Greatest Hits of Creation "Science"

Aprils Fools day seems to me to be far too much work, especially on the internet where whatever you do someone is bound to act up about it, case in point; the Top 10 Creationist Discoveries. This was an attempt at wired to put together a post about the nonsense spouted by creationists, it started off well then rapidly descended to insulting rednecks, from the look of the comments, you can say anything you like about rednecks as long as you DO NOT PUT DOWN NASCAR. My feelings on the post are mixed as its funny seeing people take such personal offense to something clearly so stupid, but I also think it was a great missed opportunity to actually look at the greatest hits of creation "Science". So without further ado here is (possibly) the first in a series of posts on the greatest discoveries of creation science as I see them (in no particular order):

T-Rex ate Coconuts: Apparently the top scientific minds of the creation museum think that the reason T-Rex has extremely large teeth is because they were used to eat coconuts. Why would they feel the need to claim this? Well because they believe that the world is actually only 6000-10000 years old and that dinosaurs frolicked with Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. Even these intellectual giants have worked out that a vicious carnivore weighing in the range of 6 tonnes would bring up major health and safety concerns for Adam and Eve. Lets face it even God wouldn't be happy filling in those risk assessment forms. To get round this problem they fall back on that most reliable of paleontological references: the Bible, where it explains that in the Garden of Eden all animals were vegetarian, they didn't start eating each other until after "the fall", makes perfect sense to me. Apart from the fact that that means God designed them knowing that one day they would need their claws and sharp teeth to eat each other, something that couldn't happen until after "the fall", so he knew that Adam and Eve were going to misbehave, and yet he still freaked. No actually I don't think I get it.

Personally I think there are nuts involved in this idea, but they aren't coconuts.

Dinosaurs were on Noahs Ark: The linked article goes into a lot of detail about how it is possible for 8 people to pack tens of thousands of animals into a single craft, feed, water and keep them clean for AN ENTIRE YEAR! You really did not want to be the poor SOB who had to clean the sauropod cage did you?

Some anonymous internet genius came up with this interpretation of what would have happened in the event of a containment failure:



God was down with a bit of incest: Ever wonder who Cain married? No me neither but these guys have put way to much thought into it. Apparently Cain married either a sister or niece, but don't worry this wasn't considered icky then, after all if you start with only two people what else are you going to do? Extra points for this explanation because they manage to wrangle in a semi-coherent explanation of why people shouldn't marry their close relatives anymore, presumably some people need to be reminded of this.

Human ancestors were actually people forced into caves during the flood:

With that said, the Bible does describe a period of traumatic upheaval (the Flood – Genesis chapters 6-9) upon the earth during which time civilization was utterly destroyed and men were forced to start over. It is in this historical context that some scholars believe that men lived in caves and made use of stone tools. These men were not primitive; they were simply destitute. And they certainly weren't half ape. The fossil evidence is quite clear: cavemen were human (hence the term cave-"men," men who lived in caves).

It goes on to explain that all of the fossil evidence of human ancestors such as homo erectus are not what evolutionists think:

It is almost entertaining the lengths evolutionary scientists go to prove the existence of prehistoric cavemen. They find a misshaped tooth in a cave and from that create a misshapen human being who lived in a cave and hunched over like an ape.

That is one hell of a tooth.

Dawkins, Dawin Raise The Roof

This hilarious video is doing the rounds now:



I love this video because it is so clever that it appeals to both sides of the creationism - science battle. I think it really acts as a mirror to the way of thinking of both sides, both of which seem to think it is supporting them. At the moment no one seems to know who made it, with suspicions that it may be part of a viral campaign for the ID propaganda film Expelled, personally I doubt that, but who really cares its still very funny and as I said it does act as a great mirror into the thought processes of either side.

The creationists opinions of it, on display at such places as Uncommon Descent are that its meant to insult prominent atheist such as Richard Dawkins et al., at a certain level it appears that that is true, they come across as being quite arrogant, especially in the intro. However they (the creationists) never seem to get beyond this, its like they have seen something that confirms their prejudices and their satisfied, off they go happy, this is one for the home team, nothing more to see here.

Over on the pro-science side, almost the exact opposite is true, everyone (myself included here obviously) are over analysing, this has led to some really interesting points that were immediately seized upon by the commenters over at Pharyngula as proof that the video was pro-science, the most important is simply that the lyrics are very forthright and from a scientists perspective, true.

We might have lost at Scopes, beaten down by the dopes,
and the stooges of popes, but in losin' we coped,
becomin' more than we hoped,
creationists slipped on the soap of their own slippery slope.

