Hollywood goes all "evolution-vs.-creationism" on us

More and more disturbances in the evolutionary theory keep appearing ... here's yet another one. Dangit.

NOW what are we gonna do??

Continued ...»

The Dishonest Institute strikes again: censoring videos that point out their bullshit – illegally!

This is a juicy one, indeed. The Discovery Institute has been caught red-handed trying to file a false and perfectly illegal DMCA copyright claim against a prominent YouTube debunker of creationist and ID bullshit(ers), DonExodus2. It seems that DonExodus2 uploaded a video in which he showed how a recent Fox News appearance of notorious DI attack-lemming Casey Luskin – yes, this dishonest moron – featured Luskin reciting lie after tired old lie, punctured with deflated and debunked claims, including that old favorite of creationists', Haeckel's Embryos, among others. Overall, it was a very amusing and dead-accurate smackdown right in Luskin's over-smug disingenuous face, and it was beautiful.

So, of course, the Censorship Institute couldn't stand it, and succeeded at filing a DMCA copyright claim against YouTube and the video. Adhering to YouTube's custom of removing videos like insecure idiots without even confirming the accuracy of the claim as usual, the vid was pulled down. Below, is DonExodus2's response to the travesty – and proof that it's simply and totally illegal of the pompous bitches to have done so. Man, are they fucked.

Or, in a brief summary: the DI is fucked (yet again), and they know it, so they tried to censor the vid by filing a false DMCA claim to remove it – and succeeded (for now). So, to all: spread the video around! Don't just embed it^[1], but actually download it and upload it to your own websites, groups, whatever you can do, and spread the word: the Discovery Institute has finally gone too far and have literally broken the law in their ever-growing efforts to spread their bullshit and crush scientific truth.

Just for good measure, below is the original video, the one that was deleted. Thanks to Gravitationalist for the re-upload.

Man, that sort of bitchslap-fest to Luskin's mug has got to hurt. (And let the record state that I nearly cracked a rib at both the humor and pointedness of the "Bitch, Please" flashcard inserted after Luskin's unbelievably bullshitty claim of trying to "promote good science" (*dies laughing*).

---

^{[1] I sincerely would if I had the slightest idea how to actually upload videos to Blogger, but I don't think I can. All I can do is link to it and hope it won't be deleted.}

Continued ...»

Yet more hope for Texas

Texas seems to be on the road to reason for once, and the news is good: not only has Don McLeroy been kicked off the chairman's spot on the Texas State Board of Education, taking his pathetic "Strengths and Weaknesses of Evolution" policy along with him (if only temporarily), but also, two bills that would've introduced powers to grant degrees to Bible-thumping kooks straight out from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and added more creationist language to the state education curriculum, have been shot down.

What was less publicized was a bill in the Texas State Legislature to pull an end run around the Coordinating Board by exempting ICR’s graduate program from the regulations governing degree-granting institutions in Texas.

Another bill introduced in this legislative session would have restored the ID creationist “strengths and weaknesses” language to the Texas Science Standards.

Both bills have now died due to the adjournment of the Texas legislature. So there’s a bit more hope for Texas: Don McLeroy is out as Chairman of the State Board of Education, the creationist “strengths and weaknesses” language is not in the standards, and the ICR is still not certified to award phony graduate degrees in science education.

It's not over yet, and really, never really is, of course; there still plenty of upcoming opportunities for these bills to weasel their way back into effect, but as with McLeroy's ousting, we can at least cheer for now at the idea that Texan schoolchildren won't have any more creationist nonsense peddled into their skulls.

Continued ...»

Strike Three for Don McLeroy

I know it's "old news" already (in blogosphere terms, anyway, seeing as it's a few days old), but I still need to mention and celebrate: Don McLeroy, the creationist dentist chairman of the Texas State Board of Education – the tool who endlessly promoted the passing of the ridiculous and false "Strengths and Weaknesses" policy regarding scientific subjects (especially evolution) – is no longer chairman!

On May 28, 2009, McLeroy's nomination as Chair of the Board of Education failed to gain Senate approval since only 19 of 30 Senators voted for him, falling one vote short of the 2/3 majority needed for approval.

Forgive the source of the article being Wikipedia (I know how y'all are foaming at the mouth for "reliable" sources), but all the reports I could find on Google seemed to stem from creationist or otherwise religious news sites, sites which I personally wouldn't trust to give me the time of day, much less news of this nature.

Of course, McLeroy is just one of many idiots already present on the board, and undoubtedly he still holds a certain amount of sway over them; at least he's just not officially chairman anymore. Unfortunately, it's likely that Gov. Perry will just name some other creationist idiot instead. Thus seems to be the road so often taken in Texas. But, for now, we can cheer.

I know I've been a bit lax on blogging the past few days, being busy writing and creating videos for my songs (three of which are now online), but I'm now stuck at school – which, of course, means I have plenty of time to blog now. =)

Continued ...»

