creationism
tlambert | August 8, 2005Long time readers will be aware of what I think of the appalling quality of the writing about science in Tech Central Station. (Examples: Statistics, Fumento, epidemiologyphysics, economics, more statistics, and more epidemiology. )
Well, they've destroyed any remaining credibility they might have had with an article arguing for Intelligent Design Creationism. And it's a twofer because it was written by global warming skeptic Roy Spencer of Spencer and Christy fame.
Spencer starts with
Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design…
tlambert | June 14, 2005Tim Blair writes:
Michael Gawenda, The Age's man in Washington, reports:
The majority of Americans believe in creationism rather than evolution.
And I bet Gawenda can't name a single one of them. Also, his data may be a little astray; according to this round-up of polling on the issue, creationism—although widely supported—is yet to reach majority-belief levels.
The round-up of polling reports that about 45% of Americans that God created humans pretty much in their present form at some time in the last 10,000 years. But this is just the number who believe in Young-Earth Creationism, which…
tlambert | March 27, 2005 William Connolley lists another ten global warming myths.
PZ Myers delivers a righteous smackdown to Paul from Wizbang for Paul's profoundly ignorant attacks on evolution. (Paul's responds by calling evolution a cult.) As well as having totally demolished\* the theory of evolution, Paul has also done for global warming:
Which is more plausible:
The established theory: CFC's (et al) don't destroy ozone at seal level, (or we would not have smog) they magically hold there electron stripping potential till they get to a higher altitude where they strip electrons off ozone and blah blah…
mikethemadbiologist | January 17, 2005The NY Times had a good story on the Dover, PA evolution issue on Sunday. It seems to me that there are three classes of 'issues' people have with evolutionary biology:
Biblical literalism. Many can not accept that the Bible isn't the literal word of God. I think we can beat this one pretty easily: the contradiction between Genesis 1 & 2, the earth is round, the earth travels around the sun, etc. To do so, we not only have to demolish it with logic, but also with proud declarations: "I am not a literalist." Make literalism a bad thing (and I think it is). As one Dover resident said, "…
mikethemadbiologist | December 3, 2004I just finished reading Massimo Pigliucci's Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science. I highly recommend this book as one of the best refuations of creationism out there. Also, he gives a very nuanced view of what science can and can not elucidate. While it won't change the minds of any die-hard creationists, it is a good book for those on the fence (or those who simply want to learn about science and evolution).
One point Massimo makes is that creationists are not stupid-this is something many angry blue-staters seem to ignore. Rather, they are biblical…
mikethemadbiologist | November 20, 2004Granted, at this point, I'm not going to trust polls ever again, but Gallup released a poll that examined religious beliefs. Part of the poll dealt with evolution and creationism. I found two good articles on the topic (here and here). As an evolutionary biologist, it's nice to see others, especially non-scientists entering the fray. It can be really frustrating at times, when you feel like you're the only one fighting the battle; the support helps and is appreciated.
I think part of the problem stems from a complete misunderstanding of what science is, how is works, and what it can't tell us…
mikethemadbiologist | November 10, 2004Two nights ago, ABC News reported that in Cobb County, Georgia, those who favor creation "science" are in court arguing over whether they can place stickers on biology textbooks that state that evolution is a "theory", not a fact. As an evolutionary biologist, I am so sick of this. I could write an exposition on the historical roots of evangelical/fundamentalist opposition to evolutionary biology, but I don't know what the point would be. I'm not sure how to even begin to fix this. Many of my colleagues say that we have to do a better job educating the public. I don't know about this-the…
tlambert | March 27, 2004 The Panda's Thumb is an excellent new blog devoted to defending the integrity of science against attacks from creationists. I put it straight into my blog roll. Mark Perakh has a post where he tells a story that should be very familiar to those who know about Lott's antics at Amazon.com.
My book Unintelligent Design became available from Amazon in the middle of December 2003. On December 22 those curious observers who watch the sometimes funny exchange of opinions regarding books offered by Amazon, already could read a review of my book signed "A reader…
tlambert | February 13, 2004 Apart from the one or two posts about John Lott I've also posted about ozone depletion denial, creationism and astroturf. All these topics, as well as Lott, come together in the person of Steve Milloy. Milloy runs a website junkscience.com that purports to debunk "junk science".
Unsuspecting visitors might think that Milloy's site is devoted to criticizing shoddy science, but they would be wrong. If you look at what he "debunks" you will find that the real criterion for deciding what is "junk science" is not the quality of the work, but the political agenda that it might…