…and this is a 
Are there no intelligent creationists?
Category: Creationism
Posted on: February 14, 2008 12:33 AM, by PZ Myers
I've been overestimating creationists. Every time I look at what they're saying about evolution, my estimation drops yet further … you'd think that after years of tracking this stuff, they'd bottom out, but no. The latest examples are some snippets from a presentation by Caroline Crocker. Crocker is one of the martyrs of ID — she was released from a temporary teaching position at George Mason University, and claims it was because she is a creationist, when the real explanation is that she's an incompetent kook.
Her powerpoint slides have to be seen to be believed. Here's one example. Can you spot the egregious errors?
Presumed Transitional Forms
- Archeopteryx
- Birds there in same layer.
- Is a bird (like an ostrich), not a reptobird.
- Only one complete fossil and has been questioned as a fraud.
- Horse
- Eohippus is found in the same layers as the modern horse.
- Eohippus is the same as modern-day hyrax.
Wow. This woman is actually taken seriously by the Discovery Institute? She has everything wrong!
PresumedTransitional Forms
ArcheopteryxArchaeopteryx
- "Birds" are a diverse group. The kinds of birds found in the Jurassic are distinct from the ones alive now; it's disingenuous to use a broad term like "birds" to minimize the variety of forms known in the evolution of this clade.
- Archaeopteryx is nothing like an ostrich, and it has features that we simply don't see in modern birds, like a toothed beak.
"Reptobird". Heh. What a maroon.- There are 7 good specimens of Archaeopteryx. Why do creationists exhibit such a pathetic knowledge of the subjects they claim to be criticizing? And sure, an astronomer claimed Archaeopteryx was a fraud. He was wrong.
- Horse
- Eohippus has been renamed to Hyracotherium. It's 55 million years old. There are no fossils of modern horses (genus Equus) that are that old — Equus arose about 4 million years ago. We actually have a good idea of the pattern of horse evolution, and Crocker is just making crap up.
- Horses, including Hyracotherium, belong to the order Perissodactyla; Hyraxes are in the order Hyracoidea. They are very different critters. This confusion is a well-documented in the creationist literature, and it's clear where she got these lies…and it wasn't from any impartial study of the science.
This was one slide in her set, and it contains nothing but ignorant falsehoods that anyone who can fire up a web browser and use google can check…wich gives you an idea of the level of scholarship these people exercise. And then she claims, "I was so careful when I wrote that lecture not to be partial in any way." There was no care taken at all; her research is so poorly done that I can't even imagine any of my freshman students doing such a sloppy job.
Crocker makes the interesting argument that she shouldn't have been fired for presenting this material to her students, because the administrators knew what she'd been teaching — she had all these slides posted on the web. She seems oblivious to the possibility that she lost her job precisely because of the poor content of her work. It wouldn't matter whether someone was a creationist or not, if a colleague of mine who accepted evolution were lying to her students with such ignorant fabrications, I would be lobbying to not renew her contract, too.
Watch the video where she claims to have been teaching only science, and that her dismissal was an issue of academic freedom. That one slide above, though, is sufficient to demonstrate that there's another very good reason she was let go: she was incompetent and unqualified. Be warned, though, that the video also includes clips of Slimy Sal Cordova. You'll need to shower afterwards.
Politics
Comments
The hyrax thing cracks me up to no end. Is that seriously an argument they use?
Posted by: Alec T | February 14, 2008 12:38 AM
Actually, ten are known (not including the single feather specimen that Archaeopteryx was originally based on, but which could be nearly anything), though one of them that was in a private collection is currently missing in action. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor | February 14, 2008 1:00 AM
Of course they use it. Their only tactic is to find holes, point them out, shoot guns through them, then laugh in a self-congratulatory way that they shot their gun through it successfully while giving you snide looks like you're the resident village idiot.
Of course, the "holes" in this example are areas we simply just do not have enough data or research for, but who says the "holes" can't be represented as an unbridgeable gaps?
Asking if they're serious about the arguments they use is beside the point. They obviously do, and think the better of themselves for having done so.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | February 14, 2008 1:04 AM
Hmm, I guess since raptors had feathers they were exactly the same as birds.
