DiscoTute stepped in it again

I read an article yesterday by PZ Myers titled, Forever Disappointed. The gist of the article was the inability of the Biologic Institute, funded by the Discovery Institute, to provide evidence for their claims. In this case, they deny that fusion in chromosome 2 in humans, by which they branched off from other primates ~6 million years ago, ever took place. Biologist Carl Zimmer, among others, took exception to DI's ongoing jackassery, and asked them for the evidence to their claims on BI's Facebook page. It wasn't long before the BI went from going on the offensive to damage control, insisting that they were being "pestered" by Zimmer.

After a few attempts at getting an answer, followed by deafening silence, BI finally gave sneering reply to Zimmer, asking "Carl, you write books for a living. Do you rehearse their content on your blog for anyone who asks?" BI later stated that Facebook is no place intended for debate. They ultimately threatened to put the kibosh on the whole conversation, then stated that their comments would be moved to BI's website. Of course, you shouldn't be surprised there are no public comment threads at their site.

We don't want any kind of true scientific inquiry, do we, DI?

DI's David Klinghoffer has since invited Zimmer to a "debate", to which Zimmer has said no. As Myers asks, why should he? He asked for evidence to DI/BI's inane claims in an open forum, which they denied providing that evidence, and then sneered at him. Now they're proclaiming victory, and I won't let that happen in light of their flagrant dishonesty.

I'm no mathematician, physicist, or biologist. I am simply a guy from Pennsylvania who cares deeply about the pursuit of science and detests when science is intentionally misrepresented by creationists in order to indoctrinate the public.

Take notice of a few things here:

1. Intellectual dishonesty by DI.
2. The inability to provide evidence to their claims.
3. Lack of real scientific research by DI.
4. BI does not welcome scrutiny by the scientific community (1, 2, 3).

Also, keep in mind that chromosome 2 was used as evidence in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in 2005 by Kenneth Miller, a professed Catholic and evolutionary biologist. Furthermore, the judge, John Jones III, is a professed Christian who ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, stating that the teaching of creationism in a high school science class was unconstitutional.

As of the time of this writing, Zimmer is still asking BI to disclose the source from which they base their denial of chromosome 2, and they're still not answering.

CreationTalk, you guys are absolutely pathetic

Believe it or not, I was once a creationist. I believed in a Universe that was no older than 10,000 years and that evolutionary biology was a lie that professors and scientists used in some sort of secret kabal to keep funding coming in while blinding us to what I thought was the truth. I always wrestled with astronomy and the Big Bang, though. It was the knowledge I had of astronomy, as well as mythology and symbolism, that freed me from the mind-numbing cult known as creationism.

Around 2001-2002, I became a member of a little-known creationist website, CreationTalk.org. The site has gone through some changes since I became a member. As a matter of fact, I can't even find any of the posts that I made long ago. I can't even find my profile. You used to be able to log in and discuss all matters on evolutionary biology, cosmology, cosmogeny, Big Bang -- you name it. Now, however, you need one thing in order to talk about any of these topics -- a statement of faith in Jesus and belief in creation as is stated in the Bible. As the site says, "All applicants must subscribe to a belief in the Biblical creation to join this group. A promissory statement verifying this profession is submitted before membership is granted."

That's it.

Apparently, these halfwits have had enough of having their asses handed to them by those who know a thing or two about science. Now they have can have a feel-good party of their own without even the slightest hint of reality by having a bunch of non-believes raining on their parade.

As is typical of creationism, you are not required to have even the slightest clue about mathematics, taxonomy, botany, biology, astronomy, physics, geography, chemistry, or paleontology. You need to have absolutely no knowledge of science at all. All you need to accept is a myth built up on myth after myth after myth.

Once again, why is it that some agnostic blogger stuck in the middle of Pennsylvania have to be the one to stand up for freedom of speech, no matter how offensive it might be or how much it challenges your beliefs?

Science is a bitch, guys. Learn to love her.

Richard Dawkins on Noah's Ark

While perusing my Google Reader list, I came across a particular video of Richard Dawkins filmed at the Sydney Opera House in March 2010 that summarily destroys Noah's Ark. Dawkins' sentiments closely mirror a post that I wrote on August 3, 2009.

Bon appetit!

Number of creationists are falling

The results of a Gallup poll regarding creationist numbers were released on December 17.

First the bad news. Forty percent. That's the number of Americans who believe in a literal 6-day creation, a global flood, Noah's Ark, that snakes can talk, and that goats get their stripes because their parents had their way with each other in front of a row of poplar rods. Some still believe that the earth is flat.

Now for the good news -- acceptance of evolutionary biology is rising while the number of creationists slowly falls.

The evolution/creation "controversy" is a misnomer because it's been a beatdown in every sense of the word. When a creationist asks for evidence of evolutionary biology, they have that evidence handed to them by the boatload. But they summarily reject it because they're too afraid to honestly look at the evidence and admit that they're wrong. Conversely, when you prove to them why biblical creationism is wrong, they simply regurgitate the mantra "You're misinterpreting things," or "You're taking things out of context," or spout some other non-sense about things they don't understand.

