The Evidence for Evolution: Science Works

Perhaps the best evidence for evolution, is that the science works. Practically every day we see results from evolution leading to new things; inventions, patents, medical treatments, and fruitful new areas of research and discovery. These are all hallmarks of good science. If someone thinks evolution is wrong, then it is upon them to offer anew theory - a theory that can do everything the old theory can do AND MORE. 

MOST of us have seen numerous TV commercials advertizing medical trearments that derive from evolutionary theory. There is going to be a lot more of that in the next 20 years and beyond.

There were other theories of evolution before Darwin published "Origin, and none of these remain as more than the history of science. Darwin's theory has long since been surpassed and expanded, resulting in the Modern Synthesis. Darwin's key contribution is still an important part of that, and can be summarized in three words: "Selection Happens Naturally". Even the most ardent of evolution deniers, when asked if they agree with this simple hypothesis, say nothing, or accept it conditionally (and that's a good start.)

I rejoined one of those silly FB groups where claims "there is no evidence for evolution" appear several times a day. This prompted mr to finally write the down for future use, rather than typing it out every time. I should have done this years ago! 

*

Ken Ham and the AiG Follies

I have a several pages of notes from Ken Ham's recent presentation, and wrote about one example of the things he gets wrong. This could keep my busy blogging for a year if I so chose, but I think it's not worthwhile making a point-by-point rebuttal to everything he said. That don't mean I can't have some fun with it!

Therefore, for your amusement, I am going to simply list all the greatly wrong points I noted. In other words, pretty much everything. Quotes are approximate, everything else is my paraphrase, but I'll try to keep them as close to the original as my notes and recollection will allow. I won't bother with the rebuttals, as everyone probably knows them all anyway. Well, maybe a few ... I will decorate with a few quips and comments [in brackets] and irrelevant images along the way.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Ken Ham and the AiG Follies!

"The church is losing two-thirds of the coming generations." [Gosh, I wonder why?] "We need to teach apologetics ... I have a radical approach - teach Genesis 1:1 and give them a foundation to understand. ... We have lost Biblical authority!" [another mystery! AND a comic book!] "Come see the Ark!" [Instead of learning something.]

"Bill Nye the Pagan Guy, Bill Nye the Atheist Guy, whatever." [I don't think he likes Bill Nye, nor is he fond of Eugenie Scott]

"Radiometric error ..."
"Molecules to Man ..."

Experiment or observational science versus Origins or historical science: "Ask them, 'Were you there?'" [The guy sitting in front of me keeps nodding his head vigorously every time he this Ham makes a point.]
Science is brainwashing
Naturalism is atheism [yawn]
"Bill Nye says the Ark park will undermine science education."
Evolution is unnecessary, "Show me one example of evolution leading to technical advancements". [OK, how about all the emerging field of Evolutionary Medicine, gene therapies, and cures that are coming into use? Genetic algorithms too. Now show me one example of the Bible leading to a technical innovation.]

"Science says the Earth is round, and the Earth is millions of years old!" [Billions, actually.]
"The Bible says you are either for Christ or against." [False dichotomy, but whatever.]
I don't want to be too much like Bill Nye, but I call myself "Ken Ham the observational science ... um ... bloke. That's Australian for 'guy'."
"The Bible is God's observational science textbook." [His edition is rather out of date.]
"The seven day week comes from the Bible, proof the Bible is true." [Yes, he really did say pretty much that.]
"Watson and Crick, atheist scientists, discovered DNA." [Hey, we finally have a completely true statement!]
DNA is information. DNA is a language. [Noddy head guys is going to have a sore neck tomorrow.]
Werner Gitt says if there is no information, there is no matter. [Plugging some AiG book, I think.]
DNA proves God. Biochemistry confirms this. [I'd like the chemical formula for God, please.]

