Getting under their skin

Answers in Genesis has a new article up whining about their nemesis, the National Center for Science Education. The bad press they’ve been getting from the science side must be getting to them.

The funniest bit is at the end. Did you know that Eugenie Scott was prophesied in the Bible? She must be a sign of the end times.


  1. says

    I was relieved to read about how Tiktaalik is not a transitional form because of some semantic bullshit of some kind.

    Phew. I can put my fingers back in my ears and go back to chanting, “evolution’s not real; where are the transitional forms? God slaughters and tortures us as a sign of his love; science isn’t nearly as important as persecuting homosexuals, etc., etc.”

    Thank you Ken, you old Ham, you.

  2. Russell says

    Of course we’re living in the end times, PZ. The universe has been around several billion years. Human history? Well, that’s just the tiniest sliver of time at the very end of that.

  3. Brian Thompson says

    Oh jeez. About halfway through and Godwin’s Law prevents further reading.

  4. Greg Peterson says

    One of the essays in the new book (actually a comprehensive update to an earlier book), Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism (edited by Andrew J. Petto and Laurie R. Godfrey) makes the strong point that the correct biological term is “transitional feature(s)” rather than “transitional form(s).” It is not possible to know if a particular fossil represents, say, an evolutionary dead end, in which case it cannot be a transitional form. But it can still have features that are transitional between earlier and later forms. Tiktaalik, whatever else might be said of it, unquestioningly has transitional features.

  5. bybelknap, FCD says

    Eugenie Scott is one of my science heroes.

    I currently give $20/mo to the NCSE (and got a loverly thank-you gift in the form of the complete works of Mr Darwin!). I will double it if one of you good Pharyngula readers – who isn’t already a contributor – donates $20 a month to the NCSE.

    The opening is my favorite bit…

    The group’s name is innocent-sounding enough. In fact, “The National Center for Science Education” (NCSE) sounds as if the organization is serving the noble purpose of promoting science education. So what’s our concern? The group’s ostensibly positive name (and that it is “for” something) obscures the fact that the very mission of the NCSE is actually a highly negative one: to aggressively counter the creationist and intelligent design movements

    Let me see if I can parse this one out… could it be because CREATIONISM and INTELLIGENT DESIGN AREN’T SCIENCE???!!!

    Those guys don’t recognize irony when they are beaten with an irony stick, poked with soft irony cushions, made to sit in the comfy irony chair and given irony soup for lunch. They just sit there and say “Thanks, This soup is delicious!”

    I don’t know, maybe if creationists stopped trying to inject Christianity into our schools the NCSE could use more resources FOR Science Education instead of AGAINST creationists. Or am I way off base here?

  6. says

    Having seen Dr. Scott talk at a conference a few years ago, I’m trying to imagine her riding a big black horse that snorts fireballs, slaughtering the innocent (and not so innocent) with a big-ass scythe.

    It’s not working. She’s just too polite for that.

  7. says

    At times during her lecture (entitled “Why Universities and Museums Don’t Present Creationism as Science”), Dr. Scott was affable, but with a sometimes sarcastic bite. For example, she took a cheap shot at a creationist who was put in jail for income tax fraud (a few weeks ago he was placed in solitary confinement), and the crowd giggled with glee at the man’s plight.

    I can’t verify any of these, but Dr. Scott and her audience were certainly more charitable than that christhole Hovind ever was:

  8. spartanrider says

    There they go lying again.”We encourage creationists-actually everyone-to know as much as possible about it as possible,thereby fully illuminating its many shortcomings.” Bullshit!I have been to numerous creation sites over the years and don’t remember seeing links to any scientific sites that deal with evolution.I have never seen a creation site recommend any popular science books that deal with evolution.Hell they don’t even like to link to each other.They afraid someone will get that extra dollar for their book or dvd.Once you start lying it just keeps getting easier until finally you don’t even realize you are lying.

  9. says

    Woohoo! It’s not too often that I am proud of my alma mater, Baylor University. But to see AiG proclamation that Baylor’s “accepting of evolution is a testimony to the sorry state of the church and its compromise with the scoffers” makes me feel that perhaps my little degree is actually worth something.

  10. jufulu,FCD says

    This is the part that gets a giggle out of me.

    “Dr. Scott declared that creation and ID “violate a key component of science”–and that science is limited to naturalism. Also, that one can’t “put God in a test tube”; and that “God must be put aside.” But who, we ask, has determined to put those kinds of limits on scientific inquiry? Certainly not the scores of creationist scientists throughout history and in the present who continue to provide exciting and excellent research without the need for a prior commitment to naturalism.”

  11. waldteufel says

    Dr. Scott is doing wonderful, productive work on behalf to science teaching.

    Ken Hambone and Looney Looy are lying, conniving, con-men.

    So, who’s on the devil’s payroll?

  12. Greg Peterson says

    The devil has a payroll? Then why do I help him pro bono?

    (As opposed to the most recent post, which is “pro boner.”)

  13. Doc Bill says

    I had no idea Genie was of Biblical proportions.

    I always thought she was just a goddess!

    To that end I make an annual offering in Dollars American to the NCSE, may their beards grow long.

    (Except for Genie, that is.)

  14. Mats says

    My oh my, the Creation Museum seems to be giving nightmares to the darwinian churches.

  15. Wolfhound says

    Church? We who accept the scientific fact of evolution have CHURCHES for this? Well, damn! Let me put on my Sunday best latex catsuit and 4 inch spiked heels! Gotta’ look good for Darwin, you know!


  16. sailor says

    “the mainstream creationist groups would all agree with AiG that evolution is not the cause or “source” of social ills like racism, abortion, random violence, etc., but believe that as societies reject God’s Word as absolute authority and accept evolutionary ideas, then this will affect the way people think and act–and fuel social ills.”

    On the contrary, our social morality, which evolves by memes is constantly changes and may even in some ways be improving. For example few societies today would tolerate slavery. In the bible it is taken as normal. So much for the word of God. And with that in mind why are so many decendants of slaves to wrapped up in the white man’s evil religion?

  17. Mindbleach says

    Brummel: start with her on a black Vespa with a comfy hoodie and shiny clipboard as a sort of Meter Maid of Doom and work your way up from there.

    I’m not surprised they turned a mention of Hitler into a “no, you!” retort, but I am surprised that everyone’s favorite socialist came up in the first place. The preceding jab about the origins of evil is the sort of misplaced comment that always makes me smile. Look, everyone, the creationists think we believe in dualism and absolute morality! Awww.

  18. hoary puccoon says

    I did a trackback on AiG. It turns out they’re quite right to be offended that Genie Scott said they used the Paluxy thing as evidence. They don’t do anything NEARLY that rational. This is a transcript from what Ken Ham claims was a real conversation–
    Atheist: “…I can’t be sure of absolutes, so I recognize I can’t even be sure of reality.”
    Ham: “Then how can you know… you’re really making this statement?”
    Atheist: “Good point.”
    Ham: “What point?”
    Atheist: “Maybe I should go home.”
    Ham: “Maybe it won’t be there.”
    Atheist: “Good point.”
    Ham: “What point?”
    Ham, whose irony meter must be permanently on the fritz, then concludes, “The man certainly got the message.”
    Whoa! I guess he did. I can’t wait for the AiG pamphlet, ‘How to be a Snotty, Little Wise-ass for Jesus.’ (And won’t it be fun to teach junior high science when the kids are spouting “scientific arguments against evolution” like that!)