It's not that creationists are too stupid to understand evolutionary biology; it's that they're blinded by a dogmatic worldview that doesn't require evidence -- only faith. As Youtuber AronRa stated in his video series, Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism, in order to be a creationist you don't need to know anything about astronomy, physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, genetics, plate tectonics, meteorology, paleontology, taxonomy, zoology, optics, or even geography. Creationists choose to remain willfully ignorant, and that, to me, is worse than stupidity. What makes things even more irritating is that they claim to know science better than scientists do.

Ask a creationist on the spot what a theory is, and they typically can't answer you. Ask them what genetic drift is and they'll give you the deer-in-the-headlights look. Ask them if an alligator and a crocodile can mate and they'll shut right up. Ask them to tell an astronomical unit from a light-year, an allele from a zygote, an atom from a photon, a monotreme from a marsupial, or a quasar from a red dwarf, and they'll usually panic. Most creationists believe that evolution is not science, but when you ask them how it's not science, they'll squirm as if they're in a dentists chair having a root canal.

The evidence continues to grow in support of evolutionary biology by leaps and bounds. It is the foundation of modern medicine, food production, and forensic science. More people are waking up everyday from their dogma-induced stupor, observing evidence and realizing that they have been lied to for years. If creationists wonder why that is, and why atheism and agnosticism are on the rise, they only have themselves to blame.

So, if you're a creationist, keep it up. In the long run, you're only doing science a favor.

It's coming, Kentucky!

Sometimes the stupidity and willful ignorance in this country becomes so painful that I imagine for a moment what life would be like in Germany. I don't even know where to begin on this one.

Developers in Kentucky are asking the state government for tax exemption on a Noah's Ark-based theme park. AiG and Ark Encounters, LLC (whoever the hell that is), are joining forces to get this creatard funfest up and running by the end of 2014. Developers are hoping that it will bring in 1.6 million visitors a year and create 900 jobs. They're also hoping that it will have a ripple effect over a large geographic area. But the only effect it's going to have is the continued intellectual, downward spiral throughout Kentucky and the rest of the south.

If you're one of those that work for AiG, Ark Encounters, or the Kentucky state government that is seeing this travesty through, or if you are considering donating your hard-earned money to this cause, please spend some time examining the parallels between other flood myths to that of Noah's. Watch the videos below by Youtuber ItsTheSuperFly, in which he absolutely eviscerates the myth of Noah's flood/ark. After kicking yourself in the head for about an hour after realizing that you've been duped into believing this crap, consider putting that money toward something useful, like an education. Then go buy yourself a nice, hot, fresh cup of coffee and remind yourself that Noah's Ark was only a myth.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go buy a nice, hot, fresh cup of coffee of my own.

A response to NPR's Adam Frank

Adam Frank wrote a thought-provoking article at NPR's new forum on science and religion called 13.7. He addresses the concern held by European, Indian, and Chinese scientists that Americans, in general, still prefer the warm, fuzzy blanket of dogma over science and empirical evidence. Particularly, when it comes to evolution vs. creation.

Frank makes several valuable points in his article, perhaps most important of which, is that this is an argument that should have been put to bed decades ago. That, as a country, we should be intelligent and wise enough to at least separate science from the hopeless void of dogma.

Frank adds that no amount of evidence is ever going to convince a creationist that they're wrong, nor will the faithful ever convince the most ardent atheist that spirituality is important. Although, I don't know a single atheist or agnostic who is against spirituality. On the contrary, they celebrate the spirit of man and the pursuit of knowledge. They are, however, against baseless dogmatism and those like Don McLeroy, who wish to pursue politics in order to put our education system on a fast track to nowhere. Spirituality does not necessarily mean organized religion.

On one hand, Frank is right - we shouldn't be having this argument. On the other hand, I couldn't disagree with him more.

As the rest of the world catches up with us and summarily passes us by, our country is left holding the bill wondering what the hell just happened. Not only does the value of our dollar continue to freefall, but so does our overall sense of wonder. The youth of today's America seemingly no longer struggle to understand our place in the Universe, nor where we came from. And all the while, our fellow man around the world are beginning to hand our rear ends to us on a big, shiny, silver platter.

As tumultuous as they were, the 60's is almost solely responsible for producing some of the best engineers this world has ever seen. The race for space was on, and the sky wasn't necessarily the limit. Back then, American scientists made kids wildly curious about science and space. Today, however, channels like TLC would rather showcase a family who's been brainwashed by a money-hungry, tax-evading, psychopathic control freak who can't keep his penis in his pants than air a show about space exploration. Sadly, it seems the wild curiosity of youth is going the way of the dodo.

I left the chains of Christian tyranny three years ago. Particularly Christian creationism. When I did, I had no idea what I truly was for 20 years - a slave. A slave to an ideology that is not bound by scientific scrutiny. It doesn't require you to know anything about geology, meteorology, biology, electronics, astronomy, taxonomy, physics, optics, or even culture. As a matter of fact, it doesn't require you to know anything - about anything! All creationism/ID requires of its adherents is willful ignorance, even in the blinding light of scientific knowledge and research.

