Accommodation Will Not Work

The accommodationists and their ilk continue to demean us loudmouthed, brash New Atheists atheists while claiming that their own soft, warm, and fuzzy approach is the only way to reach out to the public (particularly its religious majority).

As evidence of my claim, I wish to present the following information.

A Letter from Nature 465, 219-222 (13 May 2010) | doi:10.1038/nature09014; Received 28 August 2009; Accepted 17 March 2010

Title: A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry

In this Letter, Douglas L. Theobald, Assistant Professor in the Department of Biochemistry, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts provides information regarding Universal Common Ancestry (UCA).

“Here I provide the first, to my knowledge, formal, fundamental test of UCA, without assuming that sequence similarity implies genetic kinship. … These results provide powerful statistical evidence corroborating the monophyly of all known life.”

How Is This Not Helpful?

Whether the experimentation described results in greater acceptance of UCA remains to be seen. Unfortunately, some people cannot be reached. If every biologist in the world were to accept the results of this testing, and affirm that UCA is the theory that best fits the provided evidence, some people would reject it out of hand.

Here is what one person had to say about the letter in Nature:

“Nevertheless, Theobald’s results do show that all life forms share certain features in common–too many to suppose that the various domains, kingdoms, and phyla arose independently of one another and, by sheer coincidence, developed the same or similar molecular structures. This actually shows, not that life had a single ancestor, but that it had a single Architect. Thus today’s findings strengthen the case for creationism, rather than weakening it.”

Yes, it’s true. No matter how many times their theories are refuted, and no matter how much evidence is revealed that discounts their propositions, creationists will always claim victory. I’m not going to name the author, as I feel he deserves no more exposure than he already receives. Let me only say that I see no claims that he has received any college degrees in biology or related sciences. (Think philospophy and poli-sci.)



  1. You may not have meant to imply this, but the purpose of Theobald’s work was not to persuade doubters of UCA. Having an independent test for UCA is illuminating in itself. It’s like finding a different route to grandma’s house. You don’t find anything new about grandma, but you may find out something along the way.

    Creationists have always claimed the hard work of scientists as their own, so there is nothing surprising there. Maybe you were just reinforcing that general point.

    1. Now that you mention it, it does sort of sound that way, though implying that was not my intention. Good call!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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