Intelligent Design is a renamed Creationism, says Thunderf00t

And of course he's absolutely right. Only, he chooses to establish this by exposing Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute as a liar and hypocrite, and it's a beautiful thing.

View Thunderf00t's YouTube channel here for the rest of his fantastic and brutally-accurate and honest videos debunking the bullcrap that is Creationism/Intelligent Design.

(via Pharyngula)

Continued ...»

Answer the damn question!

This is hilarious: Chris Matthews from MSNBC's Hardball confronts Republican Representative Mike Pence with one single, excruciatingly simple question: "Do you believe in evolution?". The amount of irrelevent and downright hilarious babble that splurges out from Pence's gob, along with enough shaking of his head to land him with torticollis, indicates either "no", or that he has some serious auditory comprehension issues. For crissakes, he segues – none too gracefully – from evolution to general science in itself, then to the Liberal global warming conspiracy, then Liberal stem-cell research cover-ups, then ... I lose track. Meanwhile, Matthews is doggedly trying to coax an answer out of him he obviously will never receive other than a few vague ramblings about how "God created the Heavens and the Earth".

You know it sucks to be a Republican when they can't even openly admit to their religious, anti-scientific leanings anymore. (Which, conversely, makes it a good day to be a Liberal, I suppose.)

I was disturbed by how much Matthews seemed bent on kissing the guy's ass, though, continually referring to his "great intelligence" and high education and whatever. I guess he has to keep his guests from throwing him daggers with their stares, after all.

(via Pharyngula)

Continued ...»

So what do lawyers think of the recent ICR lawsuit against Texas?

The full summary is quite long (though still quite interesting), but this lawyer preferred a two-sentence summary:

This lawsuit is gloriously insane. From top to bottom, this is exactly the kind of lawsuit you would expect from the kind of minds who think the world is 6,000 years old.

:D :D :D

(via Pharyngula)

Continued ...»

Creationists are suing Texas!

It's hard to imagine such a contradictory statement, no? What with Texas and the rest of the Deep South being the hotbed of Creationism in America and all.

Over a year ago, the Institute for Creation Research tried to pass along a few silly degrees in the state of Texas, degrees that basically would allow them to throw in teachers whose entire idea of science and biology would have been taken straight from the Bible and Young-Earth Creationism theological idiocy. For once, Texas made a choice to make us all proud when the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board essentially laughed them out.

But this is America, land where you sue someone over having coffee spilled over your favorite jeans, so naturally, the ICR is now suing the THECB. You can guess how their lawsuit terms must sound.

Even better, here it is for all to laugh at. Concentrated doses of stoopid are always fun!

The sixty-seven-page complaint teems with various factual claims and legal arguments, leading a blogger for the Dallas Observer (April 20, 2009) to quip that it "reads kind of like stereo instructions." It also teems with unabashed creationist rhetoric, citing articles from the ICR's publication Acts and Facts along with case law, explaining that Paredes — born as he was in 1942 — was not a witness to the Big Bang, asserting that discussions about the origin of life and the formation of the earth "do not become 'empirical science' simply because those discussions emit from the oral cavities of 'scientists'" (p. 33), and insisting that the Big Bang "should not be confused with the 'great noise' mentioned in 2nd Peter 3:10" (p. 21).

Well, at least they're not referred to as "scienticians". Right?

For those amused or bored enough to care to follow up on this inane lawsuit, here are the full papers of the event. Do keep your coffee away from your keyboard – falling asleep or dropping out of your chair in laughter is not very good for sensitive electronics, you see.

(via Pharyngula)

Continued ...»

Florida falls behind in crazies race. ... Which is good.

Remember how Florida just tried to pass a bill that was unpleasantly reminiscent of the old Texan 'Strengths and Weaknesses' anti-Evolution crap? Good news: it's a FAIL.

Anti-Evolution Bill Still A Fruitless Exercise

TALLAHASSEE - A bill aimed at undercutting acceptance of evolution in Florida science classes, which kicked up a fuss but didn’t pass in the Florida Legislature last year, apparently is going nowhere this year.

A Senate version of the bill has yet to receive a committee hearing and has no companion bill in the House.

That means, said one proponent of the idea, that the bill has little chance of passage in this frantic session, heavily devoted to cutting and balancing the state budget.

“With no companion in the House, it doesn’t have much likelihood,” said Rep. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla.

Another small battle won in the great war against Creationism. Next!

Continued ...»

Sneaky Florida again with creationism stupidity in school

While the Texas State Board of Education is getting all the press these days for their noted debating on how to teach Evolution in Texan schools (it was a near miss, though they're still chipping at science bit by bit as Dr. Myers explains), helmed by the ignoramus Don McLeroy, other creationist states have been left out lately. Apparently, Florida resented that, as Senator Steve Wise, a Jacksonville Republican (need I even point out his political affiliations if he's a creationist?), has just sneakily introduced a bill that pretty much mandates the exact thing that we were hoping to avoid from the Texas Education Board: an introduction of the fallacious 'Strengths & Weaknesses' rule targeting Evolution in favor of Creationism.