The change in my personality and stance toward religion did a complete 180, literally overnight. At one point in my life I was a creationist. Now that I realize the lie that I had been living, I put snake-oil salesmen, liars, and charlatans like Ray Comfort, Kent Hovind, and Ken Ham squarely in my sights.

I agree that America is unique in the world with regard to science because of clowns like those mentioned in the last sentence, and we shouldn't have to stoop to their levels. These evil men would love to set our scientific advancements back to the Dark Ages when the church controlled all knowledge. And that is exactly why they need to be kept firmly in check, and out of the realm of science.

There is a battle going on, Mr. Frank, and it needs to be fought. With due respect, while you may think you are doing a service to all Americans by being friendly and taking a seemingly neutral stance toward the damage that creationism is doing to our culture and education, all you're truly doing is appeasing those who have nothing but utter contempt toward science. Simply because it doesn't fit their dogmatic worldview. American science should press on, but all the while freethinkers have to engage in this debate.

I'm not saying that faith is paramount to sheer stupidity. Even the most ardent non-believer would be the first to admit that Christian, Muslim, and Jewish scientists have made great scientific discoveries because of their desire to understand the mind of God. But I am living proof that we shouldn't just throw in the towel and forget about cretins like Comfort and Hovind, paying them no attention. That's exactly what they want. Where would I be if it weren't for scientists like my friend David and my wife who forced me to think critically, and fellow bloggers like Peter Buckland and PZ Meyers? I'd still be in a mind-numbed, fundamentalist church, as empty-headed and willfully ignorant as I was 5 years ago.

No, thanks. Been there, done that. Never going back.

Note to Christian creationists

Over at Ray's blog there has been this ongoing argument from creationists that goes something to the gist of "The following were scientists who believed in creation...". Then they proceed to produce a laundry list of creationists who have long been departed. If you're a creationist and this is a favorite tactic of yours, I have bad news for you. You have failed. Miserably.

Not one scientist who is alive today is going to take anything away from the work of the beautiful minds like those of Faraday, Copernicus, Mendel, or Kepler. Yet you seemingly live to shred the very fabric of the sciences as we know them today - namely evolutionary biology and Big Bang cosmology, two disciplines that have overwhelming evidence to support them.

So, listen up, you primates! (Yes, you're technically a primate.) Here are three reasons why this tactic of yours only makes you look stupid and naive.

1. For every one Christian creationist, I can give you 10 Muslim creationists who were making scientific discoveries that pre-dates Copernicus by at least 500 years. Many Muslims have put their signatures on chemistry, geography, astronomy, and perhaps most important, medicine. Are you willing to give these scientists the same credit that you are willing to give Mendel? I'm guessing no, simply because they weren't Christian.

For every one Christian creationist, I can give you 3 non-theists and agnostics who have made discoveries without the urge to "find God". It might be a surprise to you that it was a non-theist, Teddy Hall, who revealed the hoax of the Piltdown man. Yet, many of you love to sit in your ivory towers laughing at the idea that science is a self-correcting process, of which Hall is an example. But don't be too ready to applaud Hall just yet. It was he who also proved that the Shroud of Turin is a fraud as well.

It might also surprise you to know that every time you watch the space shuttle lift off, you can thank Jack Parsons for helping to make it possible. Jack Parsons was a genius when it came to aeronautics and rocketry. He was also a devout occultist and satanist.

2. Most of the scientists that creationists love to mention, like Babbage, Mendel, and Copernicus, have been dead for at least 100 years. When evolutionary biology was in its infancy, scientists were struggling to understand the diversity of life. They had little to go on except "God-did-it". All that changed when Darwin came along, and after 150 years of intense scrutiny his theory of evolution is still alive and well. And none of these scientists were alive when the Big Bang became a valid theory based on scientific fact.

Times have changed. 150 years ago, evolutionary biology was just emerging as a science, and not well-accepted by the scientific community. Now, over 95% of the scientific community accept evolution as fact. Sadly, Americans have been duped into believing creationism over science, when even a basic understanding of facts and a little detective work destroys creationism.

3. Just because you mention these scientists, it does nothing to detract from the validity of evolution or the Big Bang.

In short, you've done nothing more than make yourselves look like fools (again), and given us more ammo to beat you down with. But keep doing what you're doing. Someday the fact that creationism is garbage will begin to sink in. When that day comes, you will be well on your way to true academic and personal freedom.

Put this lame, tired argument to bed.

Ray loses. Again. (and again, and again, and again...)

In a couple of weeks, Ray and Kirk, along with their cohorts from ICR and AiG, are going to ascend on UC Berkeley en masse, where they plan to distribute their hacked up version of On the Origin of Species. They will attempt to convince students of all scientific disciplines that evolution is bad, that they know more about science than scientists do, and that they're all headed to a rather toasty eternity unless they turn to Jesus to forgive them of their sins, which includes accepting evolution.