Posted by: thadd | February 14, 2008 1:06 AM
I still find it hi-frickin'-larious that they claim that there are so many gaps so it must have been the *poof*, our imaginary friend did it all idea. No gaps there...
Posted by: Mena | February 14, 2008 1:06 AM
"her research is so pporly done that I can't even imagine any of my freshman students doing such a sloppy job."
Speaking of pporly-done research...
Posted by: Randall | February 14, 2008 1:16 AM
What is a "reptobird," exactly? Cause I'm flipping through my vertebrates textbook, and I can't find that term anywhere. I know what she meant by that name, but it sounds kinda made up (creationists making stuff up? Be still my beating heart!). Someone correct me if that's actually a term used by ornithologists.
"Da da da daaa! What's that up there in sky? It's a bird! It's a reptile! No, it's REPTOBIRD!"
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
Posted by: Shigella | February 14, 2008 1:30 AM
Are there any intelligent, well-informed creationists in the fossil record? Because I don't think I've ever met one.
Posted by: B McManus | February 14, 2008 1:48 AM
Smart creationists? No such thing. The ones who took over the student government at a college in Sacramento are so dumb their GPAs dropped below 2.0 and made them ineligible to serve on the student council. Three of them got tossed off and the creationist-Christian bloc lost their majority. Maybe they should have studied something other than the Bible. [Link]
Posted by: Zeno | February 14, 2008 1:53 AM
Creationists have to know what to cover up and or fabricate in order to make their lies complete.
They are dirty liars, or simpletons. In my opinion, anyone claiming to have knowledge of a subject when they don't, they're lying.
Liars are not smart nor totally dumb. To some extent they could be seen to have "street smarts". Just like snake oil salesmen, they have a product to push, which is fake information to support lazy anti-intellectuals. They use their street smarts to trick Joe Christian, that evidence exists to support their odd belief in a violent rapist murderer, genocidal maniac of an invisible Muppet desert god.
I love to hear of Christians lying to each other. If lets me know, I and we are on the right side, the side of evidence and science.
Posted by: Andy James | February 14, 2008 2:00 AM
Well, if you go back to the 19th century, the naturalists (scientists) who tried to figure out just how creationism and, perhaps especially Teh Ark, could have worked, and who didn't close their eyes to the increasing evidence of The Earth's great age, most(?) of whom eventually decided creationism and Teh Flood was untenable, could, I suppose, be consider "smart creationists". Quite possibly the last ones.
Posted by: blf | February 14, 2008 2:02 AM
She uses PowerPoint; that alone raises a red flag on the intelligence front.
That aside, it's amazing to watch the nonsense the creationists come up with as they flail about. As long as the rationalists keep holding up and mocking the idiocy in creationism, the "believers" are doing most of the work for us!
Posted by: defaithed | February 14, 2008 2:02 AM
A reptobird or reptibird is something like a fishibian.
Only completely different.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 14, 2008 2:11 AM
I love the fact that she quotes Werner von Braun as an authority on evolution.
Posted by: Thony C. | February 14, 2008 2:15 AM
#3:
"Their only tactic is to find holes, point them out, shoot guns through them, then laugh in a self-congratulatory way that they shot their gun through it successfully while giving you snide looks like you're the resident village idiot."
It's not even that most of the time. They paint themselves a black circle and call it a hole, then try to drive a truck through it (like in a Warner Brothers cartoon) and wonder why it ends up smashed to pieces.
To quote from one of the Ascended Masters, "What a bunch of maroons!"
Posted by: allium | February 14, 2008 2:20 AM
But he's a ROCKET SCIENTIST! He must be smart.
Posted by: Form&Function | February 14, 2008 2:27 AM
PZ...Stop using TalkOrigin!!!
It is dated as all hell and in many cases, simply wrong!!!
Have a nice day...
Posted by: Lago | February 14, 2008 2:37 AM
Fred Hoyle, surely? (a clever maroon; knew zero about evolution)
Posted by: Shane | February 14, 2008 2:40 AM
@Lago: [citation needed]
Posted by: reinis | February 14, 2008 2:52 AM
Are there no intelligent creationists?