And though it has yet to have its first hearing, the bill has the science community is up in arms.

You may remember this hot-button issue from 2008, when Sen. Ronda Storms, R-Valrico, and Rep. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla, pushed similar legislation after the state Board of Education explicitly mandated the teaching of the scientific theories of biological and chemical evolution.

This language in this year's bill from Wise is pretty similar to the version pushed last year by Hays – not banning the teaching of evolution, but allowing teachers to question it in science class. Storms had focused her version more on job protections for teachers who criticized the theory.

Here's what Wise's bill would require: "A thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution."

The Florida Academy of Science says the bill "leaves the door open for the introduction in the public school curriculum of nonscientific and covertly religious doctrines."

Talk about sidestepping a pothole just to fall down a manhole. Not only was this done, but it was done silently – the defining measure used by creationists (when not honking madly about the evils of atheism and Evolution) to try and introduce their stupid theological beliefs in scientific classrooms. Cowards.

Continued ...»

Small smack to creationists: stupid 'Strengths and Weaknesses' rule is defeated in Texas

Recently the Texas State Board of Education held meetings and debates to determine the next decade of schooling curriculum – not to mention how Evolution was to be taught in Science classrooms. One of the creationist advances against Evolution was the attempted implementation of the stupid 'Strengths and Weaknesses rule', which would oblige teachers to give a 'fallacy' in the Theory of Evolution for every strength it had in explaining biological development over space and time.

Thankfully, the measure has been defeated – though by an exceedingly narrow margin: 7:7. Imagine – one more ignoramus on the Board and schoolchildren would've been spoon-fed lies and disinformation for a whole fucking decade. True Texas.

AUSTIN – In a decision watched by science educators across the nation, the State Board of Education on Thursday narrowly turned aside a last-ditch effort by social conservatives to require that "weaknesses" in the theory of evolution be taught in science classes in Texas.

Board members deadlocked 7-7 on a motion to restore a longtime curriculum rule that "strengths and weaknesses" of all scientific theories – notably Charles Darwin's theory of evolution – be covered in science classes and textbooks for those subjects.

At least the battle's over – for now. The war sure as Hell ain't, though. Not as long as Religion is the dominating voice over reason and intelligence in Idiot America.

Continued ...»

What's worse than Christian Creationism?

Same as what's even worse than Christianity: Islamic Creationism. One of the heavyweights in the Islamic Creationism world (I don't mean that as per his brains), a certain Adnan Oktar, is hard-set working on his 'anti-Darwinism' magnum opus, a 14-part 'encyclopedia' of Islamic Creationism titled Atlas of Creation, which he claims will disprove Darwin's 'dead' theory.

"Darwin and his theory are dead," says Mr. Oktar, founder and honorary president of the Science Research Foundation, an Istanbul outfit dedicated to debunking the Victorian-era English naturalist. Darwin, says his 52-year-old Turkish scourge, is "Satan's biggest trick on humanity."

The Science Research Foundation? Well, gotta congratulate him – I don't think he could've found a better extreme as far as misnomers go. (Seriously, anything that has anything to do with creationism, of whichever religious flavor, has less to do with science than ... well, theology. Dang, out of metaphors.)

Nice to see he believes in Satan, too. Poor ol' Lucifer is only too forgotten in this day and age. Love the trident, though – could poke myself some serious trolls and cretins with that diabolical thing.

Also weighing in on his side are very aggressive lawyers. They've repeatedly gone to court in Turkey to silence critics whom Mr. Oktar accuses of spreading "lies and insults." Scores of Web sites have been banned at his behest.

These include the site of Oxford's Prof. Dawkins, which Mr. Oktar -- who writes under the pen name Harun Yahya -- got blocked last fall after it posted an article entitled "Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya." Prof. Dawkins responded to the ban by posting a Turkish translation of the article. Mr. Oktar derides Prof. Dawkins, an outspoken atheist, as "a pagan monk."

Waving that Freedom of Speech flag is such a dream these days, isn't it? Also shows how very mature Oktar is – and knowledgeable, if he seriously confuses atheism (lack of belief in God or any gods) with paganism (worship of Mother Nature and such – NOT satanic rituals as ignorant Hollywood and brainwashing Church will have you believe).

Thankfully, Oktar isn't devoid of opponents, and as luck would have it (for us, definitely not for him), his most prominent 'rival' is none other than Dr. Richard Dawkins, the most famous and pronounced 'Evolutionist' and atheist on the current planet. I don't think Oktar could've hoped for a larger opponent than Professor Dawkins.

"He is a complete and utter ignoramus," says Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and Oxford University professor.

Sometimes, long sentences are needed not.