How many animals were needed on the Noah's Ark? All they needed were Kinds, or 'Min'. Horse kind, "We have a zorse and a zonkey at the Creation Museum petting zoo." [We still have the fossils!]
All the species we see today are the result of genetic recombination, loss of information, and sin! They are degenerate mutants. [Ham hates poodles too. Seriously hates them.] There are 10^2017 possible genetic combinations possible from just two perfect humans. Natural selection leads to all the kinds we see today. [Clearly some of us ended up in the shallow end of the gene pool.]
Every new mutation is a loss of information.
Every new species is a combination of existing genetic information.
It's all a loss of information! [Noddy head guy is bouncing like a bobblehead.]

[Ordinarily I would have a field day with all this misuse of Information, but I'm saving that for a special post.]

Ooh la la!

Atheists redefine terms to allow abortion, transgender men in women's bathrooms, gay marriage, our atheist President thinks Lucy was human.
Life begins at fertilization, not implantation [Ranting about abortion]

See? I told you!

Women can take their shirts off in public, because they ignore the Bible. [There could be worse things than women taking their shirts off.]

Millions of years is a problem for Christians [Billions is OK I guess.]
All creatures were vegetarians before the flood. [What about all those years between original sin and the flood?]
The world is decaying. "It's an ugly world, with a remnant of beauty." [This almost make me pity Ham. Almost.]

Erosion at Mt. St. Helens proves catastrophic floods can create all the geologic features we see.
"There is plenty of water for a global flood," because everything was nearly flat before the flood.
Grand Canyon lakes and surges deposits show the GC was made by The Flood.
The evidence is all there. [Noddy head shouts "Amen!"]

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson fuel racism.
All people are the same color, just a different shade of brown.
Darwin is responsible for racism, because people do not acknowledge absolute Biblical authority.
Science causes evil [paraphrased]
We should be shocked by what the church believes [but not his church?]
The problem with the church is that too many accept evolution and science.
With no Biblical foundation, this leads to inconsistent beliefs.
Wrong foundation, therefore abortion!
"Run rings around the atheists with Answers!" [sales pitch for his tracts]
Get your Foundations education kit, for this special low low price, today only ...

"Now it's time to pay, err ... I mean pray." Be sure to buy my crap on the way out. [And then he ends his science lecture with a prayer.]

Ladies and Gentlemen, this concludes this evening's entertainment. You've been a great audience. Come back and see us next time!

And you know what they say in show biz - Always leave them laughing. That's not too hard when your subject is Ken Ham.

Ken Ham on the age of the Earth

In my last post, An Evening with Ken Ham, I stated:

[Ham] would never address a real scientific question. Ham's approach to science is is entirely superficial, and his interest in science ends the moment he finds a trivial sound-bite that he can use in his sermons.

I thought I might follow up on that with my favorite quote from the evening; a self-contradictory statement which is wrong on two levels. This was a shorter version of this quote I am using here, taken from the Ham-Nye debate of February 4, 2014 [my emphasis added]:

Image source: Patheos.com

Ham: Now, a lot of people say, by the way, the Earth's age is 4.5 billion years old. And we have radioactive decay dating methods that bound that. We certainly observe radioactive decay, whether it's rubidium –strontium, uranium – lead, or potassium-argon, but when you are talking about the past, you have a problem. Let me give you an example. In Australia there were engineers that were trying to search out about a coal mine, so they drilled down and they found a basalt layer, or lava flow that had woody material in it, branches and twigs and so on, and when Dr. Andrew Snelling, our PhD geologist sent that to a lab in Massachusetts in 1994, they used the potassium-argon dating method and dated it at 45 million years old. Well, we also sent the wood to the radiocarbon section of the same lab, and they dated it at 45,000 years old. 45,000 year old wood in 45 million year old rock. The point is, there is a problem [1].

Yes there is a problem - Ham just said the Earth is at least 45,000 years old. If he really believes the Earth is just 6000 years old he should reject this estimate too. Is the dating right, or is it wrong? MAKE UP YOUR MIND PLEASE!

