1. says

    Methinks we need a new all-purpose terms for these folks. “Creationists” doesn’t quite identify them with the pinpoint accuracy one would prefer. “Creationist kooks” is more accurate, but still doesn’t encompass the global scope of their ignorance and stupidity. How about Reality Deniers? We could just refer to them as “RD’s” or “the RD crowd” henceforth. How’s that for a meme?

  2. says

    ardee ar ar….

    get it? a play on “RD”. ugh. it’s late.

    I don’t believe in dinosaurs either. Though i doubt that will make any dinosaur skeletons disappear. The truth rarely takes my opinion too seriously. neither should you.

  3. G. Tingey says

    You don’t need to keep up with them.

    First: At every opportunity, you, and we must shout LIAR! at these nutters.
    Second: They aren’t reality-deniers, they are trying to create their own new reality ( Gilead )

    Third: they have an awful lot in common with the islamofascists – to the extent, that as shown recently, a lot of US citizens would rather trust a muslim than an unbeliever.

    Fourth: Most important —
    Be sure that you are ready to run (emigrate/refugee) to Canada/Europe by the 2016 US election.

  4. Michael Hopkins says

    Wozney tells us that dinosaurs were first described by Owen, the first discoveries in North American in 1854, and concludes “So, dinosaurs were described in 1842 before the discoveries in 1854 which were required to give a clear picture of what dinosaurs looked like!”

    Wow this makes no sense even if one accepts all his “facts.” Does he never consider that the European Owen might have been describing dinosaurs from Europe? And even if Owen did not understand what dinosaurs looked like in the detail made possible by discovers made afterward he could still say they existed.

    And contrary to Wozney, one can usually tell the real bones in a museum: they tend to catalog numbers written is one of the more obvious signs.

  5. wamba says

    Ritter wants to debate “another teacher or professor of science with a strong educational background”. Each debater would place $1000.00 in escrow with the outcome of the one-on-one debate judged by an impartial panel of high school students who have answered “undecided” on a survey of whether or not they think that it’s OK to teach creationism is public schools.

    Sure, let’s have the least-informed judge science. Lord of the Flies, here we come.

  6. says

    Unless the teacher acknowledges
    an alternative, teaching materialistic evolution as a possible explanation for the origin of life, the variety of sexual species or the existence of the human mind is an article of faith.

    Thus reads the resolution for the debate proposed by the wingnut physics teacher Ritter. The resolution doesn’t makes sense even in creationist terms. Shore sounds purty though, don’t it?

  7. Tony Jackson says

    From his web site, it seems that Wozney doesn’t believe Neil Armstrong walked on the moon either. What’s interesting here is that, just like the creationist misundertandings, the same old moon hoax claims are repeated again and again. ie “but there’s no stars in the pictures from the moon, and there’s no exhaust from the lunar module, oh and the astonauts’ shadows don’t look right” etc etc. Of course all of these have been debunked many many times but that doesn’t seem to stop the likes of Wozney. People like Wozney are beyond help.

  8. mathpants says

    I take an exciting, moderate, position on this whole controversial debate:

    While I do not believe the ‘moon landing’ pictures show man walking on the actual moon, I do believe that they actually show man walking on Underwater Jupiter (it’s in the Gowanus Canal, along with some really really gross stuff).

    Can I have a senior position at the New Republic, please?

  9. Sean Foley says

    From his web site, it seems that Wozney doesn’t believe Neil Armstrong walked on the moon either.

    Of course astronauts never landed on the moon. Too many dinosaurs up there. It wouldn’t be safe.

  10. Will E. says

    “There was a full bore cretinist on the Sopranos last night.”

    Yay for Tony S., revealed as dinosaur fan and evolutionist!

  11. Don Culberson says

    ->”There was a full bore cretinist on the Sopranos last night.”
    ->Yay for Tony S., revealed as dinosaur fan and evolutionist!
    ->Posted by: Will E. | April 3, 2006 09:24 AM

    There was also a segment that was kinda cheezy, but timely, considering the recent Templeton “study”, on the efficacy of prayer for surgical patients. The cretinist and Janice’s old boyfriend (“have you heard the good news?”) helped Tony get through his surgery by praying for him. Tony seemed to tolerate it… Carmela was into it, of course.
    Uncle Don

  12. ericnh says

    Did anyone catch last night’s Sopranos? Little existential debate going on for Tony that just happened to involve a dinosaur book (remember he’s still in the hospital), a physics-quoting fellow patient who once worked at Bell Labs, and a YEC-spouting hospital priest who gave the whole “man walked with dinosaurs 6000 years ago” spiel. I cringed every time that guy spoke (even though I know the point is to help Tony question his existence and redefine who he is in the final season). The priest even pulled the old “studies have shown prayer works” routine. I actually yelled back at the TV “not according to last weeks study!” Argh!

  13. jbark says

    Christopher’s reaction to the Creationist story was priceless.

    Something like “The Garden of Eden was supposed to be paradise. If there were T-Rexes there Adam and Eve would have just been running away all the time”.

  14. says

    Ritter is a member of the American Association of Physics Teachers, which depresses me as a fellow member. >Sigh.< Anyway, I sent him an e-mail a few days ago seeking clarification of his remarks as quoted in his local newspaper. I've had no response as yet. Another teacher in Pennsylvania has also written Ritter, but gotten no response. My guess is that neither of us will get a peep out of him. The article in the Lebanon, Pa., newspaper has him defining "theory" as essentially a guess. It's not what I would expect a fellow science teacher to say, so I asked him to clarify his remark and to explain how he approaches other theories used in his own subjects of chem and phys. He also made the tired old equality of evolution = atheism, which I noted has no validity at all. Phil Plait would have fun with the other nutball.

  15. says

    Sean Foley responds to TJ: From his web site, it seems that Wozney doesn’t believe Neil Armstrong walked on the moon either.

    Of course astronauts never landed on the moon. Too many dinosaurs up there. It wouldn’t be safe.

    You, sir, have made my day. Eeheeheeheehee.

  16. Azoran says

    To quote a mildly entertaining and somewhat educational television show…
    “I reject your reality, and substitute my own” – (Adam Savage, Mythbusters)

  17. says

    Ritter responded to my e-mail. He says he does not have time to answer my questions, and referred me to the Pa. Constitution Party website, where he says I will find the answers to most of my questions.

    I asked six questions, all referring to his quotes in the news article about his (the Party’s) debate challenge. I’m a little miffed at his lack of response, but that’s life. I tried.

    Here’s part of what the Party website says:

    If someone claimed he had discovered the cause of gravity, the first thing his colleagues would say is, “Show us the proof.” Yet evolution cannot demonstrate 3 critical points:

    1. No one has demonstrated that life can evolve where none existed before.
    2. No one has demonstrated that a new sexual species can evolve.
    3. Evolution theorizes the human brain evolved from lower forms of life. Over 50 years into the age of computers, we can build machines that can crunch numbers far better and faster than humans, recognize and use language and tools, and beat us in chess. Yet science has yet to build even a rudimentary computer than can contemplate its own existence1, the hallmark of the human brain.

    It goes on from there, including bringing up PZ’s favorite equality, atheism = evolutionism, and labeling evolution a “faith” rather than a science.

    The Party has extended the challenge deadline to April 7, since there were no volunteers to participate in this farce, I guess.