson

Rebecca is a writer, speaker, YouTube personality, and unrepentant science nerd. In addition to founding and continuing to run Skepchick, she hosts Quiz-o-Tron, a monthly science-themed quiz show and podcast that pits comedians against nerds. There is an asteroid named in her honor. Twitter @rebeccawatson Mastodon Instagram @actuallyrebeccawatson TikTok @actuallyrebeccawatson YouTube @rebeccawatson BlueSky

Related Articles


  1. I've actually had someone ask me the monkey question, and when I explained it to them, they said, "Oh, I get it. I never realized how that worked before." Honest. That really happened.

  2. The Don actually looks relatively coherent compared to an ID nutcase I have been following a bit for a laugh. If you haven't read him already try 'Dr Chuck McGowen' and his amazing ID Blog… . The guy manages weekly articles full of ID drivel. Unfortunately, unlike Rebecca, Dr Chuck does not provide the facility for readers to comment on his blog, although to be fair it would be too much like shooting fish in a barrel.

  3. OI!!! Coelecanths are NOT hideous! They're kind of cute! …in a weird sort of way, granted– but still…!

  4. Criminy! I'm an undergrad in a NON-science related degree program, and even I can see the gaping holes in his ideas. How do these people convince anyone of that drivel?

  5. Paul, forgive me for doubting your story. How can such things happen in the Age of Unenlightenment?

    I used to wonder why ignorance continues to be such a social problem. Finally the dawn came—people are too fond of their ignorance. More than fond, they cherish it and defend it against all comers.

    I really think that's the difference, since we all have our areas of ignorance. Some people fight it, and others embrace it.

  6. Right on Mark. Paul and Swintah, read The Cave Analogy in Plato's Republic. (Chapter 7 I think) Some people would rather be chained to ignorance in the dark and not be initially blinded by the light of truth. (learning) Also read Bertand Russel's speach when he won the Nobel prize. (What desires are politically important.) Russel points out that people like to belong to a group. To help cement the relations in that group fear is often used.

  7. In your list of ancient species, you forgot the sort most people see more often than all the rest… cockroaches! OK, maybe not the specific species we get, but the basic type has been successful for one heck of a long time….

  8. Hey, thanks for the shout out! I am the "Robert" mentioned in your posting… and I'm glad you got the article! I saw it while surfing ID claims on the internet, and it was just too good not to share!

  9. I, too, have had someone try the "why are monkeys still around" argument with me, and I also had them say "oh, well, that does make sense, you're right" after I explained it.

    Of course, then you have a more common sort, who you explain it to, and then they claim that you are just making it up, or that you're just trying ot grasp at a straw to hold up your idea.

    I have always found rediculous the notion that scientists would intentionally choose a false theory for, what reaon exactly? What do we get out of it, precisely?

  10. Oh, and one other thing, I enjoyed the fact that this fellow claims that the engineers who put the parachute on incorrectly are the same as the scientists who would analyze the data. It's a good thing he doesn't both with that whole "honesty and integrity" thing, he'd lose his drive to write.

Leave a Reply to David HarmonCancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back to top button