Not exactly the type of thing a creationist would probably write. You don't tend to denigrate anothers position by writing from their position in (what they would view) a truthful way, scientists do tend to see the scopes trial as an event that despite being lost has proven to in the long run be a great victory for science, sort of a Pyrrhic victory for the creationists. Those on the ID side seem to have totally ignored this, its as if they can't get past the funny video to see the actually content. The scientists do exactly what scientists do however, they look, question, theorize, argue, test and search for evidence ironically precisely the type of things that the creationists claim that the evil "Darwinist" cabal never does.

Then there is the fact that the video uses the word Creationism, something IDists try very hard not to, if this is a viral for ID, its not a very good one, because it ties ID to creationism, by making use of a logo similar to Expelled (the ID propaganda piece) but using the word creationism throughout. The whole point of ID is to circumvent the separation of church and state in the US, by saying the intelligent designer could be anyone/thing, not necessarily the God of the Bible ("nudge, nudge, wink, wink, it is actually God though pastor"), thereby allowing them to teach it in schools. By providing yet more evidence that creationism and ID are one and the same, someone is going seriously off message.

Then some of the other lyrics are particularly good, eluding to the development of the scientific method, which the machine appears to be a metaphor for.

You see, this battle's been ragin' since Zeus was on the bottle,
'tween Science like Democritus and Faith like Aristotle,

who said the mover was unmovin' like some magic trick,
but that's no good logic, my posse is far too quick for this religious sthick.

I just don't see a creationist/IDist including something like this at all, its far to cerebral, their arguments usually descend to claims about evolution being uprovable or some such nonsense, not a reasonably good description of the roots of scientific thought. How the ID side could think that this is in support of their side is beyond me, I can only presume that either they don't know what it refers to, or that they just didn't really listen.

All in all it could have been made by either side, but I'm tending to fall into the thinking that it was made by someone who is somewhat in the middle. Someone who understands that creationism/ID is non-science and utterly vacuous, but who is uncomfortable with the more forthright attitudes and statements of the more prominent atheists featured such Dawkins, PZ Myers and Hitchens.

Whoever made it congratulations you have real talent. I just wonder what will happen if it is revealed to be the work of a partisan from either side, my guess is nothing if it is the work of an IDist, but if someone pro-science made it I would expect it to be pulled from the likes of uncommon descent rather rapidly.

Pot meet Kettle

In another example of the rank hypocrisy on display by the pro-ID fringe, Ftk decides to complain that PZ Myers won't engage her in email conversation:

Oh, btw, your experience with emailing PZ sounds very similiar to mine. He basically told me to get lost and he wouldn't respond to me again.

Nice guy that one...

Coming from someone that only allows comments from sycophants, or occasionally from people that disagree, so that she can subsequently block their comments to make it appear she has won the argument this is particularly amusing.

Expelled - No Intelligence Displayed

FtK has more dishonesty on display today regarding the PZ Myers/ Richard Dawkins PR coup of the other day :

I hate to say it....

...BUT I TOLD YOU SO.

The Myers/Dawkins fiasco IS TEH BEST THING THAT *EVAH* COULD HAVE HAPPENED!!!

*BIG HUG AND KISS* to both PZ & Richard. You guys are the best! Who da thought you'd help us fill the theatres!!!

Behold...

EXPELLED controversy top issue in blogosphere

Hundreds Turn Out for Seattle Screening of Ben Stein Film Expelled

It is a stellar day for Intelligent Design...

There are a couple of important points/disclaimers about her post that I think she should be more up front about, the first point I made I'll let her off for, it may simply be too subtle to realise that a previously invited crowd of people who already share your beliefs are unlikely to have been affected by the last weeks events. The second just shows her being dishonest, presenting a press release from the makers of the film without commenting that that is what it is. Anyway here is my comment which will probably never see the light of day on her blog.

Following the second link:

A crowd of 350 invited guests attended a pre-screening of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed tonight in Seattle's Pacific Place.

So how did the Myers/Dawkins incident influence this turnout?

This screening was for 350 invited guests, presumably invited before the terrible PR debacle (from an ID POV) of the other day. It's not like these were people that heard about the incident and thought they would like to see the film, they were just like every other audience for the pre screenings carefully selected beforehand to agree with ID.

The first is a link to a press release from the producers of the film, hardly a balanced view. Go on FtK, why not "teach the controversy" and link to PZ's post where he raises his objections to that bit of PR. This is a chance for you to prove that your not like those close minded evolutionists you dislike so much.

In fact here is the link for you:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/lying_by_press_release.php

Sometimes its not what is said, but what is unsaid that matters.

No Intelligence Allowed - 2

Continuing the series, my last post didn't make it through, my latest attempt is at the end of this copy:




Blogger Forthekids said...
Yo, Mark...flipped another one of your posts off into space. Dude, quit repeating yourself, and read the Q&A. The answers to your questions ARE THERE.