At a Vatican-sponsored conference on evolution earlier this month in Rome, a Turk who introduced himself as a brain surgeon took the floor to expound -- in fluent English -- on Mr. Oktar's views on fossils. Organizers snatched away the microphone.

Mike Egnor, shut up already! ... Oh, wait. Nevermind.

This little detail is interesting:

In 1986, Mr. Oktar published his first book, "Freemasonry and Judaism," a tirade against the perils of atheism. He then spent 10 months in a mental hospital. Mr. Oktar says he was never mentally ill but was institutionalized to stifle his views. Military doctors later declared him mentally sound, he says, but he complains that Turkish media "propagated the idea that I was a lunatic."

Gee, whatever would make them think that? What with having ridiculous and illogical views on science and its followers, following ignorance-promoting beliefs, and peddling muck that has been thoroughly disproven an innumerable number of times by an equally-innumerable number of scientists who are incredibly more educated and intelligent (and respected, and credentialed, and ...) than he is? How awful!

He's offered a reward of 10 million Turkish lira (around $6 million) to anyone who can produce a fossil that proves evolution. He has also invited his Oxford foe to a debate.

Prof. Dawkins says he has no intention of accepting, as that would only "give legitimacy" to "this weird phenomenon." Mr. Oktar, he says, "doesn't know anything about zoology, doesn't know anything about biology. He knows nothing about what he is attempting to refute."

Of course. Ad Hominem – the last refuge of the idiot pseudo-intellectual once he realizes he's been bettered by a 'foe' such as Dawkins, who has more credentials than can fill a military archive, more knowledge than most encyclopedias, and more credibility, honor and professionalism than most academics combined. Tsk tsk tsk. Poor Oktar – smells like just another self-wanking ignorant bullshitter who will soon land in a dumpster yet have no idea as to how he got there. Ah well.

I do wonder why no-one's jumped at the incredible easy chance to claim his ruddy 6 million USD (originally 10 million Turkish) just for the effort of wasting about ten minutes or less with a slideshow explaining how fossils 'prove' Evolution. As if Evolution wasn't already established as a 'scientific fact' anyway. Loon.

Continued ...»

From the mouth of a Creationist ...

Ever wanted to know exactly why people believe in Creationism over Evolution? This Creationist lists 50 truly excellent and groundbreaking reasons that force him to conclude Evolution is a 'fairy tale for adults' and that Creationism is cold hard fact. THERE.

Seeing as it's quite long, I've included the top 10 most relevant or plain interesting excerpts to give you a taste. ;)

6.) Because I can’t get it through my thick logic-proof skull that evolution refers ONLY to the process of speciation, not to abiogenesis, or planet formation, or big bang cosmology, or whether God exists, or where they buried Jimmy Hoffa, or why the sky is blue, or how many licks it takes to get to the center of a fucking Tootsie Pop.

---

15.) Because some secretly fabulous closet-dwelling televangelist (who unironically preaches hate towards gays) told me that evolution is Satan’s way of leading me away from God.

16.) Because that same guy (who was also caught snorting blow off a male hooker’s shiny naked ass) told me that God planted those fossils to test my faith.

---

19.) Because I don’t understand why, if we share common ancestry with chimps, there are still chimps. And when someone with more than three brain cells in their head inevitably replies: "for the same reason Americans share common ancestry with Brits but there are still Brits", I can’t follow the logic. It’s just too big a leap. Who am I, Evil Knievel?

---

23.) Because the idea that life evolved naturally over billions of years is infinitely less believable than the idea that an 800 year old man crammed two of every species into a giant wooden boat when the entire planet flooded, an event for which there is absolutely no geological evidence whatsoever and also makes no fucking sense at all.

---

26.) Because the education system failed me miserably.

27.) …and then took a big wet dump on my face.

---

31.) Because I’m too stupid to realize that Social Darwinism has nothing to do with evolution and is actually a pseudo-scientific bastardization that real science largely rejects.

---

36.) Because I don’t know that “irreducible complexity” has been debunked a frazillion times by a frazillion different people and is no more credible an argument than “NEEN-er NEEN-er NEEN-er, I’m right and you’re wrong.”

---

38.) Because I have no imagination, learning is too much effort, I don’t like proven facts, change scares me, and I think deoxyribonucleic acid is something I’m supposed to clean my bathroom floors with.

---

50.) Because despite the fact that in all my years of life, I have never seen any magic, I still believe magic is the answer to anything I don’t immediately comprehend.

Hold me, I think I'm in love! <3 XD

Continued ...»

I'm in love with an UrbanDictionary entry

... Didn't think that sounded that queer in my head. Ah well. This isn't the sort of stuff I usually post, but seeing as it's a blog about anything I feel remotely inclined to mention or post about, I thought I'd paste here a definition of 'Evolution' I found while absent-mindedly floating around Urban Dictionary, just for the fun of seeing such a mixture of intellectuals and total oblivious idiots mixed in one site.

