Anti-evolution
jlynch | February 1, 2009New data on creationism in Britain. The, ahem, âhighlightsâ
51% agree that "evolution alone is not enough to explain the complex structures of some living things, so the intervention of a designer is needed at key stages." 40% disagree.
32% agree that "God created the world sometime in the last 10,000 years." 60% disagree.
Thus, support for ID runs at 51% and support for YEC runs at 32%.
Update: Below is the cross-tabs for the preliminary results from the poll. These are, apparently, preliminary results.
News report here; preliminary report in this pdf; Apparently the full…
jlynch | January 28, 2009Iâve been picking on creationists for a number for years now, so it is somewhat strange for me to come out and offer one a gold star but, hey!
Todd Wood, a YEC at Bryan College had had a paper accepted over at Answers Research Journal that gives his take on the whole ridiculous âDarwin was a plagiaristâ riff that the likes of Roy Davies have been shilling. So to recap, John Wilkins, Jim Lennox, and now Todd Wood (a creationist for cripes sake!) think that Davies is wrong.
Short version of Wood:
According to Davies, these alleged evidences of Darwinâs misdeeds have been ignored by Darwin…
jlynch | January 16, 2009It is always cute when the anti-evolutionists (in all their guises) try to do history; witness here, for example. Veteran observers are not surprised to find them trying to warp history (see here, here, here & here for that). Nowhere is this warping more evident than in how DI-hacks such as John West & Richard Weikart have promulgated a meme linking Darwin to Haeckel to Nazism. This has been clearly dealt with by a number of historians (see references herein and read Robert Richards’ latest book on Haeckel). Equally as resilient is the idea (also held by West & Weikart) that…
jlynch | January 16, 2009David Klinghoffer is promising to deliver some revisionism over at the Discovery Institute:
Starting tomorrow, I would like to devote a couple posts to the thesis that Communism has deeper Darwinian roots than many of us realize. That, in fact, even though Marx had already begun sketching the outlines of his ideas before Darwin published the Origin of Species — the Communist Manifesto appeared in 1848, the Origin in 1859 — he is fairly called a Darwinist. That, finally, the men who translated Marxism into practical political terms in the form of Soviet terror were evolutionary thinkers, just…
jlynch | January 11, 2009Glenn Branch brought my attention to a book by John Henry Egan. Since it is titled 6 Million and Counting: Darwinism, Atheism and Genocide, I think you can see where it is going. The following appears to encapsulate the gist of this fine work of historical investigation:
Charles Darwin invented the term "sub-human" a phrase used by the Nazis to demonize and murder Jews, gypsies, and many others ...
Darwinism is an Atheistic philosophy, anathema to both Jews and Christians. Leading Darwinists advocate the violent destruction of all religions. Charles Darwin was himself an atheist and advocate…
jlynch | January 8, 2009PZ is reporting that Mississippi is considering one of those inane textbook disclaimer bills (HB 25), the sort of thing that occurred in Alabama and Georgia.
AN ACT TO REQUIRE THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION TO INCLUDE CERTAIN LANGUAGE EXPLAINING THAT EVOLUTION IS A THEORY IN THE INSIDE FRONT COVER OF CERTAIN PUBLIC SCHOOL TEXTBOOKS; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
The disclaimer would read:
The word 'theory' has many meanings, including: systematically organized knowledge; abstract reasoning; a speculative idea or plan; or a systematic statement of principles. Scientific theories are based on both…
jlynch | August 6, 2008 Over at Quintessence of Dust, Steve Matheson raises some good points about Behe. Steve's argument boils down to the following:
"Behe's fans say that he's a nice guy, and that the evolutionists are "crucifying" him. Both claims seem to be true, but they can't hide some serious problems with his conduct as a scientist." These problems are ...
A. "Behe exudes an arrogant contempt for the scientific community, exemplified by his neglect of peer review."
B. "I find many of Behe's responses to his critics to be suspiciously misleading, and I believe this provides a clue as to why he does not allow…
jlynch | August 3, 2008PZ has a post up discussing some abject stupidity over at WorldNetDaily. Sign #1 of stupidity is that the WND columnist (a lawyer, no less) refers to "Origins [sic] of Species" as being Darwin's 1859 work which legitimized "a pagan, anti-God worldview rooted in fascism, socialism and eugenics and to propagate these diabolical ideas throughout the world." PZ notes:
What logically follows from Darwin's theory is that fit individuals are those that survive and have offspring. There is no presumption that there is only one possible strategy to accomplish that survival: if we maintain a state that…
jlynch | July 22, 2008(The following is the text of a review I wrote that appeared in Journal of the History of Biology in 2000. As both of the books are still in print - and the Gould book is his exposition of Nonoverlapping Magesteria - I thought the review was worth posting.)