Ya blind? Quit making me repeat myself.
3:51 PM


Blogger Forthekids said...
Jon, PT's forum has all kinds of nonsense about the flick.

Start here, and notice also that Kristine gives J-Dog the big "Shhhh", when he mentions that someone should tell PZ about the event. Kinda tellin' no?

Whatever....they've been talking about the movie over there for ages. It's pretty obvious that some of the bloggers and forum regulars have been planning to go to screenings, and obviously many of them have been refered to as "private". That means something in my book, and they know it as well.

Nobody has stopped them from going in as far as I know. Even PZ's group was allowed in the movie.
8:31 PM




I didn't think that that post would make it through, so I took the liberty of copying it on my blog, that way everyone can see that nothing untoward was being said.

I've been through your FAQs and their links, at least as much as I can manage, I don't have a lot of free time. The nearest I got to an explanation of why ID is an inherently fundamentalist Christian phenomenon was this:

Certainly, Christian, Islamic and Jewish belief systems consider this designing source to be "God" or "Allah", but it appears that even pantheistic religions question Darwinism (in it's materialistic definition) as is seen in the views of the Dali Lama.

Notice that this doesn't claim that anyone else is actually working on ID, I also found this link in the FAQ http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1178, the question is:

Is ID just in the US or is it International?

The response is:

FAQ still in progress.

I guess thats a no then.

If you know of some links that show the ID research being done by non-Christians it would be appreciated if you just gave me them, I really don't have time to be trawling the internet if someone else can save me the time.

No Intelligence Allowed

Hey all, after a very long hiatus I am back at least for a while, I've got a thesis to write and a fairly tight time frame, so got to crack on.

This post is just a copy of a comments section I have been engaged in for a day or two, the author of the blog, the inimitable FtK has taken to blocking any comments that she can't understand/has no answer for. This I obviously find pretty annoying, coming from a confirmed IDist I find it particularly hypocritical, its no good claiming that scientists refuse to engage with you, then deleting any comments that disprove your points. Now obviously its her blog to do with as she pleases, but if your going to go around deleting perfectly civil comments for no reason then they make you look foolish I think its highly intellectually dishonest. It also has the effect of making it possible to claim that people were being rude or discourteous which is unfair. Personally I only delete comments when they are offensive (very rarely) or trying to hawk some product (much more common).

So from now on, in my dealings with FtK, or others of similar habits, I'll post a copy of any comments I make here as well, then we can all see what it is that they have such problems with.

Here is the comments section in full, its basically all about the PZ Myers being expelled by IDists from a showing of a film they made, which they tricked him into appearing in, oh, and the whole topic of the film is how scientists won't allow open discussion of ID, oh, and although they chucked him out they happened to miss Richard Freaking Dawkins, who was standing in line with Myers. You can read the whole thing, or at least the bits not censored here.



Blogger Jon Voisey said...
I still don't get this harping on the "ZOMG! He didnt haf a tikit!!?!" I keep seeing from the creationist camp.

No one had a ticket!

No one tried to "sneak in" or "gate crash". The signed up for an opening screening to the public with their real names!

This blatant attempt to misportray the engagement really is dishonest.
7:27 PM


Blogger Forthekids said...
I didn't say anything about having a ticket. Makes no difference really. These are private screenings, and they can invite or turn away anyone they want to. I think it's hilarious that all of you think it's a big deal.

Honestly, they seem like gate crashers to me. I mean, come on, PZ and Dawkins showing up to the private screenings of a movie they've been slamming for months? LOL...fun times, but certainly not appropriate on their part...rather sophomoric.

Oh, btw, you said that "No one had a ticket!" Wrong. this guy did.
8:05 PM

Anonymous Mellow Middle Aged Man said...

Why are the Darwinists so upset?

Its just a movie, and their evidence is OVERWHELMING.

Right?

Uh, isn't that right?
1:18 AM


Blogger Jon Voisey said...
I didn't say anything about having a ticket.
Chapman did.

These are private screenings, and they can invite or turn away anyone they want to.
Quite true. But the fact that they waited until PZ was actually in line, and then didn't kick out Dawkins... seriously. WTF?

And it seems that there was more than one method to gain access. It sounds like they probably sent ticked invitations to religious organizations and then offered the rest to the public. But again, tickets were not required. Thus to insist (as Chapman do and so many other creationists covering this) that PZ and Dawkins should not have been there given that they didn't have tickets is an outright lie.

And how is it not appropriate? I knew the movie What the *Bleep* Do We Know? was a load of crock from a basic summary, but I still saw it. Just because I disagree with it means it's "certainly not appropriate" for me to watch it?