I could be more generous; perhaps he meant there is a problem between 45,000 years and 45,000,000 years. Here too the problem is self-evident. In fact it is such a boner that I didn't catch the 6000 years bug at first. Here it is again:

... we also sent the wood to the radiocarbon section of the same lab, and they dated it at 45,000 years old ...

If you know anything about radiocarbon dating, then you know it is limited to organic materials no more than about 50,000 years old (~75k years with more recent refinements). Anything older than that and too much of the carbon-14 will have decayed to determine anything more than "older than ~50,000 years". Snelling used a technique that cannot give a correct answer in this instance. There is also the matter of contamination from more recent carbon sources, and if the sample was actually petrified wood in the first place. There was never a peer reviewed publication of Snelling's analysis, never any independent verification of the results, and good reason to suspect the sample was not what Snelling claims it to be. This result has never been replicated by anyone else. Ever. 

Ken Ham really doesn't care if anything he says is correct, he only cares that if the lie sounds good enough to fool people who don't know any better. 

Image source: Hyperphysics

Reference:

[1] Browning, B. (2014, February 10). Transcript of Ken Ham vs Bill Nye Debate. Retrieved November 19, 2015, from http://www.youngearth.org/index.php/archives/rmcf-articles/item/21-transcript-of-ken-ham-vs-bill-nye-debate

An Evening With Ken Ham

I went to see Ken Ham, co-founder of of Answers in Genesis ministries, speak at a local church last night. I had a couple of questions prepared in case there was a Q&A session where I might get a chance to speak:

1) Mr. Ham: You blame atheists as the primary opposition to your views, but atheist are a minority in the US. Isn't it true that the majority of Christians are able to reconcile the beliefs with knowledge of science, and so they are your real opposition?

2) Most or all of Creation Science is contradicted by the Laws of physics. Would not the Answers in Genesis efforts be better spent in pursuit of basic physics research to discover the fundamental flaws?

There was no Q&A, but Ham made his beliefs evident during the talk:

1) Reasonable Christians are the problem. By admitting that Genesis isn't literally true, reasonable people are allowing all manor of awful things in the name of evolution. Reasonable people are wrong, and he doesn't give a damn what they think.

2) He would never address a real scientific question. Ham's approach to science is is entirely superficial, and his interest in science ends the moment he finds a trivial sound-bite that he can use in his sermons.

And Ken Ham gives a good sermon, I'll give him that. At times he would blaze through topics, speaking very rapidly and clearly. He is a master speaker, and I'm certain he can do a fearsome Gish gallop, dishing out falsehood faster than another can hope to correct him. Unsurprisingly, some of his talk was a sales pitch for the Creation Museum, the coming Ark Park, and his trunk load of Answers in Genesis propaganda, available to you now for this special low price ...

Despite his skill, Ham never learns. The obvious errors from the Ham/Nye debate were repeated again last night. In fact, Ham pretty much hit every point that make atheists despise religion, from scientific to cultural to political. His opening sentence was to point out that religion is losing two-thirds of the coming generation, and I think atheists should thank him for that.

As I snapped the photo above, just prior to the presentation, I got the feeling Ham was picking me out of the crowd as a potential troublemaker. That was never my intent, and I'm not sure I would have left the room undisturbed if I had. I sat through the ~90 minute presentation quietly taking notes, waiting for the opportunity that never came, and left quietly when it was over.

On my way out there was all manner of of Answers in Genesis tracts for sale. I almost bought a couple of $2 booklets, and now I wish I had just to have a souvenir of the evening. It would had easy for me to grab some booklets and wander out through the crowd without paying - Yet somehow - despite my lack of a fundamental understanding of the Bible of the chapters of Genesis - I still think that stealing is wrong. Go figure. 

The Creationist 419 Scam

You would think that outrageous claims are so likely to be rejected that the person making the claim would just give up and go away. For an example of this you might check out this Sensuous Curmudgeon post "ICR: Plants Are Not Alive". The Institute for Creation Research claims that because plants do not move and do not have blood, they are not alive, and they justify this based on the Old Testament and a some quadruple backwards spinning logical somersaults that would make Gabby Douglas gawk. There are plenty of other examples, but I won't belabor the point. As my buddies at The Sensuous Curmudgeon often note, the scammers* have to know they have no scientific standing, but they do it anyway. WHY?