This entry, from 'Newms34', basically says everything there is to be said about both Evolution in itself (minus the technical mumbo-jumbo that refuses to penetrate my abnormally-thick skull no matter how hard I try), and patently and absolutely destroys 90% of the 'arguments' against Evolution used by Creationists and similar retards who don't want teh eevil scientistz to spread around their 'fairy tale for adults'. ('Fairy tale' ... coming from folks who believe in a being that cannot be seen, heard, felt, touched or measured in any imaginable way, and whose only 'proof of existence' comes from the pages of a thousands-year-old book that's been edited and translated so frequently it could've meant something entirely other than what we know back then ... that's rich.) It's a little long, but that is no deterrent in this case.

From UrbanDictionary.com, 'Evolution', entry #5 as of this date [I took the liberty of correcting the 2-3 little mistakes the post editor's Spell-Checker found)]:

Evolution, the combination of such processes as Natural Selection, Sexual Selection, and others, is the subsequent collection of scientific processes that eventually change one organism into another. It is important to discount a few widely held myths here that Creationists often erroneously use to discount Evolution, bringing up half-baked ideas about how one or more "facts" disprove evolution, without bothering to actually know what they're talking about. However, a little care and attempt at education can easily clear up these mistakes: 1.) Evolution does NOT necessarily dictate that animals (or plants, or fungi, or whatever you fancy) must evolve into something more complex. If all animals over the size of cockroaches were wiped out tomorrow, that would be a form of evolution: the Cockroaches and smaller animals would be the surviving species, and "Survival of the Fittest" (a common saying used in evolution) would hold true.

2.) Evolution does NOT, I repeat NOT suggest that humans "magically appeared from crawling fish". Evolution takes time. HUGE amounts of time. We're talking about half a billion years here (~500,000,000)for the total evolution from the first protochordates into the modern Homo Sapiens. Not a couple days. Not even a couple centuries. This time span is so long that it's often hard to comprehend. The changes were gradual, as some random "mistakes" in our DNA made some animals better able to adapt, and others not as able to adapt. It is NOT like throwing sand in the air and having it come down as a sand castle. It is, however, like sprinkling little tiny bits of sand here and there - sometimes a grain at a time - and eventually building up to a sandcastle. And sometimes having bits of the sandcastle knocked down.

3.) Species that died out, such as Homo Neanderthalis (Neaderthal Man) are not counterexamples. In fact, it shows that two different species, with two different natural "sets of equipment", have different ways (and thus chances) of surviving or outlasting each other. We and Neanderthals DID stem from the same common ancestor. However, whereas Neanderthals had stocky, tough, but not to bright build, we went the lean and brainy root. That was fine for a little while, but soon we outcompeted them, and they died out.

4.) In regards to the comment above that some species were found in the wrong area: The earth moves. Ever see a volcano? An earthquake? Rocks don't always just sit there.

5.) Any educated biologist will not respond by saying "oh, you're right, evolution didn't happen."

Bill: But monkeys and fish look real different, so evolution must be wrong! Fish change into monkeys suddenly? LOL!

Jill: That's not really what Evolution says...

That's ... beautiful! *sobs in awe*

I can't ascertain that he's correct in all the details, such as in his second point '2.)', but he's definitely got the basics dead-on. :P

Continued ...»

Celebrity Creationist desperate for some ass-whuppin'

At least that's what it seems the notoriously tool-ish Ray Comfort is, as he has been itching to debate the man who's arguably the greatest mind in the field of Evolution, Professor Richard Dawkins, and even offered him $10,000 to try and entice Prof. Dawkins in the deal. This is, of course, only a follow-up on his latest published work of atrocious scientific idiocy and lunatical Creationist drivel, 'You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think' (seriously, why do Creationist books always require such laboriously long titles?), which you should only read if you're either exceedingly bored, depressed (it'll make a dead corpse laugh) or in need of something to wipe your ass with. (Could catch a glance, I suppose.)

Well, Prof. Dawkins has upped the ante, requesting no less than $100,000 for the waste of time that would be debating a thick-headed Creationist like Comfort, along with a few smaller requests, such as that Comfort bring up his hilarious 'banana argument ^[1]', and that the whole event would be recorded by the RDF team, the group to whom said colossal funds would be headed to should Dawkins 'win' this 'debate'. (RDF = Richard Dawkins Foundation, a philanthropist organisation set up by Dawkins himself.) Comfort has even increased his proposal to $20,000, just a fifth of Dawkins' staggering demand. Seriously, if you're gonna try to debate and win over *the* expert in the field of Evolution, bring the cash he asks or wimp out. Dawkins has sold millions and millions of books, so I don't think even 20-grand would be much to entice him.

Below are quoted replies from Professor Dawkins following the offer.