Why are the Darwinists so upset?
Because Creationists like this are astounding hypocrites, that lie, abuse ad hominemns, quote mine (but FTK is cool with that), etc.... and yet, the majority of America is so befuddled when it comes to basic science and logic, that they swallow it. We're not upset that we think that our theory is wrong, but rather that we should have to defend reality from such liars.
8:32 AM


Blogger Forthekids said...
Like I said at UD, Jon...

What they did was sophomoric. Obviously, these are private screenings, and it’s also obvious that Myers went in just to be a shyster.

Think about it. If Myers thought what he was doing was on the up and up, he would have blogged about it before hand just like he blogs about everything he’s involved in.

Internet Darwinsts have been joking about getting into the movie by signing up as preachers, etc. They understand that the screenings aren’t meant for the general public at this point. Myers knows that as well.

Obviously, Myers wanted to create commotion by slipping into the flick, and he did. Actually, he created even more than he planned to. Personally, I see nothing wrong with turning a guy like him away, and like I said…this *will* bring more people to the theatres.
8:41 AM


Blogger Forthekids said...
btw, Jon, your little rant about IDers being liars, quote miners, ignorant of science, etc. is so obviously untrue.

Like I said, hopefully the flick will bring people to these on-line debates, and they can judge for themselves in regard to the scientific issues in this debate.

Oh wait, people like you and Myers believe that 90% of Americans are ignorant and border on insane, so I'm guessing that you believe they still won't understand the science. Pity that the grand majority of Americans are such morons. You science "elite" need to hold are hands and lead us away from God and into glories of science.

Gag. You've turned science into a pagan religion. It's disgusting.
8:48 AM


Blogger Larry Fafarman said...
This story has made it into the NY Times and is all over the Internet -- just Google "PZ Myers" and "Expelled." Not surprisingly, the NY Times article was written by Cornelia Dean, who has a long history of bias against criticism of Darwinism.[1][2][3][4]

Sleazy PZ Myers is an unscrupulous BVD-clad blogger who arbitrarily censors comments and commenters. I should know -- I am at the top of his "killfile dungeon" list of banned commenters.

IMO, prescreening "Expelled" was a bad idea. This incident involving Sleazy PZ is being used against the movie, and also a prescreening for Florida state legislators was criticized as violating the spirit of the state's sunshine laws because the legislators got a chance to see the movie before the public gets a chance to see it and comment on it.
10:37 AM


Blogger Forthekids said...
So, Larry, do you think that the general public won't attend the film due to these loud atheists throwing hissy fits?

Personally, I think that will bring the public to the theatres in droves.

If the producers have done their job and exposed the scientific community for the crap they've pulled, then I think the entire episode is beneficial.
11:06 AM


Blogger Jon Voisey said...
he would have blogged about it before hand

Since when does PZ blog about anything before hand except big coffehouse meetups? There's been several occasions where he's written about something after the fact that I didn't know about before hand.

Internet Darwinsts have been joking about getting into the movie by signing up as preachers, etc.

Really? And I suppose you should show me where? The only claims I've seen to anyone "sneaking in as a preacher" was a false allegation from the producers against a reporter who was invited (and later uninvited) with a whole bunch of preachers. But never did he actually pretend to be one.

they can judge for themselves in regard to the scientific issues in this debate.

Are you really that dense? Even those that support the movie have said it's devoid of science. It's just "ZOMG persecution" and "evolution = atheism = eugenics = nazis".

This is not a movie that will inform anyone about the "scientific issues".

You science "elite" need to hold are hands and lead us away from God and into glories of science.

I do my best to make my science posts extremely detailed so that anyone can follow them. But time and time again, I see that Creationists can't even understand or accept the scientific method (which you yourself have rejected because you don't like methodological naturalism). It's impossible to hold anyone's hand or lead them anywhere when they're pulling back, throwing hissy fits going "I DUN WANNA!"

And it's not about leading people from God. I really could care less.
11:45 AM


Blogger Mark Norris said...
It would seem that if ID had anything going for it there would be plenty of people jumping on the bandwagon, after all not all research is done by atheist Americans or Europeans. Where I wonder are all of the excellent Chinese, Indian, Korean etc researchers working on ID? How is the supposed suppression by atheist scientists in the US/Europe preventing them researching ID? Why then is no one working seriously on ID?

Could it be because ID offers no predictions, no testable hypotheses, nothing but a shrug of the shoulders and a "God did it" whenever things get complicated?

If you are forced to admit that to call ID science you have to accept astrology as science then you may as well pack up and go home. I wonder FtK do you think astrology is science?

By the way, regarding the matter at hand even Kevin Miller admits PZ was there legitimately

http://kevinwrites.typepad.com/otherwise_known_as_kevin_/2008/03/i-repent.html


You science "elite" need to hold are hands and lead us away from God and into glories of science.