In case you missed it, Ray has been muttering about his "debate" with executive director of NCSE, Eugenie Scott in US News and World Report. As usual, Ray's argument is the same old garbage that has been quickly disposed of - there are no transitional fossils, that evolution is atheistic, and species really means "kinds". Of course, Scott responded and handed Ray's rear end to him on a silver platter in the process. In his defense, Ray did post Scott's response at his blog. I have five points I'd like to make here:

1. It wasn't a debate, Ray. It was a beatdown, and you were on the receiving end.
2. Say it with me, Ray, and repeat over and over, "There are many examples of transitional fossils."
3. Evolution is neither theistic, nor is it atheistic. Evolution is a science, and like all science, it deals with empirical, observable, predictable evidence in a natural universe. That's all. End of story. Period.
4. Species is not the same as "kind".
5. You're not a scientist, Ray. Stop trying to fool everyone into believing that you are.

Scott stated that Ray apparently ripped out entire chapters from the book in his edition of Origin, and once again misrepresented science.

What? A Christian being dishonest? GASP!

I'm almost giddy with anticipation to hear about the aftermath of Ray and Kirk's visit to Berkeley. If you're a student or professor at Berkeley, please do us all a favor and record this debacle with your camcorder so we can all enjoy. Thanks!

Creationism at State High?

The likelihood of creationism being taught in our public schools in State College is a long shot. Most people here with any amount of gray matter between their ears know better. However, a few eyebrows were raised over the past couple days when a local Republican expressed his belief that creationism should be taught in public school.

*cringe*

The Republican in question is Brian Kaleita, one of five candidates up for election to the State College Area School District Board of Education. Of course, he's the only one who believes creationism is scientific. I don't know much about Brian Kaleita, so I did a little bit of homework on him.

On one hand, he expressed strong opposition to the Catholic Church's protection of priests' accused of sexual abuse, and publicly confronted an Altoona bishop, demanding the names of those who are being protected. For this, I stand firmly behind Kaleita. On the other hand, he's against equal rights for those who are not inclined to his sexual persuasion. And his belief that creationism should have equal footing with evolutionary biology put me firmly at odds with Kaleita, in spite of our shared perspective on sexual abuse by members of the clergy.

So, Mr. Kaleita, if you're reading this, let me give you three reasons why creationism should not be taught in public school.

1. Science deals with the physical, natural universe, that we can empirically observe and test. Creationism, however, by its very nature is supernatural, and not scientific. Therefore, the two ideas are mutually exclusive.

2. Which creation epic would you like to see in public science classes? Chinese, Sumerian, Germanic, Celtic, Polynesian, or Judeo-Christian? I presume that you would like to see the latter in school, but let me reassure you, Mr. Kaleita, biblical creationism has been thoroughly destroyed. Being a former creationist, I can tell you without reservation that creationism just does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. And even if you did get Judeo-Christian creationism in public school, what about the dozens of other ethnic and religious beliefs surrounding their versions of creation? Are you willing to give equal time to Egyptian creation epics? Probably not.

3. Creationism doesn't require you to know anything - about anything! It doesn't require you to understand chemistry, biology, genetics, physics, astronomy, geography, or even mathematics. Ask any creationist what plasma is, or a closed system, or an allele, or genetic drift, or explain speciation, and chances are they'll look at you like you have a third leg growing out of your forehead. But that's the comforting simplicity of creationism. It just requires belief. Whenever a creationist is asked, "Can you explain how goats mating in front of a series of poplar rods produces goats with stripes, speckles and spots?" they ignore you and run to the safety of their dogmatic belief in creation.

I could go on and on about why creationism does not deserve, nor should it be given, equal time with science. I think these three reasons are more than enough to destroy any ridiculous argument about trying to get creationism into public school. Especially in a place like State College. But you're welcome to try, Mr. Kaleita.

Note: This is my 100th post! Where, oh where, does the time go?

Kirk Cameron and Ray are at it again!

If you pay any attention to the creation vs. evolution debate, you know that Ray and his clone Kirk Cameron are releasing Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species" in its entirety, just days before its 150th anniversary, with one catch. Ray is going to put his own foreword in the beginning of the book. All 50 pages of it.

There's so much wrong with this I don't even know where to begin. I've gotten to the point where I believe that Ray is totally void of any kind of critical thinking skills. I've lost count of the number of questions that I've asked him at his blog, all of which went unanswered. I know that Ray's a very busy person, what with all the books to sell and money to steal from otherwise good, honest people. But he can't convince me that he's so busy that he can't take five minutes to answer even one of my questions.

Ray and Kirk plan to go to the University of California at Berkley to distribute their book to students, as well as students in the top 100 universities in the country. I want a ringside seat if he comes to Penn State. Now that would be entertainment!

Meanwhile, the goons over at the WND is tripping over their tongues in defense of this ruse from Kirk and Ray. Cameron states, "An entire generation is being brainwashed by atheistic evolution without even hearing the alternative; and it's radically changing the culture of our nation." Irony of ironies! Once again, Cameron doesn't, nor has he ever, stated the fact that there are many Christians including geneticist Francis Collins, biologist Ken Miller, and paleontologist Robert Bakker, who accept evolutionary biology as fact.

