Evolution/Creation Debate

I'm going to be completely preoccupied with another project for the next several days, but I just could not resist passing on this delightfully wacky site. Here's a little excerpt, from one of their posts titled "WHY ALL EVOLUTIONISTS ARE CRIMINALLY INSANE":

Well, first, for this edition of this web page, we will not be addressing the criminal nature of evolutionists’ insanity. That we will do at a future time. So, for now, why are all evolutionists insane? They are all insane because they have no “legend of empirical advent.” What is a legend of empirical advent? It is “one or more things that demonstrate or imply the existence of something unseen.” And keep in mind it doesn’t matter whether these things are real or imaginary.

Over on Scienceblogs, there's a bit of a debate in various quarters about "Framing" in dealing with creationists and religious anti-science zealots. On one side, are those who confront the zealots directly, like Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers and others, by pointing out their lies, logical flaws and egregious misunderstandings in no uncertain terms. On the other side is mainly Matt Nisbet, a communications theorist, who seems to suggest that the message would get across better by expressing scientific positions in ways that would not offend the zealots--especially not using people who would tend to offend them.

Here's a nice place to start reading up on the issue: http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2008/04/the_trouble_with_framing_t...

And my two zlotys on the matter (also posted as a comment on Pharyngula):

I'm a tech support professional.
Anyone who deals at length with technical support organizations will probably sympathize with the feeling that technical and communications skills seem inversely proportional.

OK, just in case you haven't seen this over at PZ's or elsewhere, here's a hilarious and brilliantly done satire:

It takes some deconstructing, but the consensus is that it is indeed pro-science/skepticism.

UPDATE: Here are the lyrics, and here is a brief bit on the 'cast' - kudos to both authors!

Jim Downey

I just read this on Wired News:

The Florida Board of Education officially upheld evolution yesterday.

In a 4-3 vote, the Board accepted a proposed curriculum that makes evolution central to public school science education.

Until now, Florida's schools weren't required to teach evolution. The old curriculum guidelines didn't even mention it by name.

The 4-3 vote was obtained by including a last-minute amendment to the standards. Suggested last Friday by religious conservatives and dubbed the "academic freedom proposal," the amendment required that the curriculum's references to "evolution" be replaced by the "scientific theory of evolution."

The amendment's supporters called the language change a victory -- and it is, though not in the way they imagine.

Who does God want the next American president to be? The race for the primary nomination in both parties is getting interesting with only 20-some days left until the Iowa caucuses kick off primary season. Obama is chipping away at Hillary's inevitableness and Giuliani has a slight lead over Huckabee. Personally I favor Obama, but I am almost certain to vote for whichever candidate wins the Democratic primary.

Florida State Board Of Education member Donna Callaway gets it so wrong that it's painful to read.

[link] Donna Callaway, a former middle school principal from Tallahassee, told the Florida Baptist Witness that evolution "should not be taught to the exclusion of other theories of origins of life."

She also said she hoped Christians would pray over the issue. "As a SBOE member, I want those prayers," Callaway said. "I want God to be part of this."

Evolution is not a "theory of origins of life", number one, and number two, the Christian God cannot, by law, "be a part of" the Florida State Board Of Education - unless you rescind the United States Constitution, or secede from the union.

But you've all heard this before, time and time again. It's been said, over and over, a thousand times or more. The facts are always the same; ignorant Christian creationist who does not understand what evolution is, or what science is gets elected to the school board. Then they convince other ignorant Christian creationists on the school board to "teach the (nonexistent) controversy" by reading the religious tracts put out by the Discovery Institute, WoTM, or Dr. Dino. Overworked civil-rights defenders like the ACLU and FFRF take the school board to court and win. Many indignant news stories and op-ed columns are written about the evil atheist plot to persecute innocent Christians by teaching science instead of Christian mythology in - ahem - science classes. Overwrought email chain letters get forwarded to everyone and their grandmother shouting about the nasty atheists and their evil plan to barbecue all the Christian children in the public school system for the crime of being Christian.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Things like this make me tired. It feels like we're bailing out a leaky boat with plastic beer cups. I mean, were doing something, going through the motions, making a lot of noise and fuss, but the reality of the situation is that the boat is filling up too fast. I fear that we are sinking, and that there is not a lot we can do to prevent it.