I don't think anyone is remotely interested in leading you away from your faith, however if your faith requires you to believe something demonstrably false then I think you have problems. There are plenty of very good scientists out there who are perfectly capable of reconciling their faith and science, with the proviso that where the two conflict, the one with the empirical evidence wins. I mean honestly what is the big deal, surely no one is really a biblical literalist anymore.
11:46 AM

Blogger Larry Fafarman said...
Forthekids said...
Personally, I think that will bring the public to the theatres in droves.



I then made a comment here, sorry I didn't keep a copy of it, the gist of it however was to repeat my question as to why ID has no real support from people of any faith other than evangelical Christian. Then I pasted the court transcript where Behe admits under oath, that if ID is science so is astrology. Namely this bit:

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.

I don't think she liked it:


You're right, Mark. Your last comment didn't see the light of day. I told you that the responses to your accusations can be found at my frequently asked questions page. Read and enjoy, or buzz off. Thank you.
4:18 AM



Here is my response:
Its good to see that you live up to the ID crowds stated aim of allowing a free and open discussion. We'll leave the matter about Behe's statements then seeing as you apparently believe they are of no import.

How about at least answering my question about why the only people interested in ID are of the evangelical Christian persuasion. Where are all of the Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Jews etc looking for the hand of Brahma, Allah, Vāhigurū or Yahweh? If ID is science, then it is universal, it should be self evident to anyone, regardless of their religious beliefs that it has merit. The fact that it only seems to be of merit to one subset of one peculiarly American brand of religion seems to be a problem for its credibility, do you not agree?


We'll just have to see whether this one disappears.

Political Stupidity

Does anyone else get the distinct feeling of being on a sinking ship? Its like rationality after 200 years of increasingly calm seas has run up against an island of stupidity and is slowly taking on water.

I'm sure most people reading this have seen the flap around the blogosphere (I hate that term, really need a new one) that 3/10 of the Republican presidential candidates don't believe in Evolution. I've been following it in a distracted kind of way, mostly because it makes my head hurt that people this dumb think that they are suitable material to lead the richest most technologically advanced nation on Earth. Chris Cillizza has a post on the Washington Post about the debate, more interesting I think are the comments people have responded with, they are utterly depressing to anyone that believes in rational thought. Check them out here (a free subscription may be required).

Here are a selection of some of the best, or worst depending on your point of view. Usually the creationists just fall on name calling and threats of eternal damnation (anyone else feel like we're already there?), though sometimes they're not above simply lying about the evidence for evolution. They also seem to like to confuse the scientific and laypersons use of the term "theory", they don't seem to have a problem with the theory of gravity though. Strange that.

How many of y'all evolutionists were there 6,000 years ago? But we "fundamentalists" have an eyewitness account!

Hey evolutionists - get a clue scientifically. It's a THEORY. No transitionary species ever found, and no real proof. Talk about a belief system that requires faith. You folks just don't WANT to believe in the Bible or in the God of the bible.

Break your chains of inculcation; evolution - as a theory of origin - is a fully, scientifically debunked myth. Open your mind, view science as a method and not a religion, and THINK FOR YOURSELF! Evolution is a 19th century false religion that has been completely exposed as such.

Biology DOES NOT rely on EVILUTION Yes I spelled Evolution as EVILution for that is what that deception is when it moves from the Science part (Micro) of small adaptions over time into the belief part (MACRO) small changes over LONG TIME HAD TO give us all this variety.

Because it isn't all bad, here are a few of the better retorts from the reality based community.

God gave you malaria. Science cured it. God gave you polio. Science cured it. God gave you most children dying before adulthood and many women dying in childbirth. Science made both rare. God gave you 99% of mankind starving so 1% could live like kings. Science lets most eat (while that 1% still live like kings). God gave you darkness and exhaustion at night, science gave you a light bulb and a computer and the time and energy with which to rant about the greatness and goodness of God and the stupidity and evil of science.

"The Pope has sanctioned the teaching of evolution in his recent Bull"FINALLY, someone is calling these fiats issued on scientitific questions by these nonscientist tribal chieftains by their appropriate term.

Welcome to the Republican party, please set your watch back 200 years.

I'm sure if you asked the candidates what our economic or military policies should be they would have somewhat informed opinions, but when it comes to making hard decisions they would defer to the acknowledged experts, i.e. Ph.D economists and generals. Yet for some reason when it comes to science and especially biology, these guys have ill-informed opinions and can't even acknowledge that their beliefs go against what the overwhelming majority of the experts believe. Their willful ignorance in this area may never directly influence what they do as President, but it says a lot about their character and their leadership style. The last 5 years are a great example of what happens when you get a POTUS who listens only to God, and ignores the experts.