Consider a known scam that everyone can agree is a scam; one that is no farther away than your email SPAM folder. Microsoft scientist Cormac Herley has a paper out:

 "Why do Nigerian Scammers
Say They are from Nigeria?" (pdf) 

Edit: Original link seems broken. Try this instead.

... dissecting the mathematics of the Nigerian 419 scam. The Wall Street Journal Online has a less technical summary, see "Why We Should Scam the Scammers".

Here is a brief quote from Herley, with my emphasis added:

"... Far-fetched tales of West African riches strike most as comical. Our analysis suggests that is an advantage to the attacker, not a disadvantage. Since his attack has a low density of victims the Nigerian scammer has an over-riding need to reduce false positives. By sending an email that repels all but the most gullible the scammer gets the most promising marks to self-select, and tilts the true to false positive ratio in his favor."

 Here is Herley again, later on:

"Since gullibility is unobservable, the best strategy is to get those who possess this quality to self-identify. An email with tales of fabulous amounts of money and West African corruption will strike all but the most gullible as bizarre. It will be recognized and ignored by anyone who has been using the Internet long enough to have seen it several times.  [ ... ]  It won’t be pursued by anyone who consults sensible family or fiends, or who reads any of the advice banks and money transfer agencies make available. Those who remain are the scammers ideal targets."

It's brilliant actually. Finding people susceptible to a scam is hard, but weeding out those least susceptible is as easy as concocting a lame story. The more outrageous the tale, the less likely it is to attract those who can see through it, leaving those who are mostly likely to be successfully fleeced by the scammer.

There's is a shorter summary, and an older one; Abraham Lincoln put it like this, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."



The scammers know that most people will apply some amount of logic and reason and reject the obviously incorrect, and this is what they want. They want to weed out the majority who will never buy into the scam, and speak to the few they might fool. When the scammer is the ICR and the marks falls for the false dichotomy that religious belief must overrule scientific knowledge, the scam is particularly insidious.

Herley suggests a response to the 419 scams, to counter-SPAM the scammers with automated responses, false positives that waste time and money and take the profit out of the scam. This would be harder to apply to Creationist scammers, requiring a large number of people (or automated facsimiles) to "Go Poe" and troll the Creationists where they live. That doesn't sound like fun, and it doesn't strike me as ethical. Still, the suggestion has been made before.

* I'd like to make distinction between those who hold to Creationist belief and those those making claims in support of Creation science. The former may hold a sincere belief, but the latter are deliberately lying in an attempt to undermine science and science education.

Wrong and Wronger

A month ago I wrote about telling off a Nobel laureate (see Wrong). That is a conceit on my part, because I doubt Dr. Josephson will ever read it. Someone read it though, because it sparked a flurry of response from some Answers in Genesis Creationists (yes, I know that is redundant). One in particular, identifying himself only as Bonesiii Dromer, was moved to a truly spectacular display of sanctimonious bombast. After some thought and considerable delay (I was exceptionally busy) I finally posted a response to the nonsense.

--- More after the break ---

Ogre versus Troll: Is Intelligent Design Anti-Evolution?

A blogging-friend, who goes by the name of Ogre MkV, is debating another blogger, JoeG, on the topic: Is Intelligent Design Anti-Evolution? Ogre's opening statement is up now at Cassandra's Tears:

Intelligent Design is Anti-evolution (Support Opening)

Having read that, I wanted to get some thoughts down before I read JoeG's response.

1) Ogre MKV makes a strong case that ID is anti-evolution by any reasonable definition. He builds a case that is it first necessary to define intelligent design and what it supports, and then goes on to cite conflicting definitions, all of which are anti-evolution.