Ummm....something about pope ... catholic or is it bear ... shit ... woods ? I'm having trouble with the double negatives though.
Posted by: AlanWCan | February 14, 2008 2:58 AM
Check out the DNA molecule at 1:35 in the video. Didn't those used to have sorta rung-like thingies? Base pairs, I think they used to call them. Maybe this is God's DNA.
Posted by: ceilingcat | February 14, 2008 3:07 AM
Zeno @9,
"Three of them got tossed off and the creationist-Christian bloc lost their majority."
Just as an interesting cross-cultural point, the first part of that sentence would mean something quite different in the UK...
Posted by: Derek Huby | February 14, 2008 3:12 AM
@ Randall #6
Spelling is not research.
Posted by: AL | February 14, 2008 3:13 AM
Another good one at 3:40 - someone reads a letter written in defense of Crocker: "Any and all claims of Dr. Crocker teaching evolution in class are absolutely false." Amen brother, you got that one right. Of course, the video representation of the letter actually says "creationism" instead of "evolution", but what the heck, he spoke it right. Any and all claims of Dr. Crocker teaching evolution in class are absolutely false.
This is allegedly from a "pre-med student who is also an attorney".
Further tard: 4:35 "Salvador Cordova is the founder of the I.D.E.A. club at George Mason, which stands for Intellectual Design Evolution Awareness." BZZZZTT! Sorry, it stands for Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness.
That's some fine scholarship in that video, fully up to Coral Ridge Ministries' and the late D. James Kennedy's highest standards.
Posted by: ceilingcat | February 14, 2008 3:25 AM
Apparently Crocker is taking a page out of the book of her more famous creationist colleagues and offering her lecturing services for $1,000 a pop plus expenses or $5000 to have her to yourself all weekend -- a whole four lectures for the price of... er... five:
http://www.intellectualhonesty.info/index_files/Contact.htm
And why am I not surprised to find her domain name combines the two words she obviously has the most difficulty in the meaning of?
Posted by: tacitus | February 14, 2008 3:28 AM
Oh, and she's writing a book too:
http://www.intellectualhonesty.info/index_files/Mybook.htm
Coming to a bargain bin at Half-Price Books in 2008(ish).
Just breaks your heart....
Posted by: tacitus | February 14, 2008 3:34 AM
Apparently she learned most of her science at a trio of British Universities -- Birmingham, Warwick, and Southampton. As an ex-pat Brit, I apologize on behalf of the British Higher Education system for its failure to drive all that creationist claptrap from her mind.
Posted by: tacitus | February 14, 2008 3:40 AM
not only are these ID people scientifically superior but they can also claim the moral higher ground by quoting people like "Werner [sic] von Braun"
nice work there
Posted by: ofATorigin | February 14, 2008 3:46 AM
It's quite a nice presentation if you don't read the words; the images and color scheme are of a higher standard than usual for a powerpoint presentation.
It is also probably of higher quality than Doctor Kent Hovind could manage. Especially now that he's been deprived of his crayons and coloring-in book.
Posted by: Carl | February 14, 2008 3:54 AM
(Sorry, couldn't resist it.)
Posted by: AJS | February 14, 2008 4:12 AM
You are both correct. Creationists are a subset of the set of all incompetent kooks.
Posted by: Patrick Quigley | February 14, 2008 4:30 AM
There is also an interesting logical fallacy which I think you missed in your rush to identify all the factual falsehoods :-) - she seems to be claiming that a transitional fossil cannot be contemporaneous with its descendant species.(I also think that, somewhere in there, is the fallacy that 'transitional forms' are some kind of special, rare, chimera species.)
Posted by: csrster | February 14, 2008 5:19 AM
I'm just glad you had the sense not to attack the slides about PYGMIES & DWARFS and the big enigma of them all, why are there still monkies!
At least, judging from this slide that seems the level of intellectual honesty she's comfortable with.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | February 14, 2008 5:20 AM
reinis asks:
"@Lago: [citation needed]"
Are you asking for citations to show TalkOrigin is dated? I didn't know they had a reference data base designed that way.