Besides, Kirk, everyone in the United States who is capable of learning has heard about the creation narrative(s) in the Bible. A poll conducted in 2004 by ABC News revealed that 60% of those surveyed believe that Noah's flood was a historic event, and about 61% believe in Biblical creation. Ergo, we've all heard your alternative, Kirk. It's bullshit, and people are starting to realize it.

The introduction is also supposed to mention Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon as examples of scientists who believe in God. But typical of Ray, what he doesn't mention is these men were occultists and alchemists. The article also mentions Copernicus. A word to the buffoon who wrote this article, it's spelled Nicolaus Copernicus, not Nikolas Capernicus.

Kirk and Ray also want to discuss the intricacies of DNA. I don't know if they knew it or not, but DNA was discovered by James Watson and Francis Crick. Watson is an atheist, while Crick, who died in 2004, was an agnostic "with a strong inclination towards atheism". But, again, this is something that you'll never hear come from the mouths of Ray and Kirk.

I'm still scratching my head over what Ray thinks will happen when this fiasco takes place. Ray, if you're reading this, seriously - what the hell? People, particularly students, are starting to realize that Biblical creationism is demonstrably false, hence the reason so many are starting to think for themselves. Do you think these same students are just going to drop what they're doing, confess that you're right and every scientist who accepts evolution is wrong? Do you really think you're going to make a difference?

Again, Kirk and Ray, take my advice. Instead of blathering on and on and on and on and on about how scientists who've dedicated their lives to the scientific method push a lie in order to save their jobs (which is itself a lie), get an education. Go to an accredited university like Penn State, the University of Chicago, M.I.T., Arizona State, or USC, and study any of these sciences:

Physics
Chemistry
Biology
Genetics
Geography
Paleontology
Astronomy
Geology
Seismology

After you've attained a Bachelor of Science in any of these disciplines, then you can make a reasonable argument against evolutionary biology. But just repeating that creationism is a scientific alternative to evolution doesn't make is so. Again, creationism can retreat to the safety of a creator when all else fails and the evidence is stacked against it. And since science deals with what we can empirically observe in a natural world, a supernatural creator is not a scientific hypothesis.

One year from now when your book has been all but forgotten, I'd like for you to reflect on how monumental of a failure this debacle has been for the both of you, and everyone at AiG.

YouTuber ZOMGitsCriss summarized it best. Hit play.

A few thoughts on the Ark

Noah's Ark, that is.

If you frequent Ray's channel, you'll know that I ask a lot of questions. I'm also asked a lot of questions, and I can't remember a time that I didn't try to provide an answer. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

Every now and then the b.s. gets so high that I have to speak up. Almost every question I ask of the fundies and non-fundies alike are met with resounding silence or seething anger. I understand that you have safe haven at Ray's blog, but here you have no such luxury. You do, however, have the ability to speak freely at my blog, something that is little more than a courtesy at Ray's blog. Here, the First Amendment reigns supreme.

Anyway, this is for those of you who continue to rail against those of us who do not subscribe to your point of view and inform us that we're all hellbound worthless pieces of trash. Are you listening, Terry?

So here are a few questions that I have for the young earthers, those of you who believe the universe is ~6,000 years old, at Ray's blog. The first question is in 2 parts:

1. If you are a young earth creationist, you no doubt believe that dinosaurs walked side-by-side with man. If you're an absolute lunatic, you believe that Satan buried dinosaur fossils to confuse mankind in an attempt to lead us from God. Either way, the Bible says clearly that God lead two of each kind of animal onto the Ark. The Bible also says that the Ark was about 45' tall, 75' wide, and 450' long. It had 3 decks, one door, and an 18" window for ventilation.

First, tell me how an 18" window is going to provide adequate ventilation from all the methane, ammonia, and carbon monoxide coming out of every orifice of every animal on the ark.

Secondly, tell me how you can fit an adult brachiosaur, diplodicus, or spinosaur through the door of the Ark, especially when the height between decks would have been no more than about 13 feet. Keep in mind, an adult brachiosaur stood well over 20' at the shoulder and about 45' tall.

2. In 1961 Henry Morris said that there were 37,000 animals on the Ark. But in 1987, he bumped that number up to 50,000 in a pathetic attempt to account for the vast diversity of species. Whatever the number he wants to use, let's just assume for the sake of the argument that there were a lot of animals on the Ark.

Genesis 6 says that God decided to kill all living things on earth. All living things means plant life, too. If that's true, when the Ark landed on Mount Ararat there would have been nothing for any herbivore to eat. The predators, however, had plenty of those yummy herbivores to munch on. Since Mount Ararat was essentially an island, the herbivores had nowhere to run and were easy pickings for the predators as they stepped off the Ark. The site would have been an absolute blood bath.

How did the herbivores escape certain death at the top of Mount Ararat?

3. Pandas. They're cute, cuddly, and very endangered. Bamboo makes up over 95% of their diet. Unfortunately, bamboo has very little nutritional value, so the panda has to eat huge amounts of it in order to survive, up to 84 lbs. per day. To make things harder for the panda, although bamboo grows in a variety of climates, it does not grow in deserts.