Most of us are familiar with the icons of warfare between science and religion, and have grown up hearing the stories of Bruno, Galileo, and Scopes. The two works under review offer differing viewpoints on the relationships between science and religion, and are aimed at differing audiences. Conkin's volume is part of an academic series…
jlynch | July 22, 2008I recently co-authored a paper that discussed the utility of history of science for science (Isis 99: 322-330). The abstract reads:
This essay argues that science education can gain from close engagement with the history of science both in the training of prospective vocational scientists and in educating the broader public about the nature of science. First it shows how historicizing science in the classroom can improve the pedagogical experience of science students and might even help them turn into more effective professional practitioners of science. Then it examines how historians of…
jlynch | July 8, 2008Leah Ceccarelli in the Seattle Times:
My own research seeks to reveal what makes today's manufactroversies work. First, I've discovered that modern-day sophists skillfully invoke values that are shared by the scientific community and the public, such as free speech, skeptical inquiry and the revolutionary force of new ideas against a repressive orthodoxy. It is difficult to argue against someone who draws on these values without seeming unscientific or un-American.
Second, the modern sophists exploit the gap between the technical and public spheres. Scientific experts who can't spare the…
jlynch | June 24, 2008
(source; click for larger version)
So 60% of Republicans - versus 40% of Independents and 38% of Democrats - think that God created humans as is, 10,000 years ago. Let's get this clear - this isn't 60% accepting some form of "intelligent design" and allowing the archeological and fossil records to speak for themselves. This isn't some form of theistic evolution that may be compatible with some form of intelligent design (the numbers there are 32, 36 & 39% respectively). No, this is 60% of Republicans (and 44% of Americans) being abjectly ignorant and accepting a young earth creationist…
jlynch | June 10, 2008Razib presents some interesting data on donations to the two main political parties by scientists. What struck me is that if you rank the professions from most Republican to most Democrat, you get the following:
Civil Engineering [0.75]
Chemical Engineering [0.79]
Geology [0.92]
Mechanical Engineering [0.96]
Electrical Engineering [1.17]
Chemistry [2.31]
Biochemistry [5.09]
Mathematics [5.44]
Physics [6.19]
Biology [10.3]
Now what I find interesting here is that if we use the Discovery Institute's 2007 list of 700 Dissenters against Darwinism, we see that the top five groups represented are (…
jlynch | May 19, 2008Yet another anti-evolution bill dies on the vine - in this case Missouri. The DI is batting 0-3 at the moment. That's gotta hurt.
jlynch | May 12, 2008MartinC (who gave us the wonderful Bensteinian Rapsody) has been busy uncovering secret artifacts that further demonstrate the ambitions of the cdesign proponentsists. First there is some deleted scenes from Expelled! featuring such dialog as:
VINCENT: You’ll dig it the most. But you know what the funniest thing about Intelligent Design is?
JULES: Casey Luskin?
and then there is the Wedgewood Document:
What these infuriating atheists failed to realize is that if Russell’s Teapot could be disproved then the final defence of atheistic materialism will fall.Far from being a logical deathblow to…
jlynch | May 9, 2008Not looking good for the cdesign proponentsists and their attempts to weaken science education by proposing "academic freedom" bills. First Florida. Now Alabama.
jlynch | May 2, 2008
New Chick tract - have at it! Especially you, Tyler.
Update: I see PZ beat me to this. *shakes fist*
jlynch | May 1, 2008Busy here so here are a few things to keep you amused:
Larry Arnhart asks whether Michael Behe has fallen from favor at the Discovery Institute.
Dembski (a pseudo-mathematician) wonders what a pseudo-documentary is and in so doing naturally calls folks names. Stay classy, Bill.
Jeffrey Shallit (a real-mathematician) fisks Robert Marks.
And while I’m at it ... sample size of one analysis from Dembski.
Ed on the Week 2 performance of Expelled. Here in the Phoenix metro area they’re down to seven screens (from nineteen).
jlynch | May 1, 2008Ben Stein’s anti-science stance continues. In March he opined that scientists "were the people in Germany telling Hitler that it was a good idea to kill all the Jews." Now he’s giving us the following gem of wisdom:
[T]he last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed ... that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science -- in my opinion, this is just an opinion -- that’s where science leads you. ...Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing…
jlynch | April 26, 2008From Evolved and Rational:
You only start to feel insulted when Ben Stein decides that the Holocaust is his "personal" reason for "investigating" evolution, and trust me, you feel really insulted. No, Ben Stein, your movie is not a personal crusade on behalf of your lost ancestors. No, Ben Stein, periodically putting your head in your hands while walking around Dachau at inappropriate points in a conversation does not endear you to an audience that you’ve already openly belittled, bored, and been dishonest with. NO, Ben Stein, you’re not poignantly reflecting on the dangers of…