If you mean evidence for new data that shows origins as being dated, how about the fact that it claims 7 specimens for Archaeopteryx when there are in fact 10?
and this:
2) Opposable hallux (big toe).
"This also is a character of birds and not of dinosaurs. Although opposable big toes are found in other groups, they are not, as far as I am aware, found in dinosaurs. A reversed big toe is found in some dinosaurs however, and the condition is approached in some theropod dinosaurs."
The above has been shown not to be true by way of the Thermopolis specimen not shown on the site. Thermopolis is number "10"
And how is this for dating? Under "STOP PRESS" is written:
"Feathered Dinosaurs Found
Two species of dinosaur have recently been found in northeast China which possess feathers (Qiang et al. 1998). Protoarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui show regiges, rectrices and plumulaceous feather inpressions. Further, they are not birds, lacking a reverted (backwards facing) big toe (see number 2 below) and a quadrratojugal squamosal contact, having a quadrojugal joined to the quatrate by a ligament and a reduced or absent process of the ishium. These and other characters group Protoarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx with maniraptoran coelurosaurs rather than birds."
The above "Stop the press" type response is, as shown in the quote, From "1998"
This was added at that time because it was "new" relative to what had been printed there. That was ten freakin' years ago! But why and where is this problematic? Well, here is one area:
"Conclusions
Archaeopteryx is a bird because it had feathers. However, it retained many dinosaurian characters which are not found in modern birds, whilst having certain characters found in birds but not in dinosaurs. By virtue of this fact Archaeopteryx represents an example of a group in transition - a representative which, although on the sidelines in the dinosaur to bird transition, an echo of the actual event, still allows a brief glimpse into the possible mechanism which brought about the evolution of the birds and by its very existence shows that such a transition is possible."
This quote above is from the same page, where they define bird as simply anything with feathers, this despite the fact the "stop press" comment was supposed to show that this trait was now not strictly held to birds, but is part of a larger group of animals in which birds are included. In other words, the site was not even properly edited to be in agreement with its own set of facts.
Overall the site is still "mostly" accurate, but it is at least ten years behind the times.
Posted by: Lago | February 14, 2008 5:22 AM
'Are there no intelligent creationists?'
Is that a rhetorical question?
Posted by: Peter Mc | February 14, 2008 5:27 AM
Forgot this:
From the site:
"The Solnhofen-Aktien-Verein specimen
A new specimen was described by Wellnhofer (1993), but the description is in German and so information is limited. The specimen has been classified as a new species, Archaeopteryx bavarica, and has been reported as possessing a small ossified sternum, as well as feather impressions."
It has been established for quite some time that the above mentioned sternum was not a sternum, but just the coracoid, This fact was reported by Wellnhofer himself...
Posted by: Lago | February 14, 2008 5:37 AM
One species of Hyracotherium. "H" gabuniai is actually a stem-chalicothere, the others are actually Palaeotheres, and not true horses, but the sister group.
The origin of chalicotheres (Perissodactyla, Mammalia); J. J. Hooker & D. Dashzeveg: Palaeontology, Volume 47, Number 6, November 2004 , pp. 1363-1386(24)
Posted by: Dave Godfrey | February 14, 2008 5:46 AM
Lago,
for interested lay people like me, Talkorigin is still the best one stop information website on all these issues. If there are significant outdated facts in there, why not contact them in order to correct them ? Unless of course, if you know of a better website than I would be pleased to get the link. Thx
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 14, 2008 5:47 AM
It's just not fair. Teachers should be allowed to teach whatever they want, regardless of truth or factual basis. It's well within her rights to ignore inconvenient evidence and avoid researching troubling topics and going with her heart. She's so nice and friendly that we don't want to lose a teacher like her.
The most important thing a teacher can do is be charismatic. Actually teaching things backed by evidence and reality is just another unfair pressure placed on teachers by the Darwin Club that is strangling academia.
Also, I am this angry: >=-\
Posted by: October Mermaid | February 14, 2008 6:01 AM
But, PZ, isn't one of those a subset of the other?