Still, we'll keep on bailing because what else can we do?

I just read a disturbing bit of news on Wired Science about how the Texas science curriculum director was fired for forwarding an email from her work account about an upcoming speech being made by a person critical of Intelligent Design.

Here's a 9 minute trailer from the movie Expelled due for release in February 2008. Oh boy, I can hardly wait. Pay attention and you will notice part of this trailer was filmed at the Voter Issues Conference sponsored by the Family Research Council. If the FRC's involvement hasn't sufficiently raised the alarm, how about two of their more infamous spokesman, James Dobson and Tony Perkins?

The FRC is a Christian political organization that promotes values such as anti-homosexual rights, prayer in schools, abstinence only education, teaching creationism in science class instead of or along side evolution, ending women's reproductive rights, anti-birth control and even stopping stem cell research that could better the lives of millions of Americans. Hmmm. I wonder why the FRC is so interested in the movie Expelled and Intelligent Design?

This guy is great! Although without much bling, a gat or treating women like whores, he probably won't sell a million cd's. Oh well, I liked it.

A Rational Response - Greydon Square

If you enjoyed that, he has a few more good ones like The Dream, Squared and Say.

And if you want to purchase his album, it's only $12 at his website TheComptonEffect.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is going to be the subject of three presentations to be made at the upcoming American Academy of Religion's annual meeting.

You can read an article about it on cnn.com.

I particularly like this anedote from one of the presentors...

He recognized the point when his neighbor, a militant atheist who sports a pro-Darwin bumper sticker on her car, tried recently to start her car on a dying battery.

As she turned the key, she murmured under her breath: "Come on Spaghetti Monster!"

*The Good*

TooManyTribbles put together an AWESOME video collage of her favorite atheist/free thinking websites. And yes, UTI is in there at about the 2 minute 10 second mark. I had no idea there were so many of us.

*The Bad*

I implore everyone to read John Scalzi's hilarious report on his trip to the Creation Museum. It will make you laugh, cry and shake your head. He also includes a 101 picture photo tour so none of us will ever have to go. It started as a small joke this summer and only got better. Scalzi promised to go the museum if he could raise $250 for Americans United for Separation of Church and State. He wound up raising over $5000.

*The Ugly*

A gentleman named Matthew Chapman has a great article called "A New Debate" over on Richard Dawkins' website that makes an outstanding suggestion. We need a presidential debate that specifically focuses on science. I want to know exactly what a potential POTUS thinks on many issues such as global climate change, alternative energy, stem cell research, teaching evolution/creationism in schools and many other important topics.

In an earlier debate on MSNBC we found out through a show of hands that Tom Tancredo, Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback don't believe in evolution. Several others such as John McCain and Mitt Romney also expressed feelings that they believe in evoltion, but believe gawd had a hand in it as well. Honestly, I don't know where any of the top Dems are at on these issues either. I would like someone to come along and pin them down on their scientific attitudes, especially Obama, Edwards and Clinton because they are the ones I am most likely to vote for.

Speaking about Tancredo, Brownback and Huckabee, Chapman writes:

Brilliant:

About Project Pterosaur
Mission Statement

The goal of Project Pterosaur is to mount an expedition to locate and bring back to the United States living specimens of pterosaurs or their fertile eggs, which will be displayed in a Pterosaur Rookery that will be the center piece of the planned Fellowship Creation Science Museum and Research Institute (FCSMRI). Furthermore, the rookery facility will establish a breeding colony of pterosaurs in order to produce specimens that could then be put on display by other regional institutions or church groups.

By doing all this, we hope to accomplish three goals:

1. Support Creation Theory by showing the incorrectness of the philosophy of Evolutionism.
2. Educate the population about Creation Science.
3. Create excitement about Creation and the Bible in the public.

Absolutely brilliant satire. Here's another taste:

PZ is being sued for libel in New York Southern District Court by Stuart Pivar, author of the "Lifecode" books. Apparently because PZ reviewed them and found them wanting.

Wow. Suing someone for a bad review. That's the way to do real science, Stuart. Nice job.

A good write-up from Scientific American.com here.

PZ comments here:

[link] Huh. I'd heard some noise from Pivar threatening to sue, but this is the first I've heard of any formal action being taken. Since I'm a defendant (one who hasn't been notified of his status!) I suppose I should just shut up at this point and let justice run its course.

