The fruits of war (creationist branch)

Duae Quartunciae (will he ever settle on a name?) has an excellent historical summary of the Answers in Genesis civil war. There’s loads of fun stuff there, including an account of a prior split that involved accusations of witchcraft and “demonic infiltration”, Ken Ham’s pitiful claim that he is currently under “spiritual attack”, and bizarre sleazy shenanigans, largely driven by the nastily ambitious American group led by Ken Ham.

In October of 2005, there was a fateful meeting between AiG-USA and members of the board of the Australian group [now called Creation Ministries Internation, CMI] — but not the management of the Australia group. The Australian board signed a rather startling agreement, in which they give AiG-USA a license to use and modify all the articles on the website, while at the same time holding AiG-Australia liable for any damages that might be claimed arising from such changes. Basically, they handed over complete control of the articles to AiG-USA, took full responsibility for ensuring authors would also consent to this, and accepted full liability for any damages should the original authors object!

It’s got lots of links to the documentation published by both the Australian and American creationist groups. One of the wonderful benefits of this kind of internecine battle, besides the fact that they are eating their own, is that all kinds of useful internal information spills out of the wounds. And now it’s all nicely organized in one place.

Sunday in the Park

The first of three potluck picnics sponsored by one of our regional godless groups is being held Sunday, 10 June, at noon, at Columbia Park—Skatje, my wife Mary, and I are planning on being there. Come on out and join the freethought community in the Twin Cities area!

By the way, it’s weird how we’ve got all of these infidel organizations here — the Campus Atheists, Skeptics, and Humanists at the University of Minnesota, the Humanists of Minnesota, the Minnesota Atheists, and the Atheists for Human Rights (who in this case aren’t participating in the picnics). The Twin Cities has an embarrassment of riches, while the rural parts of the state are just embarrassingly pious. We have a few students who are going to try and start up a CASH chapter here in Morris next year, and we’ll see how well that goes—if there are any other atheist groups in outstate Minnesota, let me know…and if there are any lonely, isolated atheists scattered here and there (and I know there are), let me know that, too. We should try to build a wider community.

Whining for a paper

Somebody out there must be able to give me a fix—I keep trying to get this paper, and either my library gives me ambiguous messages about access and a few errors, or the Royal Soc. site balks and tells me that there is system maintenance going on. I can’t even get to the videos. Come on, man, I’m going through withdrawal here. I need a little taste. Please.

Kubodera T, Koyama Y, Mori K (2007) Observations of wild hunting behaviour and bioluminescence of a large deep-sea, eight-armed squid, Taningia danae. Proc Biol Sci 274(1613): 1029-34.

There’s got to be a fellow academic out there who’s willing to help out a squid junkie in need. If you can send me the pdf, I’ll owe you bigtime.

Thanks to Reginald Selkirk, Bob O’H, and Don S., I now have my fix. I’m squirting it into my brain through the eyeballs right now. I may have to go lie down for a while to let the good feelings linger.

This is pretty nifty — putting out a request and getting multiple replies in less than a half hour.

I didn’t even have to get my hands dirty

That Egnor fellow believes that if minds are material, than “all of humanity’s notions of moral value and culpability are nonsense”—like most creationists, his arguments collapse into a rather pointless fallacy, the argument from consequences. It’s enough for me to just say that if I’m correct, then Egnor is the one who believes his morality is gone, not me. It’s a theme running through his latest bloviation, that truth is irrelevant if ideas are a product of the brain, to which I have to say, “so what?”

Anyway, I’m pleased to say that I don’t need to waste time with the babbling Egnor, since ck at Arbitrary Marks has taken him down for me, in a
three
part
series on “iron spikes and materialism.”

Now I want the rest of you to get cracking and slay a few creationists for me. I like this business of sitting back with a kind of imperial hauteur while the knights go out and skewer the dragons.

Adam was naked!

Wesley has the story, and you can get more details from Toledo TV news story and a Cincinnati Enquirer article — but the silly news is that one of the models for the Creation “Museum’s” Adam was a fellow named Eric Linden, who was associated with a site called the Bedroom Acrobat. The “Museum’s” video with Linden has been yanked, and Linden himself seems to be rushing to dissociate himself from the naughty web site, claiming now that he only bought the domain name.

I say there is nothing wrong with running a site about sexual activities; Linden should not be ashamed of it; it is disgraceful that Answers in Genesis should be so puritanical and sex negative that they don’t even want to use a short clip of someone merely known to have had sex; and if Adam had been real rather than a fictitious, mythical character, he probably would have been quite the bedroom acrobat himself, since he would have had to have fathered the entire human race.

I think the Creation “Museum” should bring back the video and increase the coverage of the Adam and Eve story. If they want to keep their visitorship up, I have a suggestion: more full frontal nudity, with an unabashed and open display of the importance of sexual activity in God’s fertile creation. And if attendance starts to flag, I have a two-word term for a bold plan that would grab the media’s attention again: animatronic genitalia. When Adam first meets Eve, a roar and a <sproingggg!> would be perfectly appropriate.

It would be OK, since it’s all in the Bible. I mean, if “dinosaur” is in there, I’m sure “erection” is too.

Behe’s The Edge of Evolution, part II

Behe has written a very bad book, so poorly supported that I don’t want to waste a lot of time taking apart every sentence, but I did want to say a few words about chapter 9, where he takes on evo-devo. I waited a bit because I knew that Sean Carroll was writing a review of the book for Science, and I expected he’d go gunning for chapter 9, too—but no, he didn’t. I guess he felt as I do, that since Behe’s fatally flawed premise was exposed in the first few chapters, there was little point to addressing his incompetent nit-picks later in the book. After all, when the construction crew has built a foundation of tissue paper in a pool of quicksand, by the time you get around to criticizing the roofers for using graham crackers for shingles, you’re about out of outrage.

I’ll briefly note the best parts of Carroll’s review, though, and I’ll try to gather up a few tired shreds of indignation and exasperation to critique some of the more ridiculous canards of Behe’s evo-devo chapter.

[Read more…]