2) Of the many people I have encountered via the internet, JoeG may well be the nastiest (thus the "Troll"). The more I think about it, the more I wonder what Ogre was thinking when he agreed to this debate. I will try to keep an open mind about what JoeG might say, but ... I've encountered him before at Uncommon Descent (where he is moderated) and his own blog (where he is vitriolic), and ... I expect more nastiness.

[ ... time passes ...]

And now I'm back from reading JoeG's opening statement, which was rather disappointing, but at least it maintained civility. The post consists primarily of long quotes of things other people (Wells, Behe, Dembski, etc.) say about ID, and winds up saying that ID has little to say about pretty much all aspects of evolutionary theory ... except the "blind watchmaker thesis". The blind watchmaker is a favorite topic that JoeG brings up often, and always as an argument against evolution. Maybe JoeG does not understand what "anti" means? (Ogre thought of that too).

Ogre MkV has cross-posted JoeG's opening statement. I can't actually recommend it, but there it is.

Science Fail #4

Fail #4 refers to an editorial published in the Idaho Press-Tribune. It is copyrighted, so you will need to follow the link to the article, or you can just take my word that it is some amazingly stupid stuff. Much of it refers to old arguments that even Creationist are embarrassed to have even supported.

Evidence doesn’t support theory of evolution

[Via Greg Laden's Blog]


Bonus Section:

The award for the most unexpectedly non-sequitur comment in response to a a science article goes to ...

Morp: I observed an inverse reaction .When pigs call loudly for food you can silence them instantly and for a while by blowing a trumpet   [Found on SCIAM]

Um ... OK ... I don't doubt it ... but ... you play the trumpet to pigs???

In Search of the Mother Troll

I was reading an article at Smithsonian.com:

Evolution in the Deepest River in the World

which I found quite interesting. What really caught my attention though was the comments. Third comment to appear was this:

evolution is a biggest HOAX in world history

... and I think the commenter might be fairly called a Creationist. I won't mince words though, this commenter is a troll. There are probably hundreds of replies now and several trolls getting batted about by smart people who seem to enjoy a good game of Whack-A-Mole. More power to them. My interest was in how the Creationists trolls appeared seemingly on cue, as if they were being actively organized and sent off to do battle against "the evil that is evolution".

"Do they really do that?" I thought. "Well, duh!", I answered, "And stop talking to yourself too."

Of course these people are organized, either at their churches or at various sources around the internet, and all I need to do is search around until I dig some up. So I searched, and I found a likely candidate; a forum post titled Help! need help debating an evolutionist! at a site called Chistianforums.com. Just the sort of place where I might find a seething den of Creationist scheming to troll any public forum that dares to publish about science and evolution. The original poster (OP) asked for help ...

[outdoor_engineer] I have an ongoing debate with a kid at school about evolution.
He's presenting some pretty good arguments and he's kicking my butt, can anyone help?!

... and with a little prodding OP provided details of the argument:

It is a long, drawn out logic style argument, I'll go through it step by step:
First he said that there are two different types of claims:
faith claims: those which could not be falsified by observation or experiment even in principle.
(i.e. god exists)

-and-

science claims: those which can be falsified by observation or experiment
(i.e. the earth is roughly spherical in shape)
This seemed perfectly rational, so I agreed.

he asked if I would agree that only science claims should be taught in science class. After some hemming and hawwing I agreed.

then the argument went like this:

faith based claims are those that which cannot be falsified.
faith based claims should not be taught in science class.
Creationism / ID can incorporate any evidence by saying "God made it that way"
Therefore creationism / ID cannot be falsified
Therefore creationism / ID should not be taught in science class.

He got me, Where did I go wrong? where's the flaw in his logic that I can't see?

This OP kid is up against a good argument, but this is where things started to go wrong. I was expecting the first reply to an irrational screed, but what came next was this:

[Mallon] There is no flaw in his argument. He's right.

Why do you think creationism should be taught in science class?

Huh? What?! This was supposed to be an investigative post about where trolls come from - where they live, what they plan, how they organize. I wanted to blog about that. I intended to blog about that. WHAT'S GOING ON???  How can my seething den of rabid Creationism be filled with educated, thinking, rational people. This is horrible! My first attempt is an utter failure.