Amen!

Science of Ugliness

The BBC has an interesting story about a potential explanation to a paradox of evolution. The paradox to be put bluntly is that there are still ugly people around, if females select their mates on the basis of looks then over time evolution should favour the genes that give rise to better looking people. Eventually everyone should be beautiful. Some of that noisy band of idiots that try to refute evolution like to use this argue that evolution is false.

This "paradox" seems to me to be inherently wrong anyway, it makes the assumption that women have always been free to choose who they marry, which of course is blatantly not the case. It also of course neglects the impact of women choosing to marry for reasons other than looks, money being the obvious example.

Regardless of this, the researchers Professor Marion Petrie and Dr Gilbert Roberts of Newcastle University believe they have found a mechanism that explains why we are not all models.

The scientists claim that since genetic mutations can occur anywhere in the genome, some will affect the DNA repair kit possessed by all cells.

As a result, some individuals have less efficient repair kits, resulting in greater variation in their DNA as damage goes unrepaired.

This variation leads naturally to a variation in looks, it probably has other effects which are more beneficial to the population, like providing a wide range of mutations some of which could be useful in fending off disease for example. In other words it looks like there is a balance in a population between everyone looking good and having a wide enough variation in the population to be able to resist changes in the environment. Exactly as natural selection would predict.

Best. Conservapedia. Article. Ever.

I've just come across the best conservapedia article ever, its for the Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus, I guess it goes to show if you believe Dinosaurs roamed the Earth at the time of Jesus, or that unicorns were real and a type of dinosaur, you truly will believe in anything, even an octopus that lives in trees.

At least I should be pleased that its one of their few pages lacking any sign of bigotry or intolerance.

Conservapedia

The blogging world (well the sentient part of it) has been all over Conservapedia this week making some hilarious discoveries. For those of you that have been under a rock for the last week Conservapedia is the wingnuts attempt at making an "unbiased" version of wikipedia, by which they mean a version which is totally biased towards the right-wing creationist fundamentalist Christian demographic. For various other blogs on the subject try, here, here, here and here. Unfortunately the site is running extremely slowly, probably because so many bloggers are now causing mischief by editing the entries. Beware when reading it though, not only is it often (unintentionally) funny but its also incredibly difficult to read, the entries generally read like a 9 year old wrote them for a school project.

Some of the entries are very funny, it must be pointed out that its difficult to know how many of these articles are legit and how many were actually put up by people taking the piss. For example here is part of the entry describing a Democrat, as in a member of the Democratic Party:

According to leading conservative thinkers, no good Christian would ever be a Democrat. Catholics identify as Democrats more than Republican, but the opposite is true for Evangelicas. The major tenets of the modern Democrat platform include cowering to terrorism, cocaine presidents, corporate profits, and establishment of an aristocratic, faux-religious state. However, contempt for all the founding principles of America is not yet an official prerequisite for entry into the Democrat party.

Or how about part of the entry on Charles Darwin.

While often regarded by the majority of modern biologists (who accept evolution) as "the father of modern biology," Darwin himself was aware that some aspects of his work were not as scientific as he wished. However, this theory is promulgated by extremely biased groups not recognized as real science, or, truly, advanced critical thought.

This part from the entry on Bill Clinton is clearly a piss take. I guess they have been too swamped to change it yet.

Bill Clinton managed to serve two terms without botching the prosecution of two wars, manipulating intelligence, engaging in a systematic program of torture, or mishandling the federal response to flooding of a major American city. Obviously, he is the devil incarnate. Clinton also attempted to use the American military to kill Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, an action which was properly seen as a mere attempt to distract the nation from the Monica Lewisnky scandal.

Some entries are well somewhat lacking in content, take this one, which is the entire entry for France.

A country in Europe. Thrived during the middle ages. The capitol is Paris, France, which was founded in the Middle Ages.

Thrived during the Middle Ages, thats it? Or how about Germany? Again this is the whole entry complete with spelling mistakes.

A country in central Europe that was blamed for both Wolrd Wars and claimed to be the dominate race of mankind.

So there we have it the conservative view of everything you need to know about two of the most powerful countries on Earth. Kind of explains US foreign policy for the last 6 years doesn't it?

You can see how the site descended into a free for all as there we're people being banned at a rate of about 1 every ten minutes, in fact they have suspended new accounts now. Surely they could see that this was always going to be the outcome? Their ideas can only survive because they are so insular (its meant to help home schooled kids), any technology that allowed free discussion and presentation of the facts was clearly going to lead to articles that were reality based and hence not at all what they were looking for.