Any creationists should be fired from any teaching position for that reason.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | February 14, 2008 6:01 AM
#3:
You forgot scream and yell "no fair" when we point out that the gun they are using is actually made of liquorish and that the bullet they are attempting to fire through its already-drooping barrel is non-existent.
Oh yes, and then come back as soon as our back is turned and try again with the same gun as though the original episode had never happened.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 14, 2008 6:03 AM
i especially loved the mistake(?) in their video that you linked to which said "one pre-med student who was also an attorney wrote 'any and all claims of Dr. Crocker teaching evolution in class are absolutely false'" me thinks that he meant creationism...that's at 3:35...they just cant do anything right.
lol
plus, the first slide in her presentation about darwin being a rich kid who drinks, parties and gambles and whose father does not approve was great!!
Posted by: molecanthr | February 14, 2008 6:10 AM
negentropyeater, try this site:
http://www.palaeos.com/
It is extremely data dense and discusses old verses new as well as contradictory ideas. It tries to keep up the science, even though it is not really run by scientists. It is, however, assisted by scientists to a great degree. It is certainly one of the best sites on the whole of the web.
Posted by: Lago | February 14, 2008 6:24 AM
My thought about the `fraud' in relation to archaeopteryx was that she may have been confusing it with the archaeoraptor.
Why do creationists exhibit such a pathetic knowledge of the subjects they claim to be criticizing?
Because, if they didn't, they wouldn't be able to criticise it ;)
Posted by: DrFrank | February 14, 2008 6:26 AM
Just in case you find it is not easy to navigate at first, here is a sample page dealing with basal tetrapod evolution. Compare this to "TalkOrigin" :
http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/150Tetrapoda/150.000.html
I think you'll find it far more in depth, as well as up to date...
Posted by: Lago | February 14, 2008 6:28 AM
I think there is nothing that pisses me off more than this statement made by this Lawyer, E. Sisson, towards the end of this video :
"I think that there is a lack of humility, within the Science community and on the part of individual scientists, that they really do not want the idea that there might be an intelligence vastly superior to humanity's intelligence, I think they have an emotional dislike for that possibility and I think that this dislike influences their judgement."
Now, Mr Sisson, what would it take for you to understand how Science works ? First, Science, and serious scientists, do not WANT the world to be a certain way. Science, and serious scientists are supposed to DISCOVER the way the world is.
I personally have never encountered, or read from, a serious scientist who said that he did not WANT that there be a superior intelligence. But I haven't met, or read, a serious scientist who said that he had found EVIDENCE that there be one.
Mr Sisson, either it is difficult for you to understand the nuance between WANTING and DISCOVERING, then you are an ignorant, or, you understand it very well, and you are being intellectually dishonest.
But, I will rephrase your statement, and make it factually correct :
"I think that there is a lack of humility, within the Creationist/ID community and on the part of individual Creationists/IDists, that they really do not want the idea that there might NOT be an intelligence vastly superior to humanity's intelligence, I think they have an emotional dislike for that possibility and I think that this dislike IMPAIRS their judgement."
Having said this, something puzzles me; should Scientists make it clearer ? Science is not atheist, it is agnostic. Individual Scientists make a personal choice and declare themselves Atheists. Others, Agnostics, and others, Theists. But Science does not automatically lead to Atheism. If that's the impression that people have, it should be corrected, and explained, over and over. Well, that's my opinion for what it's worth...
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 14, 2008 7:02 AM
Randall re #6, Have you perchance noticed that the gap between the letter "o" and the letter "p" on your typical keyboard is rather small?
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | February 14, 2008 7:08 AM
What, haven't you heard of the elusive CROCODUCK?
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | February 14, 2008 7:20 AM
The main problem with creationists has to do with the fact they use a different set of rules for defining evidence and will ignore anything that doesn't agree with their preconcieved notions. I recently had one tell me that MRSA and the bt resistant bollworm (which is a big issue here in Mississippi) were not examples of evolution because there is no such thing as a benevolent mutation. I eventually realised there was no way to convince him and gave up.
Posted by: Cthulhu's_minion | February 14, 2008 7:35 AM
P.Z., fix this typo: "her research is so pporly done." I found it hilarious (didn't quite spew coffee, but close) -- but some creationist will make a point of it.