But what a wonderful way to fail.

If your read the thread you will see a number of rational people writing similar comments, but a real troll does finally show up on page 2, who writes ...

[Calypsis4] I'll give you some help, young person.

1. Evolution does not exist in the first place because if it did it would be a violation of natural law. (a) the law of Biogenesis...life must generate from life. It cannot generate from non-living matter and no one has ever observed such a thing occur in nature. (2) Entropy keeps non-living matter from developing into living organisms and entropy keeps living organisms from becoming a different kind of organism. (3) the fossil record reveals that living organisms began abruptly, highly complex and no transitional forms. [...]

2. God meant what He said through Moses and the creation in Genesis and there is no historical reason not to believe the account he gave us. Even the ten commandments affirm the six day creation account (Exodus 20:11). Secondly, the Lord Jesus Christ affirmed the six day creation account (Mark 10:6 & 13:19). All of His disciples taught that the creation was true and that Adam and Eve were real people.

3. Evolution is nowhere taught in the Bible. It is a fairy tale.
[emphasis added]

Pity this poor troll, for he is about to get body-slammed:

[pgp protector]
1) Evolution has nothing to do with Biogenesis, please learn what the theory states.

2) Genesis only works that way if you read it as 100% literal, and that also makes God a deceiver (God made the Earth look old, but told us it's young).

3) computers programing is nowhere taught in the Bible. Please stop using the internet.
[emphasis added]

I laughed. I howled. My wife wondered what the heck I found so funny. The troll introduces some fun and it turns into a rollicking good 8 flaming pages of Young Earth Creatroll versus Theistic Evolutionists. Darned sharp TE's too - I could learn something from them. I also learned that this forum has "darker" corners, which might be the lair of the trolls I seek. My search has just begun.

What's this? Faith AND Reason?!?

 Todd Wood, a Young Earth Creationist, has this to say:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

Not the sort of thing you generally hear from YEC, and a pleasant surprise. I bestow upon Todd Wood the title of Scientia Causidicus, for demonstrating the capability to be honest, a rational thinker, and to maintain his faith. Thank God for that.
[Hat Tip Evolutionblog and Thoughts from Kansas]

Creation Museum Claims Proven

Proof positive the Man and Dinosaur co-existed!

FOR NO PARTICULAR
REASON OUR STORY IS LAID
IN THE "STONE AGE" - MILLIONS
AND BILLIONS AND TRILLIONS
OF YEARS AGO - PROBABLY
BEFORE ANY OF YOU PEOPLE
WERE EVEN BORN

Check out the video for the full story:

UPDATE: The video originally linked on YouTube has since been removed. Click this link to search for a currently available version.


The Real story being Chuck Jones 1939 debut as the director of Daffy Duck - and so history was made.

My Baloney Has a First Name ...

After reading this recent offering from The Sensuous Curmudgeon . . .

The Worst Creationism Book Ever?

I took it upon myself to visit the scene of the crime. I went to the Probed Minihysteries site and ended up reading the "Tuning Up Your Baloney Detector" article. To briefly summarize, they encourage the faithful to protect themselves from errors in critical thinking by "filtering the facts" and therefore committing those very same errors in critical thinking. It is Grade AA stupidity, and that is 5 minutes of my life I won't get back, but it did give me this bit of inspiration:

{singing}

My Baloney Has A First Name,
it's P-R-O-B-E . . .
My baloney has a second name,
it's M-I-N-I-S-T-R-I-E-S . . .
Oh, I love to filter everyday,
And if you ask me why I'll say. . .
'Cuz Probe Ministries has a way . . .
To Make-Those-Facts-Just-Go-A-Way!

Somehow I doubt it will catch on, but it gave me a bit of entertainment. Here is the original . . .