Ray Comfort's original offer:

I'm trying to reach Prof. Dawkins for a response to a challenge from author Ray Comfort to Prof. Dawkins to a debate, with a $10,000 reward to Mr. Dawkins, win, lose or draw. Would I be able to reach you?
This is an excerpt from the report:

Comfort added, "I will donate $10,000 to him, or give it to any children's charity he names. All I ask is that he goes into a studio and gives me 20 minutes on why there is no God and why evolution is scientific. Then I will give 20 minutes on how we can know God exists and why evolution is nothing more than an unsubstantiated and unscientific fairy tale for grownups. Then we both will have 10 minutes to respond.

"Sadly, I have found that even evolution's most staunch believers are afraid to debate, because they know that their case for atheism and evolution is less than extremely weak," Comfort said. "I would be delighted (and honored) if Mr. Dawkins has the courage to debate me, but I'm not holding my breath."

Professor Dawkins' first reply:

I'm not aware of having had any communication from Mr Comfort, whom I know only as the Banana Man (you won't believe what you see if you take a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4 -- no it's not a Monty Python sketch, he really means it).

$10,000 is less than the typical fee that I am ordinarily offered for lecturing to a serious audience (I often don't accept it, especially in the case of a student audience, because I am a dedicated teacher). It is not, therefore, a worthwhile inducement for me to travel all the way across the Atlantic to debate with an ignorant fool. You can tell him that if he donates $100,000 to the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (it's a charitable donation, tax deductible) I'll do it. A further condition is that it will be filmed by Josh Timonen for my website, RichardDawkins.net, and distributed by Josh as a DVD, if he thinks it is funny enough. To this end, it would be nice if Mr Comfort would reprise the ever popular Banana Sketch.

Richard Dawkins

His reply may seem a little sanctimonious or condescending, or plain irate, to some, but keep in mind he's one of the key targets of Comfort's anti-atheism book, in addition to all the annoyances Comfort and his idiotic creed has caused him for so long, so I think he's actually being quite courteous according to the circumstances.

The reporter's reply:

Sir, Thank you for your response. And please understand I'm only a reporter in the middle, but Mr. Comfort has suggested the possibility of raising the offer to $20,000. Your reaction?

Dawkins's second reply:

Thank you, yes, I appreciate that you are only a reporter in the middle.

$20,000 is closer to the fees that I am customarily offered. However, I am not in this for the money. My interest is in getting the Banana Man to PART with $100,000 of his money so that that money will NOT be available for buying animatronic dinosaurs with saddles, or other similar nonsense. The fact that he would be making a substantial donation to a charity dedicated to Reason and Science adds to the humour of the situation. Talking of humour, by the way, did you look at the great Banana video? It beats the Peanut Butter video for laughs, but only by a short head: http://www.unscrewingtheinscrutable.com/node/1258

Richard Dawkins

Not much more left for me to say ...

Ray Comfort = deluded idiot.
Prof. Dawkins = wasting his time with this.
Me = got schoolwork to do. Dammit.

^{* * * * *
[1] In his latest travesty of a book (as well as for a while previously), Comfort used the peculiar argument that the size and shape of the banana somehow 'proved' the existence of an intelligent designer, as – get this – it fits perfectly into a human's hand. I really, really wish that was just an odd joke. But it's not. That's the actual type of argument this fool uses to try and prove Intelligent Design with ... sigh.}

Continued ...»

Yup, I'm plagiarizing others now

I'm so bored by this sort of garbage that to try and force my mind to come up with clever catchphrases and generic insults to hurl at it is just overkill at this point, so instead I'll just post a link to its mention on Pharyngula. (<— Right there.)

[I] speculated that the Washington state ballot proposal was motivated by the recent noise over atheist displays in the state capitol, and I was wrong. An interview with the woman behind the proposal reveals several things: 1) she really is something of an incoherent dingleberry, and 2) the primary impetus for this idea was — don't be surprised — creationism. Here's what she says:

"I think probably at least that more creation science is overlooked as not belonging in the public school system because of the religion (aspect)," she said.

She was impressed by Tom Hoyle (he has a Ph.D. in Christian Apologetics!) of a Northwest creationist ministry, which sort of tells you all you need to know.

^ What he said.

Continued ...»

Schoolwork: Evolution vs. Creationism/Intelligent Design essay

Da-yam, another painfully slow day. Wish I could update my blog more often dammit ... not to mention school's a pain. :'(

At least I got something to do for now until that tease-of-a-bell rings at last. My next exam is an oral essay, the subject of which I chose to be the superiority of Evolution over Creationism and Intelligent Design. I've only written the plan, but seeing as readers probably aren't keen on deciphering my weird-ass codes and abbreviations and formats, I'll stretch it out into full sentences for y'all. (You're welcome.)

So here it is, translated from the original French and made into complete sentences.

---

Oral Production
'Evolution vs. Creationism/Intelligent Design'

Introduction

One of most recognized and famous men in history is undoubtedly Charles Darwin, the Victorian-era scientist who authored the revolutionary book, On the Origin of Species, which basically is the bedrock and framework for all of modern biology.

