creationism
pharyngula | February 13, 2009Shorter Casey Luskin: Waa, waa — they call me mean names!
Really, that's the whole of his extended whine in US News & World Report, a long complaint that "darwinists" aren't nice to him. It's pathetic, but that's what we've come to expect from Mr Squeaky. You really only need two pieces of information. 1) His opening paragraph:
Most Darwinists involved in the public debate today have one, and only one goal: To stifle free debate on this subject and thereby discourage you, the public, from scrutinizing the scientific evidence for yourself.
And 2) the knowledge that he wrote a 6800 word…
gregladen | February 13, 2009The Gallup Poll is not surprising in any of its results but it is, of course, alarming and interesting. Here's a summary.
On the eve of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, a new Gallup Poll shows that only 39% of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution," while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% don't have an opinion either way. These attitudes are strongly related to education and, to an even greater degree, religiosity.
The data:
Believe in evolution 39%
Do not believe in evolutoin 25%
No opinon either way 36%
Not surprisingly,…
pharyngula | February 13, 2009One frequent motif recurs in creationist email: they may believe in god, but they don't believe in paragraphs. This one also hits another frequent theme: the racist creationist. Oh, and an obsession with incest.
The following story is what I believe to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the Bible and Evolution. In the beginning God
created the Heavens and the earth and all the animals upon the earth. Then he created a Garden of Eden in which he created man from the dust.
And he called this man Adam. Then God saw that Adam was lonely so he put Adam to sleep and he…
pharyngula | February 11, 2009Creationists do not like the idea of vestigial organs, no sir. That their divine creator might have slipped up and stuck in some tissue that is less than perfect is anathema to them, and so we often encounter bitter denunciations of the whole concept of vestigial organs — organs which have a modified or reduced function, and which are largely superfluous. The best example is the human appendix, which can be snipped out and thrown away with the patient no worse for the experience (other than, of course, the general consequences of surgery). You can find many examples of creationists insisting…
scientificactivist | February 10, 2009Evolution is an established scientific idea, the unifying theme of biology, and an important field of study. "Darwinism", on the other hand, is a term used misleadingly by creationists to attack ideas they can't counter on fact alone and misguidedly by journalists unwittingly assisting this process. With that in mind, the recent essay by Carl Safina in The New York Times entitled "Darwinism Must Die So That Evolution May Live" seems a bit irrelevant:
By propounding "Darwinism," even scientists and science writers perpetuate an impression that evolution is about one man, one book, one "…
gregladen | February 10, 2009One of the really useful features of the new edition of Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction by Genie Scott is the coverage of the socio-cultural context of the so called "debate" between Creationists and Evolutionary Biologists. This tidbit is an example:
The obvious patterns are interesting. There is a modest drop in overall religiousity over the last twenty years. This drop is entirely acounted for by a drop in Christianity specifically. And the biggest change overall (percentage wise, doing the figures in my head so this is subject to revision) is an increase in the "No…
mikethemadbiologist | February 10, 2009Describing a recent economics hire by the Council for Foreign Relations, Paul Krugman wonders if the CFR will hire a creationist to run their science policy group (I actually think they'll hire an anti-vaccinationist as a public health person, or a global warming denier before they get to a creationist). It's been fascinating to watch Krugman's evolution (so to speak) on how he responds to the lunatic right, and to see his repeated use of the creationist metaphor.
I think Krugman, far more than most pundits, caught on mcuh earlier than most to the conservative penchant for, well, lying,…
gregladen | February 9, 2009Genie Scott's new edition of Evolution vs. Creationism is especially useful for people in the trenches in this so called 'debate' because Scott manages to touch on virtually every point of argument you will run into if you are, say, a life science teacher. For instance, the role of 'theory' vs. 'fact' and 'hypothesis' and so on is generally misunderstood by students and the general public ... and this misunderstanding then exploited by the creationists. So, this issue is dealt with clearly. Have a look. The top list is how many people rank these terms in importance, and here Scott…
pharyngula | February 9, 2009The other problem with media coverage is that certifiable idiots get to open their mouths and their noise goes unquestioned in print. Here's a regrettable example of an ignorant opinion piece, one so egregiously stupid that even Ian Musgrave is reduced to indignant spluttering.
The problem I face is weariness with science-based dialogue partners like Richard Dawkins. It surprises me he is not chided for his innate scientific conservatism and metaphysical complacency. He won't take his depiction of Darwinism to logical conclusions. A dedicated Darwinian would welcome imperialism, genocide,…
pharyngula | February 8, 2009How do these yahoos get elected? We've got another dumb-ass bill about to emerge from the state of Florida:
State Sen. Stephen Wise of Jacksonville announced through an article in the Florida Times Union that he plans to file a bill this legislative session to require evolution to be balanced with a discussion of intelligent design. Yes, require. Not just allow, but to require.