Also ran: Reality

From The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life:

When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary scientific finding, according to the results of an October 2006 Time magazine poll. Indeed, in a May 2007 Gallup poll, only 14% of those who say they do not believe in evolution cite lack of evidence as the main reason underpinning their views; more people cite their belief in Jesus (19%), God (16%) or religion generally (16%) as their reason for rejecting Darwin's theory.

Not so surprising really, people are generally afraid of change, of things they do not understand, and of letting go of the familiar. I might have to count myself in that group too.
[Hat Tip Improbable Research]

Ride 'Em Cowboy!

A picture is worth a thousand words.



Lots more pictures at Camels With Hammers.



Video here, or see the tweets.



If you missed what this is all about, see this post at Phyrangula.



My favorite, a picture from Islanddave.






For the record, I am an agnostic, and I applaud the Secular Student Alliance in their efforts to shine the light of reason on creationist silliness.

DI Luskin DI

It seem that Casey Luskin and the Discover Institute have been hard at work censoring their critics.


*[Hat Tip Pharyngula]

But the video is up again anyway.


* And SHAME on Fox News for not even pretending to challenge obvious falsehood.


and to round things off, some great ones from ThunderfOOt

*

Dance Like a Monkey

[via Pharyngula. PZ seems to get all the good stuff first.]


Some of us may also recall an older generation of Monkees ...

ID Gets Spanked Again

Zachary Moore, a contributor to Goose The Antithesis write about a recent four-way debate in Fort Worth, Texas.

"The Great Debate," as it was billed, was sponsored by St. Andrew's Episcopal Church in Fort Worth, Texas. It featured a four-way roundtable format, with a participant from each quadrant of the atheist/theist and pro-ID/anti-ID axes. I was there along with some fellow members of the North Texas Church of Freethought primarily to see Dr. Lawrence Krauss (atheist/anti-ID) and also, somewhat guiltily, to see Dr. David Berlinski (theist/pro-ID) in action. The field was rounded out by Dr. Denis Alexander (theist/anti-ID) and Dr. Bradley Monton (atheist/pro-ID). The debate was held at the Will Rogers Memorial Auditorium, and I would estimate about 1000 people in attendance.

Click through for the full post at Goose The Antithesis

This sort of debate is getting to be a bit predictable, as rational and coherent arguments do well in any rational and coherent discussion, and the ID proponents end up frustrated.

While I'm on the topic, PZ Myers gives anti-evolution arguments based on the second law of thermodynamics a swift kick in the shorts. AND [update] Jason Rosenhouse follows up with a complete depantsing.

Science, Evolution, and Creationism

National Academy of Sciences publishes this nice brochure on Science, Evolution, and Creationism (PDF). A wise person recommends this for those who need a little help understanding.

Mock Trial of Evolution versus Creationism

From Pharyngula: An account of the Northern Kentucky University mock trial of evolution/creationism.

Greg Lloyd attended the Northern Kentucky University mock trial of evolution/creation, and sent back a report. The scenario was that a teacher tried to advocate creationist theories in a public high school classroom, was fired for it, and is trying to sue for reinstatement. Here's Greg's account of the event.

Click through for the full account and comments.

Exposing Expelled

Ben Stein's movie Expelled has been released on DVD, so in case anyone didn't already know, the movie is creationist propaganda. If you missed hearing about it when it came out (and missed the 3 days or so it was shown in the local theater) you might be deceived by the advertising which completely fails to mention that the movie is actually about Intelligent Design. Were I paying for the ads, I suppose I wouldn't mention what the movie was about either, given the dazzling lack-of-interest at the box office. At least I might have done something more creative, like package it as Star Wars Episode 7 - Chewbacca Goes to Charm School. Now THAT would sell DVDs!

The National Center for Science Education created the Exelled Exposed website to help set the record straight, and you can find it here:



Scientific American also provides Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know... which is where I had participated in my first ID vs evolution discussion/argument/head-bang-on-table. Most of that discussion went away with the rest of the SciAm.com blogs and is now lost forever --- or at least until I pull it out of the zip file where I saved all that fun stuff.