Since I'm a blogger, though, I can't completely shut up. I will just say that this is Pivar's attempt to squash a negative review of his book, which I posted here. Nothing in the review was motivated by personal malice, and I actually am inclined to favor structuralist arguments in evolution ... but I'm afraid my honest assessment of Pivar's work is that it does not support his conclusions. I still stand by my review, and now I'm a bit disturbed that someone would think criticism of a scientific hypothesis must be defended by silencing its critics.

From those wonderful folks who brought you Exit Mundi about end of the world scenarios, comes The Other Bible:

‘Bible mysteries’ are hot. What really happened in biblical times?

Did Jesus have children? Was there really a flood? What were those strange plagues Moses brought about in Egypt? What about the star of Bethlehem, the walls of Jericho, John’s Apocalypse?

On this site, we aim to share with you what scientists think, say and write about the bible. We present the evidence historians, archeologists and theologists offer.

I'm not quite sure what to make of this site, to be honest. The writer claims to respect religion, and not to be out to change anyone's beliefs, but then generally shows that things in the Bible are either flat out wrong, or just reflect religious beliefs which were appropriated from other religions in order to promote Judaism/Christianity.

Anyway, looks like a moderately interesting resource, though somewhat basic. Be curious to hear what you folks think of it.

Jim Downey

OK, before I head out for the Heinlein Centennial, I had to share this little piece of the puzzle showing that we are, indeed, heading for the Crazy Years, as Brent recently mentioned:

Our Claim

Orbo produces free, clean and constant energy - that is our claim. By free we mean that the energy produced is done so without recourse to external source. By clean we mean that during operation the technology produces no emissions. By constant we mean that with the exception of mechanical failure the technology will continue to operate indefinitely.

The sum of these claims for our Orbo technology is a violation of the principle of conservation of energy, perhaps the most fundamental of scientific principles. The principle of the conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created or destroyed, it can only change form.

Ah, yes, imitation is the highest form of lameness, at least when it comes to GodTube - a Christian YouTube wanna-be.

Via Pandagon, a nice little news story tied to our friends at the Creation Museum:

Columbus, Ohio (AP) --
The man who plays Adam in a video aired at a Bible-based creationist museum has led a different life outside the Garden of Eden, flaunting his sexual exploits online and modeling for a clothing line that promotes free love.

After learning about his activities Thursday, the Creation Museum in Kentucky pulled the 40-second video in which he appears.

Yup, because you know, he can't have had a life at all prior to being Adam. But here's the best, and funniest, bit:

"For the Creation Museum, I did what I did as an actor. It doesn't necessarily mean I believe in evolution or a believe in creation," Linden said. "I'm hired to get a point across. On the flip side, if I was hired to play a murderer, that doesn't mean I'd go out and kill somebody. It's make-believe."

Roy Abraham Varghese, theistic apologist and god-bothering author from the "Institute of Metascientific Research", was recently interviewed by the Dallas Observer. Varghese is widely credited as "the man who won over Anthony Flew", and is now currently working on a book called "There Is A God" with Flew.

Varghese is an interesting character because his contention is that without a meta-intelligence, all science devolves into incoherence if you drill-down deep enough, or pull back far enough.

It's a lot of pseudo-scientific nonsense of course, a philosophically slick update to the theistic evolutionist's mantra.

More below the fold...

PZ over at Pharyngula pointed out this little gem of an op-ed by some schmoe by the name of David Klinghoffer. The title alone is enough to annoy me, "Prophets of the new atheism".

Of course, the writer commits several standard errors starting with calling atheism a religion.

Can disbelief in God be considered "religious"? Sure. Just ask Zen Buddhists, who worship no deity. By religion, I mean any faith-based set of values that makes exclusive claims for its truth and explains the mysteries of the universe. Yes, atheism begins with a faith, namely that only material and physical (not spiritual) causes make the world run.

No, no no no no no no. If lack of religion is a religion then not playing baseball is a sport. (Switchin it up there, see?) Atheists can be religious, but atheism is not a religion. It's a lack of belief in a god or god's. That's all, no more. Unlike Zen Buddhists atheists don't have any particular philosophy that we all share.
more below the fold