The Philosophy Of Science

The Philosophy of Science is not something I have really given any thought to, it always seemed so obvious what Science is that it didn't really need defining. In light of those damn Intelligent Designers/Creationists I've come to realise that this isn't the case. The people that push ID in the states are making a consistent attempt to redefine the definition of Science so that it can include supernatural explanations, which is clearly utter bullshit. Their main aim is simply to redefine Science so broadly that they can get past the requirement for separation of church and state in the US and begin to teach Creationisms bastard offspring, ID, in schools.

My own personal view on what Science is (and is not) is fairly simple. Science is the pursuit of knowledge of the natural world through purely natural explanations (no magic thank you). For a theory to be scientifically valid it has to do two things, it must make predictions about phenomena, and importantly those predictions must be falsifiable. It is on this second point that Intelligent Design falls down, this paper which is fairly short (6 pages) and can be understood by anyone (no maths at all) makes very interesting reading for anyone interested in why Intelligent Design will always remain non-science. Its also fairly good at elucidating just what Science is about. Note: As is this blog post which contains the excellently succinct definition of Science favoured by Richard Feynman: "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

I would personally put the Scientific Method as one of the pinnacles of human achievement, leading to a level of knowledge and control over the natural world incomprehensible to our less enlightened ancestors. To think that people want to change that because they see it as a challenge to their faith is beyond me. Get over it, why should the Creation story in the Bible interpreted literally when other parts are interpreted allegorically? How many Creationists that believe you will go to hell if you don't believe the literal truth of Genesis, also follow all of the commandments in the Bible, including ones like:

Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19) (Presumably in case you start to wear clothes that look a little bit fruity, if you know what I mean.)

If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.(Leviticus 20:9) (I imagine they would die out quickly if they were putting their kids to death for a little bit of back chat.)

Say to Aaron: 'For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed (Leviticus 21:17-18) (Doesn't sound very Christian does it? But there you go, the disabled are clearly not allowed to worship at the altar of God.)

Its the selectivity of their arguments that drives me nuts, some parts have to be believed without question, but the actual commandments of God, well you can pick and choose which of those you like the sound of.

Many people worry that the wingnuts are attempting redefine the things they don't agree with to gain more control and brainwash more people into their frankly ludicrous outlook, this may be true, but I always tend to look at why people are really doing this, fear. Inside every Creationist is the constant gnawing fear that they are wrong, they hope for certainty in numbers, after all if everyone believes what they do then they must be right, right? Their actions are not driven by any perceived rightness of their beliefs but by their obvious weakness in the face of real evidence. They cannot win on a level scientific playing field (hey we have the fossils) so they attempt to alter the rules to improve their chances.

Possibly The Saddest Thing I've Ever Seen

A truly horrifying video. A tip of the hat to Ben Goldacre's Bad Science.



What's so scary is that most of those kids really never had a chance, they will never be able to think for themselves, from age 0 they have been reduced to living automatons. If it is this easy to indoctrinate people to believe stuff that is clearly nonsense, just how difficult must it be to have them believe anything? This is why a rational outlook on the world is so important, it really is one very small jump from believing this kind of anti-factual rubbish to justifying absolutely any of the worst things humans are capable of because some old book tells you its ok.

Just look at some of the bullshit they are being taught, dinosaurs and men living together, the world is 6000 years old (so God has just set it up exactly so it looks older?), the good old lie that evolution says people are decended from monkeys, I don't know about you but the guy giving the talk looks a bit ape-like to me, so maybe there is something in that one.

Doctor of Perjury?

Over at Pharyngula there is a story that caught my eye. See the post here for more details but in brief the important points are the following: That a young Earth creationist has been award a PhD in Geosciences from the University of Rhode Island, his dissertation apparently deals with fossil sea creatures that died out 65 million years ago, this despite his avowed belief that the world is only 10,000 years old at most. So he has spent 4 years writing a thesis which he has then defended to a group of his peers, despite not believing a word of it. Wow the world is nuts.

I mention this story because I remember a similar situation when I was an undergraduate, we had one YEC on our Physics course, he sat through the lectures on Astronomy/Cosmology with a smirk that signified that he knew something the rest of us didn't, no doubt satisfied that all of the observational evidence that the Earth and Universe are vastly older than 6,000 (or whatever he believed) years was made up as some sort of prank by God. I really can't get my head round the type of person that would spend 4 years studying a degree that they believe to be totally wrong, someone that would go into a area of research already certain that anything they discovered that disagreed with their own worldview must be wrong. Its a total anathema to what science is meant to stand for.

Planet Earth Calling Dr Walt Brown

As I am presently working up a "final" refutation of Autodynamics I thought it would be a good idea to look around for similar examples of woolly thinking, poor science or downright fabrications. It turns out the web is full of such nuts, who knew?