Are there no senior, wiser heads in these legislatures who are willing to take these clowns by the collar and explain to them that they are an embarrassment to the state and the nation? Or are legislatures all brain-…
pharyngula | February 7, 2009Not much, I'm afraid. The weirdly awful paper has been retracted, but we still don't know how it got published in the first place. NCSE Reports has an excellent summary of the affair, but the conclusion is still highly unsatisfactory (the conclusion of the event, that is, not the summary, which is spot on).
THE EDITOR'S RESPONSE
I contacted the editor-in-chief of Proteomics, Michael Dunn, to find out more about what happened. Many scientists have speculated publicly that the peer review process went seriously wrong for this paper. Dunn assured me that the paper was reviewed by two "well-…
gregladen | February 6, 2009It's out! Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction Second Edition is now available on line and in bookstores (or at least it is being shipped out as we speak).
This is the newly revamped edition of Genie Scott's essential reference supporting the Evolutionist Perspective in the so called "debate" over creationism vs. evolution. The original version of this book was excellent, but this updated version is essential. There is quite a bit of new information in this volume reflecting the fact that quite a few things have happened since the publication of the prior edition.
Scott's book…
pharyngula | February 6, 2009Forbes has published a collection of pseudoscientific nonsense, giving free rein to the hacks and frauds of the Discovery Institute, along with a few other crackpots. There is no hint given that these are marginal characters with no connection to modern science, who are following an ideological agenda with the admitted goal of replacing science and secular government with a Christian "spiritual" rule. There are no rebuttals. I'm sure the DI was thrilled to use Forbes as an arm of their propaganda machine.
I can't possibly go through all of it; practically every sentence these guys write is…
sa smith | February 6, 2009OH NOOOOOOO!!!
Someone let Cottage Cheese Cordova out of his cage!!! Oh noooooooo! His putrid, milky slime is everywhere! We are gonna have aaaaaaants! Oh noooooo!
If youve ever wanted to engage in a 'nice conversation' with IDiots outside of their protected habitat, heres your chance! TARD is out in force over at this article at the OUDaily.
LOL eeeeeeeeeeew! We are gonna need so many paper towels.....
(Thanks Aseem!)
sa smith | February 4, 2009*eeeeeeeeeeeegiddyclappingeeeeeeeeeeee*
*points to webpage*
*points to THIS webpage*
*and this one*
*EEEEEEEEEEEEGIDDYCLAPPINGANDNOWGIGGLINGANDBOUNCINGUPANDDOWNALITTLEEEEEEEEEEEEE*
H/T to the eternally vigilant.
Note: Ray Martin, the fellow evidently behind raising OU-IDEAS rotting corpse from the grave, was also the kind Creationist that passed this handout round OU a while back. Fail train keeps on rollin!
pharyngula | February 4, 2009The Darwin Day website has a calendar of events, and you can search for cool things that might be happening near you next week. Except…well, apparently the site organizers aren't very discriminating about who and what can be posted there. Like this…
Darwin Conference (Free)
Location: 3800 S. Fairview St
Santa Ana/CA 92704
Activities: Saturday, February 07, 2009 8:30 AM to 8:55 AM Video (All Ages) 9:00 AM to 10:00 AM Ken Ham: Answers for Racism - Darwin & Evolution`s Racist Roots. (Ages 11 & Up) 10:20 AM to 11:10 AM Dr. Andrew Snelling:Answers from Geology - The Catastrophe of Noah`s…
gregladen | February 4, 2009And by "academy" I mean THE academy.
Comedian, economist, speechwriter and game show host Ben Stein withdrew as speaker at the University of Vermont's spring commencement ceremonies Monday after concerns arose about his opinions on evolutionary theory, intelligent design and the role of science in the Holocaust.
UVM President Dan Fogel said people on and off campus were unhappy with the university giving Stein an honorary degree and when Fogel expressed those concerns to Stein, he immediately declined the invitation to speak.
source
The most important part of this story is the following:…
gregladen | February 4, 2009With an absurd opinion piece by Henry Morris III.
You can't comment on the piece, so I'll just tel lyou that it is in the current web edition of the paper and you can go dig it up if you want. (Blog policy: No logic, no links. Unless I feel like it.)
Henry Morris is the guy from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). The publication of this opinion piece by USNWR is roughly like, say, the New York Times Science Section publishing a piece on Large Mammal Conservation by those guys who sold the frozen bigfoot last year. Utterly stupid and irresponsible editorial policy on the part…
gregladen | February 4, 2009Glenn Branch, of the NCSE, has written a wonderful piece in US News and World Report on Intelligent Design. It is here.
I don't know about you, but I'm writing a note to the editors of USNWR praising this piece.
pharyngula | February 4, 2009Nothing new here, just more of the same. I thought this time I'd insert my reactions into the stream of a fairly typical creationist letter that I received this morning. Really, people: you may think you're very clever and persuasive, but I hear all of this same stuff every single day, and you've never got a new argument.
Thanks for removing all doubt as to what will be taught at U-Morris.[Yes. We will be teaching science, not creationism.] My daughter was considering attending after she graduates next year. [Good for her! She sounds like a smart young woman already]That will not be the case…