The really sad thing is that this woman probably believes she was being careful. Too many people don't know creationist crapola even after it bites them near the tail feathers.
Posted by: Ed | February 14, 2008 7:37 AM
LAGO & negentropyeater,
I find it strange that you are so interested in Jason Gastrich. Also that no one has managed to drive that jerk off that site.
talkorigins might well be out of date.
Posted by: kwandongbrian | February 14, 2008 7:40 AM
Love the spellink misstakes in your poast! :)
Posted by: Andrew | February 14, 2008 7:51 AM
Kwandong...
I have no idea why you assume I am interested in a certain "Jason Gastrich." I do not remember ever mentioning him, or referring to him...
Posted by: Lago | February 14, 2008 7:53 AM
Am I the only one who saw the first slide describing Darwin:
* Failed at medical school
* Had some training as clergyman
* Rich kid who enjoyed partying, drinking & gambling
* Went to Galapagos islands
* Father was not pleased
..and thought, 'He could be President of the USA!'?
Posted by: Ashley Moore | February 14, 2008 8:01 AM
Derek @ 21:
If they got "tossed off" more often, they wouldn't be so grumpy.
Of course, getting tossed off the student council probably made them grumpier. But it serves them right, the wankers.
Posted by: Zeno | February 14, 2008 8:08 AM
Lago,
Yeah, I know. I don't have a lot of valuable input to give so I try to be funny.
talkorigin.org is Gastrich's 'trapsite'- I just invented the word. If you miss the 's' in talkorigins.org, you are redirected to Gastrich's site.
Again, I don't have anything to add to the conversation -TalkOrigins may well need to be updated - I just wanted to be involved.
Posted by: kwandongbrian | February 14, 2008 8:21 AM
Holy crap - I spotted most of those errors and I'm a city desk-jockey with nothing more than a passing interest in the paleo stuff. Unforgivably sloppy even by ID standards.
Posted by: tai haku | February 14, 2008 8:26 AM
You've heard of a "creofessor," right? That's a creationist who functions capably and honestly in an academic setting, rigorously testing all of her hypotheses about life and its origins before reaching any conclusions, fearlessly challenging her own Biblical beliefs when they show obvious signs of breakdown, and avoiding dogmatism at all costs, especially with regard to her dealings with students.
Do these organisms actually exist? Fuck no -- but you can still say the word, and, you know, it sounds kind of technical.
Same idea.
Posted by: Kevin Beck | February 14, 2008 8:26 AM
I think the "Repti-birds" came from Penny Higgins' work on transitional forms. The references can be found here: http://csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/ I've used her concepts (with her permission, of course) in my intro to biology, where we touch on evolution (the next course is heavily into evolution) to discuss transitional forms, and what we look for in order to identify them.
Take a look.
SG
Posted by: Science Goddess | February 14, 2008 8:27 AM
Tacitus brings to our attention a key item, from the description of her upcoming book, "Listen in as she discovers the joys and challenges of teaching, finds humility and adjusts her methods as her ideas come into contact with the reality of the classroom." (My emphasis).
It's not the first time that I've encountered the euphemism "finds humility" meaning "I've become a born-again fundamentalist christian". Often with the adjunct meaning of "my perception of reality is synomynous with a literal interpetation of a 1700-year-old book of myths, and any evidence which suggests otherwise is intolerable."
It would be so nice if 'finding humility' really meant 'becoming humble'.
So, tacitus, no need to apologize for the failure of the English school system in this instance. This instance of reality avoidance probably shouldn't be laid at the feet of the English school system.
Posted by: Flex | February 14, 2008 8:33 AM
CROCODUCK
1 duck -dressed and washed
3 Oranges
2 Cups cooked rice
Orange Juice
Apple
Butter
Salt and Pepper
Place the rice in the bottom of the crock pot
Cut the apples into quarters and remove seeds and stem.
Put the apple quarters in the duck cavity
Rub the duck with the butter to coat.
Place the duck on the rice bed.
Add salt and pepper to taste
Surround duck with peeled and seeded orange slices
Add orange juice to cover rice and oranges.