One in particular stands out for having many of the best qualities a crank should have, including (but not limited to) a preconceived opinion of what the answer should be based on some non-scientific reasoning, in this case a religious belief. Second a whole roster of pretty impressive qualifications, non of which have anything to do with the topic under study, here the guy is an engineer (aren't they always?) but somehow thinks that this qualifies him to discuss the intricacies of stellar evolution or even biological evolution. Dur, well stars are just like big light bulbs right?

Step forward Dr Walt Brown of the Center for Scientific Creation, successful engineer, lousy astronomer/geologist/biologist/thermodynamicist. His website which can be found here, is so painfully wrong, twists facts so badly, uses data so out of date, that it nearly makes my eyes bleed, that and the crap colour scheme. I'm sorry but all those qualifications and income from a bunch of wingnut funds should have got something prettier to look at. If you hadn't guessed from the name, its mainly aimed at "proving" that the Earth and the Universe is 6000 years old, eurgh, I mean for Gods sake, we have archaeological evidence of cities from further back than this, even before getting onto the f*%£ing dinosaurs. To be fair I don't think this site is designed to convince anyone, merely to quiet the questions raised by the already brainwashed, no one with any kind of ability for rational thought could really be taken in. It does however seem a frighteningly small step between this and a demand that this crap be taught in science lessons for "balance".

The only thing that niggles me and prevents me from going into full ass kicking mode is that someone else has done it, probably better than I could. Sigh. Check out the story over here at the angry astronomer. Oh and also at pharyngula. I leave a full dissection of all the Dr Walts rubbish as an exercise for the reader, its not really difficult to see where the problems are, but should anyone have any questions feel free to ask away.

Education, Edukation, Edjuckation

Hi All, its been a long time since I lasted posted, this has mostly been due me being away for Christmas, working on Phase IIs for the telescope time I got (this is where we set up the way we want our observations to be taken), writing a paper, and trying to help my girlfriend through the awful confusion that is teacher training.

Anyway now I'm back and want to jump right into something I noticed while at home. In a town near my home called Blyth there are plans to set up a new Academy, nothing too special there except that this Academy is going to be partly funded by the Christian Fundamentalist "Philanthropist" Peter Vardy. For those of you who don't know who he is, he is a man who made his fortune selling cars, now he spends his time and money trying to brainwash children to try to buy back his soul. His Emmanuel Schools Foundation currently runs 3 schools, with plans for 4 more (apparently 7 is an auspicious number in the Bible).

The schools are built and run under one of the governments worst thought out Private Finance Initiatives, for the investment of £2million (or about 9%) of the cost of building one of these schools, Peter Vardy gets total control of the school, he chooses the Headteacher all but 2 of the board of governors. This despite the schools running costs being entirely met by standard funding from the Education authorities. Does this seem like a terrible deal to anyone else? It gets worse when after 25 years the land the school is built on also becomes legally theirs! Land that was probably owned by the council and worth considerably more than £2 million, it seems Mr Vardy has gone from dodgy cars to dodgy real estate deals now.

The schools have courted a great deal of controversy through their teachings, which have occasionally seemed to contradict the guidelines of the DFES, as well as their hiring practices. I personally know of one teacher at one of the academy's that was told they would not be hired if they "lived in sin", remember their wages are being paid for by you and me (well not me, yet), yet one man who will actually make a huge amount of money out of the deal gets to decide who is suitable to teach our children. I could go on for hours listing all the things that are wrong with these schools, from the fact that they teach creationism, to the fact that they are inherently homophobic intolerant places, but other people have done it better so here are some links.

This one is particularly good.
Wiki as always has the goods.

I sincerely hope Blyth manages to keep these wing nuts away from their schools, and shame on the government for blackmailing them so that the only way they can get the new schools Blyth so obviously needs is by selling their children's minds.

For a final thought, what a crazy world we live in when a left wing government gives control of education to a bunch or right wing zealots.

Sometimes I Despair

Sometimes it just seems that the world is being over run by a tidal wave of fundamentalist nut jobs.

Check out this BBC story about the creation "museum". Just look at the scene of the kids playing with baby T-Rexs.

The main thing that I take away from this is the 40% of the worlds richest nation are either sheep, brainwashed or just plain idiots. The thought that just one normal person could be convinced by this rubbish is deeply disturbing, perhaps its time we came up with some way to fight back for reason and sense, otherwise all us rational people are going to be caught up when this bunch of religious fundamentalist madmen decide to take on some other bunch.

Personally I'm hoping to move to Mars, at least you can guarantee you won't have to put up with this lunacy there, its fairly unlikely that any of these types that won't read anything but the Bible is going to make it that far.