First, let's examine just what is the Theory of Evolution, and what is Creation Myth and Intelligent Design.

The Darwinian Theory of Evolution basically states that all species of animals (and plants) have common ancestors from which they've changed over time, or evolved. ^[1]

Creationism, and it's off-shoot Intelligent Design, are religious myths (not 'theories', as a theory requires a modicum of evidence – more on that later) that explain that the Earth, and by extension Life and the Universe, were created by God, or some other deity(s). The main form of Creationism, dubbed 'Young Earth Creationism', additionally dates this creation back roughly 10,000 years BC. ^[2][3]

Naturally, as it basically disproves and disclaims God's creation and, by extension, God himself (though not necessarily), Religious folk and believers and whatnot immediately decried the theory. This conflict exists to this day, and in fact only seems to be gaining more and more steam throughout both social and political circles around the world, although the most heat is by far found in America. It's a conflict that most of the general population hardly even seem to be aware of, and have little interest for, yet for those who are interested in it, it's a metaphorical flame-war between Evolutionists and Creationists, one side guided by Science and facts, the other by beliefs, faith and dogma.

The point of this oral essay is to try and elucidate why exactly Creationism fails in respect to Evolution, and although I only have 6 minutes to describe what is basically a thousands-year-old war (which only heated up following Darwin's book), the mountains of evidence in favor of Evolution compared to the absolute lack of evidence for Creationism seems to tip the scales firmly in one direction.

1st argument: Evidence for Evolution

Let's get one thing straight: there is no concrete and absolute 'proof' for anything, and Evolution is no exception. There is no way to categorically prove Evolution (nor Creationism), but the endless evidence for it, compared to the zero evidence for Creationism, seems to point in one direction alone. After all, if over 95% of scientists on Earth believe in Evolution over Creationism ^[4], then somehow, it must have some credibility to it, no?

Let's examine the principal evidence for Evolution. There are four main lines of evidence to be studied: fossils, homologies, the distribution of species across time and space, and evidence by example. ^[5]

• Firstly, the fossil record clearly shows that life itself is very old, far older than 10,000 years, and furthermore, has vastly changed and mutated – ie., evolved – over time. Extremely accurate and reliable dating methods (such as carbon-dating) have proven this time and time again.

• Secondly, the similarities, or homologies, between animal and floral species are astoundingly apparent to anyone who looks for them. All species of life on Earth are interrelated one way or another. The only explanation for this, other than they were all created by God to be similar in one way or another for some arbitrary reason, is that they all share similar roots: common ancestral species, like branches of a tree.

• Thirdly, the distribution of animal and floral species across time and space is undeniably clear and indicative of Evolutionary processes. Studying geology and ancient forms of life incontrovertibly demonstrates that life has existed for a very long time and that it has changed considerably over time and terrestrial geological eras. Also, the spread and distribution of species, along with their disparate similarities and relations, shows ancient stages of evolutionary and biological development.

• Fourthly, evidence by example is a final and absolute method of proving Evolution and Natural Selection red-handed. Scientists are able to reproduce evolutionary results in laboratories and study centers by artificially controlling stimuli and scenarios, which manipulates species of life (mostly bacterial or viral, as well as floral) into evolving in one way or another. A common and well-known example, is how they demonstrate bacteria evolving, through Natural Selection, to becoming stronger and more resistant to antibiotics, as the weaker strains die out but the stronger strains remain. With their rival strains eliminated, the stronger strains subsequently multiply and take over. Weaker has been eliminated and has been replaced by stronger. Natural Selection's textbook definition.

Compared to this intimidating amount of evidence, which borders on 'proof', how does evidence for Creationism stack up? The answer is simple: it doesn't. There simply is no evidence whatsoever in support of Creationism, no matter where or how you look at it. If there is no proof or evidence, then it simply cannot be true, nor can it be a 'theory' in name. Hence, Creation Myth. ^[6]

In fact, most of the arguments in favor of Creationism against Evolution belong in the fallacy known as 'Irreductible Complexity', which basically states that if something is too complex to be understood, then it forcibly has to have been created. This is just plain dumb and ignorant. Just because something is not explained, does not make it unexplainable. We just haven't found the answer there. Working along the lines that there's always an answer and we just have to find it, just give Science and scientists time and it'll be found sooner or later. New discoveries happen every single day.

2nd argument: Creationism and Evolution as equals/alternatives

Creationism cannot be allowed to be taught in Science classes in schools as an 'alternative' to Evolution, simply because a) it's not an alternative to Evolution, and b) it's not scientific.

Evolution is a scientific theory that has been validated and all but proven, with a near-universal support from the scientific community and that disposes of mountains of evidence. Creationism, on the other hand, is not scientific. It's theological and religious. They can therefore never be taught as 'equals' or 'alternative', for they simply aren't. We might as well teach students that apples are 'equals' or 'alternatives' to pine cones. It would make just as much sense.