Cook in Crock pot on low for 8 hours or until duck it falling off bone.
Sorry, but with a name like Crocoduck, I couldn't resist.
Back to lurking and learning.
Posted by: Bifrost | February 14, 2008 8:49 AM
Wow. That first slide alone...
Firstly, there are no modern birds (or anything approaching modern birds) in the Solnhofen Lithographic Limestone or any other Jurassic site. It's Archaeopteryx (okay, some split it up into multiple genera) and that's it. More advanced birds show up in the Cretaceous, but not MUCH more advanced at first.
Also, Eohippus IS back. Work by David Froelich (abstract here) demonstrated that the traditional mid-late 20th Century version of "Hyracotherium" was a paraphyletic series, not a monophylyetic genus. So at least some specimens formerly called Eohippus are back to being Eohippus.
More importantly, though: there are absolutely no modern style horses in the Eocene!!
Head-thumping stupidity, that person...
Posted by: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. | February 14, 2008 8:49 AM
Re Sal Cordoba
It is my understanding that Mr. Cordoba is no longer at George Mason but has moved on to a school in Delaware.
Posted by: SLC | February 14, 2008 8:55 AM
In addition to all the errors pointed out in the comments, she spelled Niles Eldredge's name wrong.
Posted by: A Lurker | February 14, 2008 9:03 AM
Compared to what ID/Creationists are using for their source I'd say TalkOrigins is still current...
Posted by: Mark | February 14, 2008 9:04 AM
Flex,
all these people with their false pretentions of humility, make me sometimes believe that Nietzche was right, that in the end this is almost always a false virtue, which is just there in order to conceal one's ignorance and hide one's attempt at convincing others of untrue information...
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 14, 2008 9:09 AM
P.Z., fix this typo: "her research is so pporly done." I found it hilarious (didn't quite spew coffee, but close) -- but some creationist will make a point of it.
Funny, Ed, that you feature on your blog the Santayana line "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." In this case, the past is post #6.
And if you found that "hilarious", you really ought to lay off the nitrous oxide.
Posted by: truth machine | February 14, 2008 9:09 AM
So does my wife. She's an associate research professor at Vanderbilt Univsertiy. And you know what else, pretty much everyone else in biology, regardless of the lab, uses it too. It's the standard.
Posted by: Moses | February 14, 2008 9:20 AM
the dumb creationist is a lucky creature.
they are individuals who have failed miserably to understand science but unbelievably they can present nonsense and lies to a wide audience who lap it up and would indeed pay to hear it, this fulfils a basic human requirement for attention, if you can get attention for hard work then great if you can get attention for knowing nothing whats to lose right?
in what other set up can you present pure nonsense (and heres the deal, its easier to talk nonsense than anything meaningful)? think sylvia browne, peter popoff, uri geller.
the difference between creationists and fraudsters like browne, popoff and geller is that they at least know they are full of shit, creationists are like children lost in a new neighbourhood, holding on tightly to their lucky pebble in their pocket. the only difference is that they dont even know they are lost, poor things.
Posted by: extatyzoma | February 14, 2008 9:22 AM
Neither Sarfati or Behe is dumb. They might be brainwashed, or ignorant, or evil but neither is dumb. Sarfati for example is chess master and has a variety of other accomplishments.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | February 14, 2008 9:28 AM
"I love the fact that she quotes Werner [sic] von Braun as an authority on evolution."
sorry, couldn't resist:
Ze rockets go up,
Who cares where they come down?
'That's not my department'
says Wernher von Braun.
-Tom Lehrer
Posted by: JJR | February 14, 2008 9:32 AM
If you're intelligent enough to comprehend evolutionionary theory, then you're excluded from the creationist club.
Posted by: C Barr | February 14, 2008 9:36 AM
Actually, all these people who blame Scientists for lack of humility, and generally pretend being humble themselves (of which Evangelicals seem to be so very fond of), should think a bit about what St Thomas Aquinas wrote :
"The Virtue of Humility consists in keeping oneself within one's own bounds, not reaching out to things above one, but submitting to one's superior."