How did 2 pandas survive the trip from mainland China and into Mesopotamia with no bamboo to sustain them? Even if they got to the Ark, they had to have at least 30 pounds of bamboo a day for about 365 days. 30*365 = 10,950. Would you care to explain how these animals carted over 5 tons of bamboo through the Gobi desert and over the rugged, mountainous terrain of Central Asia?

4. Penguins. Polar bears. Walruses. Arctic foxes. Arctic seals. These are animals that are supremely adapted to survive in bitter cold environments. They're not found in deserts for a reason - they'd die there. Quickly.

Please tell me how these animals survived swims up to 6,000 miles, walked through a desert with no fish to eat, and boarded the Ark in one piece.

I can practically hear your keyboards melting as you furiously scramble to ICR for answers. While I accept your best answer, copying and pasting arguments from creationist wackos like Duane Gish and Kent Hovind will not be accepted.

Justice!

Poor Kent Hovind.

Sitting in jail for fraud and stealing from the government and ripping off his employees. Not only does he have about 7 years left on his sentence, but a federal judge has given the green light for the Feds to seize his creationist ermm...ahem, "theme park" for restitution. $430,400 and change. Ouch!

I seem to remember Ray saying something a few weeks ago about money being well spent on scientific research. I agree. I say the Feds should give that money to the National Science Foundation for research into evolutionary biology. That would be money well spent.

Whaddya think, Ray?

Jefferson the Creationist

I realize that this is a little bit late, but as I was listening to Episode #209 of the Skeptics Guide to the Universe, I heard that the DiscoTute has confirmed that Jefferson would be a creationist if he were alive today. At least that's what Stephen Meyers would have us believe.

Keep in mind that Jefferson died before the Origin of Species was published, not to mention the discoveries of Hubble's Law or Cosmic Background Radiation. To his credit, at least Meyers confirmed this in his article.

Meyers touches on DNA for just a moment, referring to Crick and Watson's discovery of DNA structure. Of course, what Meyers doesn't tell you is that Crick was an agnostic "leaning toward atheism," while Watson, 81, is an atheist. Crick has gone so far as to say "Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in private but should not be taught to young children." Neither does Meyers tell you that Jefferson was a deist, not a Christian.

Like most creationists, Meyers is trying to push not just creationism onto the public, but a very specific kind of creationism. And that's something that should give all of us pause.

In somewhat related and equally late news, the Texas State Board of Education thinks its high school history text books need revised. Apparently, Thurgood Marshall isn't a hero worthy of recognition, but Billy Graham is.

Says right-wing, fundamentalist lunatic, Don McLeroy, "America is a special place and we need to be sure we communicate that to our children. The foundational principles of our country are very biblical.... That needs to come out in the textbooks."

As if Rome had nothing to do with the foundation of Western civilization. Why this man is still employed by anyone is beyond me.

Creationists, listen up!

Meet Dr. Richard Lenski. Dr. Lenski is an evolutionary biologist at Michigan State University. He has won multiple awards in the field of microbiology, and is a fellow at the American Academy of Microbiology. We'll forgive him for teaching on behalf of the Spartan nation.

Over the past 20 years he has studied 12 populations of bacteria that have gone through a total of ~44,000 generations. Through successive mutations between 31,000 and 32,000 generations, the bacteria developed the ability to consume and metabolize citrate, something previous generations were unable to do. In other words, the e. coli developed a beneficial mutation.

This is just one of the hundreds of thousands of pieces of empirical evidence that evolution is ultimately fact. Organisms evolving beneficial mutations is is something that most of you regard impossible. But Lenski has proven you utterly wrong.

There are those of you who frequent Christian apologetic blogs like Ray Comfort's. Everyday when I go to Ray's blog I read commentary to the gist of, "Evolution is evil," "evolution doesn't exist," "there is no proof of evolution," etc. I have tried to reason with you. I've asked you to give a testable, scientific alternative to evolution, but you refuse to do so. The word "testable" is very important, and here's why.

Science deals with the physical, natural universe - that which we can measure and test.

You love to proclaim that there is scientific proof of God. But something that very few of you either seemingly accept or understand is that God is supernatural, and is therefore outside of space and time. God is spirit. God is unable to be measured or tested. Therefore, invoking a creator or deity of any kind is not science because every time you mention your god you invoke the supernatural, and put the clamp down on scientific research. Every time you mention a creator, you commit intellectual suicide.

I'm finding that it is impossible to reason with the unreasonable. You insist that people like Dr. Lenski and Ken Miller are evil monsters bent on turning children into godless drones. But you refuse to go to college, get a degree in biology, genetics, or engineering, to challenge evolutionary biology. Even a geography degree would help!

I have a challenge for you all. I want you to provide a testable, scientific alternative to the theory of evolution.

If all you can do is quote Genesis 1:1 to me, don't waste your time. I won't even read it.

Get busy!!!

I want to hurt this website.

Just when I think creationist fatheads like Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort are at the bottom of the intellectual food chain, I came across this website. I don't know whether to laugh myself sick or be completely terrified.

I was looking for Teach the Controversy, a website dedicated to exposing creationist lunacy. It's a rather humorous website. Click on this link to give them a visit, and while you're there buy a t-shirt so you can wear it proudly and embarrass your creationist friends.

Anyway, when I came across the other site, I saw the subdued picture of Jesus in the background I rolled my eyes and groaned. I almost clicked out of the site when I read:

"There has long been a scientific controversy about the theory of Heliocentrism. On April 30th 1633 even Galileo reconsidered this foolish notion."

I kept reading, and the longer I read the more dumbfounded and slack-jawed I became. They even have links to Florida Representatives so that flat-earthers, anti-evolution nutjobs, and geocentrists can write to and express their concerns. Such a representative is Alan Hays, a sponsor of the Evolution Academic Freedom Act, another stealth creationism bill. According to an April 29th, 2008 article at NPR, Hays challenged scientists by asking, "What are you afraid of? Are you afraid that our students are going to learn how to critically analyze a theory?"

No, Mr. Hays. Evolution has withstood 150 years of intense scrutiny by the brightest minds of our time. What we're afraid of are charlatans like yourself, who not only want creationism taught in public schools, but a very specific kind of creationism.

Authors of the site encourage its supporters to "feel free to mention that geocentrism should be protected."

Scared yet?

Anti-evolution jackassery

The good people over at the National Center for Science Education released a series of articles that confirm Oklahoma, Florida, and Iowa are trying to push antievolution legislation in their respective states. I can't wait until this academic freedom crap goes the way of the dodo.

Just a heads-up. More to come.

Ray's epic fail; creationists just don't get it.

Less than 2 weeks after it went on sale, Ray Comfort's book "You Can Lead An Atheist To Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think," has plummeted to number 1,366 on Amazon's book sales rank at the time of this writing. I've reviewed some of the commentary about this book, and even left some commentary myself. It should come as no surprise that this book has only garnered a whopping 2 out of 5 stars by it's reviewers.

As expected, the apologists for creationism have offered their best arguments. And as usual, they have failed. The usual tactics were used; quote mines, misquoting the Bible, taking quotes out of context (for some reason they love quoting Hawking), and ad hominem attacks. But they've come out with a new argument that I haven't heard before; atheists and agnostics just hate logic and science.

But the tactic that I love the most, is their invocation of creationists as part of their argument. Let me be the first to admit that, yes, creationists have done and continue to do great things for the advancement of science. Most notable of these creationists is Raymond Damadian, the inventor of the magnetic resonance imaging system, or MRI. You have to give credit where credit is due, and Mr. Damadian certainly deserves credit. By the boatload.

But creationists, don't stop with Damadian. They're quick to tell you about every other creationist who have made great contributions to science, as well as their status, what they've done, where they've been, where they're going, publications, political opinions, birthdays, and blood type. For instance, one poster at Amazon had this to say:

"Dr Raymond V. Damadian-Inventor of the MRI (The Nobel Committee snubbed him-probably because he is a creationist-and instead awarded Lauterbur and Mansfield, for their discoveries concerning MRI scans.)
Dr. John R. Baumgardner (Geophysicist) "the world's preeminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection."
Dr Ian Macreadie (Molecular Biologist and Microbiologist) Australia's Principal Research Scientist.
Dr. Ben Carson- the World's foremost Pediatric Neurosurgeon (the brain cannot be an accident of evolution)
Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a 3-star NATO General) A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.
Dr. Robert Gentry- the world's leading authority of nuclear physics research. When he began his research, he was an evolutionist. Today, Dr. Gentry is a fully convinced young earth creation scientist.

Shall I go on? There are thousands of brilliant Creationist Scientist. And what about the Creationist Scientific Heroes of the past? Take a look:

Louis Pasteur- Father of Modern Microbiology, invented the pasteurization process and opposed evolution theory
Johann Kepler- Father of Physical Astronomy
Robert Boyle-Father of Modern Chemistry
William Kirby -Father of Entomology
James Clerk Maxwell -Father of Electromagnetic Theory
Charles Bell-Premier Anatomist and Surgeon
Michael Faraday-Father of Electromagnetism
Gregor Johann Mendel-Father of Modern Genetics
Isaac Newton -Father of Universal Gravitation
George Washington Carver-Father of Modern Agriculture
And many, many more."

The logical fallacies in this argument are blatant, but Christian creationists are so blinded by their own smug sense of superiority that they will never see them. First, and perhaps the easiest to see, is that these creationists used their logic and reason to make their mark in science; not their faith. Aside from that, most of the scientists that creationists will mention have died long before evolution gained solid scientific ground. Secondly, for every scientist that accepts creationism, there are 20 that dismiss it. Thirdly, they'll never mention an Islamic creationist who has done great things for science, like Ulugh Beg (astronomer), Abu Rayhan Biruni (earth science), or Ibn Zuhr, who was performing experimental surgeries and dissections around 1130 C.E. If he were Christian, he'd likely have been convicted of crimes against God and humanity and subsequently drawn and quartered, or forced to spend the rest of his natural life under house arrest like Galileo.

I don't know about you, but I love when creationists use people they've never met, and mention sciences that they have no concept of, to support their argument. They'll never, ever open a textbook to do any real research, and offer a scientific alternative to evolution. But they'll spend hours looking for quotes to bolster their argument, while bashing people who have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of science just because they don't subscribe to their particular creationist worldview. What's worse, some have even started to refer to Ray as "Dr. Comfort," or "Professor Comfort." At which point I must remind them that even Ray is honest enough to admit that he's never received formal training in any of the sciences at anytime in his life.

Also, something that many Christian creationists do not realize, or will never admit, is that some of the icons they use to strengthen their argument were occultists. For instance, Galileo and Newton were practicing occultists throughout their lives. Newton even sent several men to their deaths because of fraud and forgery. Christians will say that this was a very Christian thing to do, of course, to which I ask, didn't Jesus implore us to forgive our debtors instead of killing them?

Or take Jack Parsons, the brilliant rocket scientist who gave us solid rocket fuel, and co-founded JPL. If it weren't for Parsons, our space program would not be as advanced as it is. It should be noted that Parsons was hand-picked by Alistair Crowley to help lead the Ordo Templi Orientis. Parsons was a devout occultist, and even prayed to the god, Pan.

Other notable occult scientists were John Dee, Francis Bacon, and Franz Mesmer, from where we get the term, mesmerize.

All the time that creationists spend looking for quotes to support their lame, antiquated, misleading arguments and reading Ray's books would have been better spent reading an actual biology book.

Good luck with that.

200 years in the making; Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin!

What a day.

Between helping my ailing wife, boning up on my geopolitical intelligence, and cooking, I took some time today to read some of the commentary about Charles Darwin, the man of the day, 200 years after his birth. It appears that the nation is still sharply divided over the evolution "controversy," even though there is no such thing. From those celebrating "Darwin Day," to "Academic Freedom Day," aka., "Academic Make-Up-Whatever-The-Hell-You-Want Day," I took in as much as I could.

Deciding to take a break from my homework, I sat rooting through the various cable news networks. MSNBC, Faux, when lo' and behold, whose face do I see gracing my television set; none other than Ray Comfort himself!

Ray was a guest opposite Pat Robertson on the 700 Club this morning doing his usual best to indoctrinate the masses and pimp his new book mentioned in my previous post. The interview kicked off by Robertson imploring, "Tell me about the essentials of Darwinism."

Ray responded, "Well, Darwin was a very bitter man who went into the ministry, fell away, never knew the Lord, lost his daughter at the age of 12, became very bitter at God, denied his faith and came up with this fairy tale for grown-ups." Personally, I can think of no greater fairy tale for grown-ups than that a man was made from dirt.

He continues, "It's basically idolatry, creating god in your own image. A god that doesn't demand moral accountability, and that's why it's so embraced by this generation." He goes on to say that atheists lack common sense, and are "not intelligent."Ray seems to be missing the well-established inverse relationship between fundamentalism and morality/intelligence; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

I'm not an atheist, but the last statement really cheesed me off. How much more insulting can you be, Ray? I'd like to see you tell Hawking that. You wouldn't last a nanosecond.

In short, the interview is 6 minutes of Ray verbally eviscerating those who don't believe as he does; that atheists are trying to take over the world and are immoral, evolution is evil, and anyone who "believes" in evolution is un-intelligent. I don't "believe" in evolution, Mr. Comfort; I accept it as a scientific fact.

Anyway, I just wanted to toss in my two cents and say thank you, Mr. Darwin. And Happy Birthday.

Watch Ray make a complete ass of himself below. Fast forward to 10:10.

Pro-Darwin billboard inflames Ray Comfort

Creationist fraudster Ray Comfort is releasing a book on February 12th entitled, You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence But You Can't Make Him Think. This title has got to be the mother of all ironies. For those of you who don't know, Ray Comfort believes that mankind walked along dinosaurs and the Universe is around 6,000 years old. He also believes that the banana is the "atheists' nightmare" because:

1. It has a non-slip surface.
2. It is curved so that it can be eaten easier.
3. It has multiple sides for a better grip, thereby fitting perfectly in your hand.
4. It has an tab at the top, so that you can pull the skin away.
5. It's color-coded.
6. Once the skin is pulled away, it hangs eloquently in over your hand.

What Ray doesn't tell his audience is that the banana has been domesticated for at least 5,000 years, and that the wild banana is inedible. Listening to him speak is truly a "facepalm" moment.

Meanwhile, the Freedom From Religion Foundation has recently posted a billboard celebrating the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin. Not to be outdone, Ray has posted his own billboard calling Charles Darwin an atheist. Ray lies to his audience once again by leading them to believe that Darwin was an atheist, even though he was not.

"An agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.”

Charles Darwin - 1879

Ray, if you're reading this pay close attention. An atheist is someone that does not believe in the existence of a deity of any kind, while an agnostic is someone who believes the existence of a deity cannot be proven nor disproven; in short, they just don't know for certain.

Anyway, leave it up to Ray Comfort to trash 200 years of scientific research for the sake of espousing his particular religion. Read more about this story here.

Watch a hysterical parody of the "atheists' nightmare" below and laugh at Ray. He deserves it.