Creationism should certainly allowed to be taught in theology or religion classrooms. Just not scientific ones.

3rd argument: Social Darwinism

'Social Darwinism' is a faulty and odious extrapolation from Darwin's Natural Selection, which says that if it's the 'survival of the fittest' in the animal world and that the strong will win while the weak will perish, it should also be applied to human civilizations and societies: favor the strong, crush or kill the weak. This is entirely false, and to put it bluntly, absolutely stupid. Natural Selection and Evolution were never meant or intended to apply to human civilizations or societies. They specifically apply only to animal species and their battle for survival in Nature/ ^[7] 'Social Darwinism' is no more than yet another half-brained attempt by anti-Evolutionist advocates to try and discredit or tarnish the Theory of Evolution and Darwin himself, and is simply shameful.

Counter-Argument and its refutation: Abiogenesis

One of the most heavily-relied-upon and often-repeated 'arguments' used by Creationists and anti-Evolutionists to try and discredit Evolution, is that seeing as Evolution does not and cannot explain how or why life appeared on Earth, it cannot be a valid theory in its context. This is illogical and is the result of plain ignorance. Evolution has nothing to do with explaining the origin of Life on Earth, or Abiogenesis. If one would care to read the title of Darwin's book more carefully, it's called 'On the Origin of Species', not 'On the Origin of Life'. Evolution's purpose is to explain how and why species of animals and plants all share such similarities, fossil records, etc. ^[8] Saying it doesn't explain the origin of life in itself is equal to saying the mathematical equation '1+1' does not explain the result of '1x5'. They are simply not the same thing at all.

Conclusion

To conclude this essay, only Evolution can be allowed to reign, at least in scientific classes in schools, and not Creationism, which has been repeatedly discredited and disproven time and time again yet holds on like an obstinate parasite on society's beliefs. Evolution has long-ago been 'proven', or as close to proven as it can be, whereas there is simply no evidence at all for Creationism or Intelligent Design. Maybe some day, the law of knowledge and proof will overthrow the current law of false beliefs and illogical faith.

---

FOOTNOTES
^{[1] Definition of 'Evolution' in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
[2] Definition of 'Creationism' in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
[3] Definition of 'Intelligent Design' in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
[4] Scientists supporting Evolution over Creationism/Intelligent Design: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html
[5] Evidence for Evolution (source: Berkeley University, California): http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01
[6] Evidence (or lack thereof) for Creationism: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evolution/blfaq_evolution_evidence18.htm
[7] 'Social Darwinism': http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA002_1.html
[8] Evolution on the origin of life on Earth (abiogenesis): http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html}

---

Phew, longer than I expected, coming from such a short plan ... Well, any comments, either to praise my learned-off-the-back-of-Wikipedia brilliance or to damn me to Hell for my anti-Creationism, would be welcome. :P

And now back to scanning the news scroller for anything remotely interesting ... Oy.

Continued ...»

Yet another dubious politician trying to pass yet another dubious bill ...

These clowns are starting to get simultaneously boring and annoying. Florida Senator Stephen Wise, a Jacksonville Republican (do I even need to say more?), is going to try and pass through a bill that will make it required – not possible, but required – to teach Creationism alongside Evolution in school Science classrooms. His excuse? The usual fallacy: he wants a 'balanced viewpoint' for the students to learn. From the jacksonville.com news site article:

Amid much controversy a year ago, the Florida Board of Education approved new standards that require public schools to teach that the scientific theory of evolution is the foundation of all biological science.

But don't think that battle is over. Not even close.

State Sen. Stephen Wise, a Jacksonville Republican, said he plans to introduce a bill to require teachers who teach evolution to also discuss the idea of intelligent design.

Intelligent design is the concept that life is so complex that it couldn't occur naturally but must have had an intelligent force working to make it happen.

Wise, the chief sponsor of the bill, expects the Senate to take it up when it meets in March. He said its intent is simple: "If you're going to teach evolution, then you have to teach the other side so you can have critical thinking."

Typical ignorant reasoning. As anyone who actually WAS blessed with half a functioning brainstem will know, Intelligent Design/Creationism are NOT Scientific theories. They are THEOLOGICAL theories. Actually, strictly speaking, they can't even be called 'theories', as theories require some basis or evidence or credence to support their existence. There is absolutely NO evidence whatsoever to support a single word of Creationism. Never has been, and fairly certain that there never will be, either.

I'm indifferent to Creationism, or any religious subdivisions, being taught in schools. Just as long as they're taught in the appropriate classrooms, and not in SCIENCE classrooms. What part of 'Science classrooms' don't these twits understand? Do they really consider Creationism, or any part of theology, to be 'scientific' in the slightest, remotest sense? Are they really that incredibly ignorant, or plain stupid?

They are not giving students a 'balanced viewpoint'. They are corrupting them. Nothing more. (Or less.)

Continued ...»