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.

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.

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.

1 Peter 3:15: Why fundies hate it

Debate any creationist on astronomy or evolution, and you're likely to be met with a sneer. If you ask them to give a scientific alternative to either of these topics, they'll shut right up. If you ask what the red shift is, and they'll shut right up. Prove that their holy book of choice is not inerrant, and they'll shut right up. Ask them to reconcile Matthew 2:1-6 with Luke 2:1-6, and they'll shut right up. Nope, it's not very difficult to pull the rug out from under a fundamental creationist. Especially those who claim to love science, but don't have the first clue about the scientific method, let alone a theory.

Over the past few weeks I have been debating the fundies over at Ray's blog. The more questions I ask, the more I'm met with silence. It's annoying.

Skeptics often ask creationists for evidence of their claims, which always starts with, "In the begininning..." or some variant of "Abracadabra!" But whenever a creationist asks for evidence for the Big Bang, or evolutionary biology, they practically have the evidence thrown at them. Taxonomy, geology, astrophysics, chemistry, genetics, biology, you name it - the evidence there by the boatload for them to sift through. But the moment it's given to them, creationists just shrug it off like it doesn't exist. And the whole time, they say they love science.

Bologna sauce!

Enter 1 Peter 3:15. It says:

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"

In other words, if you want to put that loud-mouthed, sniveling, snot-nosed creationist in their place, ask them a question about life or the universe based on science, cite this verse, and they'll flee from the Bible like a plague.

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!!!

Uhh, Ray? You might want to read this.

Science has once again trounced Ray's myopic worldview. From the New Scientist, March 10, 2009:

"For the first time, these scientists were able to demonstrate that the coevolutionary process is dependent on ecological conditions. Indeed, under certain conditions, the prey becomes resistant to the predator, which itself evolves so that it can attack this new prey. In addition, the scientists issued a warning against the previously envisaged use of this predator (Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus) as a "living antibiotic" because, like other antibiotics, this could lead to the selection of resistant pathogenic bacteria."

"Scientists in the Laboratoire Écologie et Évolution have used this type of experiment to understand how the environment influences the evolution of a pair of bacteria. One was the predator, Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus, and the other the prey, Pseudomonas fluorescens. The predator penetrated the prey and killed it by consuming it from the inside. This predator is a relatively common bacterium, one which British researchers have suggested could be used as a 'living antibiotic'."

In other words, not only has evolution been observed in a lab (again), but the predator/prey relationship is now even more fully understood, and that evolution is beneficial to humans.

Don't cry, Ray.

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.