They do exactly the opposite, they are ignorant of their own bounds, they try to reach out to things way above their own intellectual capacity, and refuse to acknowledge that there are people who do have a far superior and precise knowledge of Scientific, Philosophical, Historical and even Theological matters.
How depressing.
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 14, 2008 9:37 AM
Well, Crocker certainly isn't an intelligent creationist, but I think there are (regrettably) some - if you draw a distinction between intelligence (one's ability to think well) and wisdom (one's inclination to use that ability rationally). Jonathan Sarfati comes to mind - doctorate in chemistry and a chess champion.
Religion isn't the only meme that catches smart people - I'm thinking of a computer science doctoral candidate named Matthew Skala who's clearly quite bright, but seems to believe in astrology, feng shui, and tarot. Most distressing.
Posted by: Tom Zych | February 14, 2008 9:38 AM
They got lazy, PZ. They figured that with their hold on several key pols, they didn't have to bother with trying to properly argue a case that minds far smarter than theirs couldn't properly argue because it's friggin' impossible to argue.
But now, now that the worm is turning, with the wackos no longer in ascendancy and a string of court cases that make the teaching of creationism/ID as science a very unwise and potentially-expensive move for any school board, and with legitimate colleges making it crystal-clear that nobody who seriously teaches "creation science" under any of its guises will be able to gain or keep any sort of professional standing, the creationists are stuck.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | February 14, 2008 9:41 AM
A question, somewhat rhetorical.
Creationists are frequently sampled from nativists and jingoists- they not only often believe in the Christian God, but they believe this God guides the white Western world in general and the United States in particular.
To the point, they should be big on the English language.
So, a simple question.
Why can't any of these creatio-cretins work an English-language spell-checker into their written output, let alone a grammar-checker? I mean, seriously.
Posted by: Jay Clayton | February 14, 2008 9:55 AM
Negentropyeater said:
They do worse - because it's easy to be ignorant of a lot subjects, but typically one person will only be knowledgeable about a comparative few and creationists will use their ignorance of huge and varied types of human knowledge to try and buttress their claims.
For example, I recently had this discussion with a creationist where we covered all the usual scientific basics, with him making all of the usual scientific howlers and me slamming them down in the usual way. However he then suddenly started spouting off about dinosaur pictures showing up carved into the walls of the Temples of Ankor Watt. Although I am sure that someone familiar with the archaeology of the Ankor Watt Temples would have had no problem correcting him in the same way I had on the scientific questions, because I am not so familiar, all I could really do was assert extreme scepticism and wonder why this discovery had not made the news as such a sensational discovery surely would do, (although I did wonder aloud how firm his knowledge on the temples concerned could be when I had to correct his belief that they were in Korea rather than Cambodia).
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 14, 2008 9:56 AM
He is now at Johns Hopkins, in Baltimore, Maryland.
Posted by: Kseniya | February 14, 2008 9:57 AM
Have another cuppa yourself, truth machine.
Posted by: ildi | February 14, 2008 9:58 AM
What skools gave this twit degrees?
She loves teaching because of the power difference between her and the students. Lording it over subordiantes is what a lot of fundies dream of. However, most lack the social skills, intelligence, or certifications needed to accomplish this task. I think researchers might have given her a lot of grief over her beliefs in a benevolent Intelligent Designer.
Posted by: Mold | February 14, 2008 10:06 AM
Re: #70
And that reminds me of a piece in an old National Lampoon on "boogymen for the modern age" (or something of that stripe), one of which was "Vhistling Vernher (who) will take you up in his rocket ship. And who knows where you'll end up? The Moon. Mars. London. Or worse."
Posted by: CortxVortx | February 14, 2008 10:08 AM
Actually, Ms Crocker hasn't been the same since her fairy-godparents-hunting son was seen on the internets in a tutu.
Quite a shock.
Posted by: CortxVortx | February 14, 2008 10:10 AM
I can't say I'm terribly impressed with the level of discourse I'm seeing here...
Posted by: Tom Zych | February 14, 2008 10:22 AM
Who isn't impressing you? Were you impressed by me? I bring my A Game, baby.
Posted by: