Osama bin Laden disproves Darwin!

Oh, yeah…didn’t you know it was a crack team of Darwinist commandos who took out bin Laden, all to protect our secrets? David Klinghoffer doesn’t go quite that far, but he does demonstrate just how insane the gang at the Discovery Institute have gotten. After all, he does claim that Obama delayed the raid on Osama in order to promote creationism.

President Obama is said to have known the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden since September but chose to wait until May to authorize action against him. Why the delay? Could it perhaps have been to provide a super-timely news hook for the rollout of Jonathan Wells’ new book, The Myth of Junk DNA? If so, an additional note of congratulation is owed to Mr. Obama.

How do you think OBL’s body was identified? By a comparison with his sister’s DNA, evidently those non-coding regions singled out by Darwin defenders, among the pantheon of other mythological evolutionary icons, as functionless “junk.” Indeed, the myth has featured in news coverage of Osama’s death. Reports the website of business magazine Fast Company:

Because your parents give you some of their DNA, they also give your siblings some of the same genetic code — which is why sibling DNA tests work. They sometimes concentrate on areas of the genome called “junk DNA” which serves no biological function but still gets passed along to offspring. By testing for repeat strands of DNA code in these areas, it’s possible to work out if two individuals are related as siblings.

Uh, what? Wells is quite possibly the worst and most dishonest “scholars” employed by the Discovery Institute; I’ve been thinking of picking up a copy of his book simply because it will be hilariously bad. He won’t have shown the utility of junk DNA, but I’m pretty sure he will have do a silly dance while trying to justify his claims…rather like Klinghoffer here.

The reason junk DNA is useful for identification purposes is that it varies so much — it is subject to random change at a higher rate than coding DNA, because it is not subject to functional constraints. It’s been called a genetic fingerprint, and that’s a useful comparison. Think about your fingerprints: you can make a general argument that a pattern of ridges creates a texture useful for gripping, but it’s not important that there be a particular whorl or loop at a specific place. Junk DNA also lacks any specific function, but the analogy only breaks down because it also doesn’t seem to have much of a general function, given that some species like Fugu have lost significant quantities of it. The one purpose I find plausible is that, since cell growth is regulated by the ratio of cytoplasm to nuclear volume, adding junk can lead to an overall increase in cell size.

Somehow, the creationist incomprehension of the basic science is used to argue that evolution didn’t happen.

If Darwin is right, there ought to be huge swaths of ancestral garbage cluttering the genome, serving no purpose other than to identify otherwise unidentified forensic remains. So if those huge swaths turn out after all to be vitally important to the functioning organism, what does that say about Darwin’s theory? Ah, that’s exactly the question addressed in Jonathan Wells’ book.

Hang on. Darwin had no molecular biology and no genetics, knew nothing about DNA, and didn’t even know that chromosomes carried genetic information … he postulated the existence of migratory particles called gemmules that were the units of heredity (he was completely wrong, by the way). His claim to fame is discovering and documenting a mechanism that shapes adaptive heritability, and if anything, he thought selection ought to hone the heritable factors, whatever they were, to a high degree of optimality.

And now the creationists want to argue that junk DNA is a Darwinian prediction? They’ve totally lost the plot.

Explain this to me. Darwin, in their confused minds, claims that there ought to be lots of junk having no purpose other than to identify dead bodies. Junk DNA is used to identify a specific dead body, bin Laden’s. Therefore, Darwin is wrong. Even if I grant them their premise (which I won’t, because it is stupid), this doesn’t work.

Let’s see how many Darwin lobbyists have the guts and honesty to acknowledge that another icon has fallen. They have not, on the whole, left themselves a lot of room for deniability on this.

Gibbering lunatics like Klinghoffer and Wells are actually rather easy to deny.

A nefarious plan

Another tawdry semi-biblical cesspit has opened, the Creation Museum of the Ozarks. Of course it gets horrible reviews.

Then I looked it up. It’s located in Strafford, Missouri, which is a town 20 minutes away from Springfield.

Springfield. What do we think of when we hear Springfield, Missouri? No, not the Assemblies of God. We think…Skepticon. Hey, you know what that means…

ROAD TRIP. Make it so, Skepticon organizers. Set aside some time for a godless invasion of your local creation “museum”.

The true story of the Archaean genetic expansion

i-e88a953e59c2ce6c5e2ac4568c7f0c36-rb.png

I’ve been giving talks at scientific meetings on educational outreach — I’ve been telling the attendees that they ought to start blogs or in other ways make more of an effort to educate the public. I mentioned one successful result the other day, but we need more.

I give multiple reasons for scientists to do this. One is just general goodness: we need to educate a scientifically illiterate public. Of course, like all altruism, this isn’t really recommended out of simple kindness, but because the public ultimately holds the pursestrings, and science needs their understanding and support. Another reason, though, is personal. Scientific results get mangled in press releases and news accounts, so having the ability to directly correct misconceptions about your work ought to be powerfully attractive. Even worse, though, I tell them that creationists are actively distorting their work. This goes beyond simple ignorance and incomprehension into the malign world of actively lying about the science, and it happens more often than most people realize.

I have another painful example of deviousness of creationists. There’s a paper I’ve been meaning to write up for a little while, a Nature paper by David and Alm that reveals an ancient period of rapid gene expansion in the Archaean, approximately 3 billion years ago. Last night I thought I’d just take a quick look to see if anybody had already written it up, so I googled “Archaean genetic expansion,” and there it was: a couple of references to the paper itself, a news summary, one nice science summary, and…two creationist distortions of the paper, right there on the first page of google results. I told you! This happens all the time: if there’s a paper in one of the big journals that discusses more evidence for evolution, there is a creationist hack somewhere who’ll quickly write it up and lie about it. It’s a heck of a lot easier to summarize a paper if you don’t understand it, you see, so they’ve got an edge on us.

One of the creationist summaries is by an intelligent design creationist. He looks at the paper and claims it supports this silly idea called front-loading: the Designer seeded the Earth with creatures that carried a teleological evolutionary program, loading them up with genes at the beginning that would only find utility later. The unsurprising fact that many gene families are of ancient origin seems to him to confirm his weird idea of a designed source, when of course it does nothing of the kind, and fits quite well in an evolutionary history with no supernatural interventions at all.

The other creationist summary is from an old earth biblical creationist who tries to claim that “explosive increase in biochemical capabilities happened in anticipation of changes that were to take place in the environment”, a conclusion completely unsupportable from the paper, and also tries to telescope a long series of changes documented in the data into a single ancient event so that they can claim that the rate of innovation was so rapid that it contradicts the “evolutionary paradigm”.

So lets take a look at the actual paper. Does it defy evolutionary theory in any way? Does it actually make predictions that fit creationist models? The answer to both is a loud “NO”: it is a paper using methods of genomic analysis that produce evolutionary histories, it describes long periods of gradual modification of genomes, and it correlates genomic innovations with changes in the ancient environment. It is freakin’ bizarre that anyone can look at this work and think it supports creationism, but there you are, standard operating procedure in the fantasy world of the creationist mind.

Here’s the abstract, so you can get an idea of the conclusions the authors draw from the work.

The natural history of Precambrian life is still unknown because of the rarity of microbial fossils and biomarkers. However, the composition of modern-day genomes may bear imprints of ancient biogeochemical events. Here we use an explicit model of macro- evolution including gene birth, transfer, duplication and loss events to map the evolutionary history of 3,983 gene families across the three domains of life onto a geological timeline. Surprisingly, we find that a brief period of genetic innovation during the Archaean eon, which coincides with a rapid diversification of bacterial lineages, gave rise to 27% of major modern gene families. A functional analysis of genes born during this Archaean expan- sion reveals that they are likely to be involved in electron-transport and respiratory pathways. Genes arising after this expansion show increasing use of molecular oxygen (P=3.4 x 10-8) and redox- sensitive transition metals and compounds, which is consistent with an increasingly oxygenating biosphere.

This work is an analysis of the distribution of gene families in modern species. Gene families, if you’re unfamiliar with the term, are collections of genes that have similar sequences and usually similar functions that clearly arose by gene duplications. A classic example of a gene family are the globin genes, an array of very similar genes that produce proteins that are all involved in the transport of oxygen; they vary by, for instance, their affinity for oxygen, so there is a fetal hemoglobin which binds oxygen more avidly than adult hemoglobin, necessary so the fetus can extract oxygen from the mother’s circulatory system.

So, in this paper, David and Alm are just looking at genes that have multiple members that arose by gene duplication and divergence. They explicitly state that they excluded singleton genes, things called ORFans, which are unique genes within a lineage. That does mean that their results underestimate the production of novel genes in history, but it’s a small loss and one the authors are aware of.

If we were looking for evidence for evolution, we might as well stop here. The existence of gene families, for cryin’ out loud, is evidence for evolution. This paper is far beyond arguing about the truth of evolution — that’s taken for granted as the simple life’s breath of biology — but instead asks a more specific question: when did all of these genes arise? And they have a general method for estimating that.

Here’s how it works. If, for example, we have a gene family that is only found in animals, but not in fungi or plants or protists or bacteria, we can estimate the date of its appearance to a time shortly after the divergence of the animal clade from all those groups. If a gene family is found in plants and fungi and animals, but not in bacteria, we know it arose farther back in the past than the animal-only gene families, but not so far back as a time significantly predating the evolution of multicellularity.

Similarly, we can also look at gene losses. If a gene family or member of a gene family is present in the bacteria, and also found in animals, we can assume it is ancient in origin and common; but if that same family is missing in plants, we can detect a gene loss. Also, if the size of the gene family changes in different lineages, we can estimate rates of gene loss and gene duplication events.

I’ve given greatly simplified examples, but really, this is a non-trivial exercise, requiring comparisons of large quantities of data and also analysis from the perspective of the topologies of trees derived from that data. The end result is that each gene family can be assigned an estimated date of origin, and that further, we can estimate how rapidly new genes were evolving over time, and put it into a rather spectacular graph.


(Click for larger image)
Rates of macroevolutionary events over time. Average rates of gene birth (red), duplication (blue), HGT (green), and loss (yellow) per lineage (events per 10 Myr per lineage) are shown. Events that increase gene count are plotted to the right, and gene loss events are shown to the left. Genes already present at the Last Universal Common Ancestor are not included in the analysis of birth rates because the time over which those genes formed is not known. The Archaean Expansion (AE) was also detected when 30 alternative chronograms were considered. The inset shows metabolites or classes of metabolites ordered according to the number of gene families that use them that were born during the Archaean Expansion compared with the number born before the expansion, plotted on a log2 scale. Metabolites whose enrichments are statistically significant at a false discovery rate of less than 10% or less than 5% (Fisher’s Exact Test) are identified with one or two asterisks, respectively. Bars are coloured by functional annotation or compound type (functional annotations were assigned manually). Metabolites were obtained from the KEGG database release 51.0 and associated with clusters of orthologous groups of proteins (COGs) using the MicrobesOnline September 2008 database28. Metabolites associated with fewer than 20 COGs or sharing more than two- thirds of gene families with other included metabolites are omitted.

Look first at just the red areas. That’s a measure of the rate of novel gene formation, and it shows a distinct peak early in the history of life, around 3 billion years ago. 27% of our genes are very, very old, arising in this first early flowering. Similarly, there’s a slightly later peak of gene loss, the orange area. This represents a period of early exploration and experimentation, when the first crude versions of the genes we use now were formed, tested, discarded if inefficient, and honed if advantageous.

But then the generation of completely novel genes drops off to a low to nonexistent rate (but remember, this is an underestimate because ORFans aren’t counted). If you draw any conclusions from the graph, it’s that life on earth was essentially done generating new genes about one billion years ago…but we know that all the multicellular diversity visible to our eyes arose after that period. What gives?

That’s what the blue and green areas tell us. We live in a world now rich in genetic diversity, most of it in the bacterial genomes, and our morphological diversity isn’t a product so much of creating completely new genes, but of taking existing, well-tested and functional genes and duplicating them (blue) or shuffling them around to new lineages via horizontal gene transfer (green). This makes evolutionary sense. What will produce a quicker response to changing conditions, taking an existing circuit module off the shelf and repurposing it, or shaping a whole new module from scratch through random change and selection?

This diagram gives no comfort to creationists. Look at the scale; each of the squares in the chart represents a half billion years of time. The period of rapid bacterial cladogenesis that produced the early spike is between 3.3 and 2.9 billion years ago — this isn’t some brief, abrupt creation event, but a period of genetic tinkering sprawling over a period of time nearly equal to the entirety of the vertebrate fossil record of which we are so proud. And it’s ongoing! The big red spike only shows the initial period of recruitment of certain genetic sequences to fill specific biochemical roles — everything that follows testifies to 3 billion years of refinement and variation.

The paper takes another step. Which genes are most ancient, which are most recent? Can we correlate the appearance of genetic functions to known changes in the ancient environment?

the metabolites specific to the Archaean Expansion (positive bars in Fig. 2 inset) include most of the compounds annotated as redox/e– transfer (blue bars), with Fe-S-binding, Fe-binding and O2-binding gene families showing the most significant enrichment (false discovery rate<5%, Fisher’s exact test). Gene families that use ubiquinone and FAD (key metabolites in respiration pathways) are also enriched, albeit at slightly lower significance levels (false discovery rate<10%). The ubiquitous NADH and NADPH are a notable exception to this trend and seem to have had a function early in life history. By contrast, enzymes linked to nucleotides (green bars) showed strong enrichment in genes of more ancient origin than the expansion.

The observed bias in metabolite use suggests that the Archaean Expansion was associated with an expansion in microbial respiratory and electron transport capabilities.

So there is a coherent pattern: genes involved in DNA/RNA are even older than the spike (vestiges of the RNA world, perhaps?), and most of the genes associated with the Archaean expansion are associated with cellular metabolism, that core of essential functions all extant living creatures share.

Were we done then, as the creationists would like to imply? No. The next major event in the planet’s history is called the Great Oxygenation Event, in which the fluorishing bacterial populations gradually changed the atmosphere, excreting more and more of that toxic gas, oxygen.

What happened next was a shift in the kinds of novel genes that appeared: these newer genes were involved in oxygen metabolism and taking advantage of the changing chemical constituents of the ocean.

Our metabolic analysis supports an increasingly oxygenated biosphere after the Archaean Expansion, because the fraction of proteins using oxygen gradually increased from the expansion to the present day. Further indirect evidence of increasing oxygen levels comes from compounds whose availability is sensitive to global redox potential. We observe significant increases over time in the use of the transition metals copper and molybdenum, which is in agreement with geochemical models of these metals’ solubility in increasingly oxidizing oceans and with molybdenum enrichments from black shales suggesting that molybdenum began accumulating in the oceans only after the Archaean eon16. Our prediction of a significant increase in nickel utilization accords with geochemical models that predict a tenfold increase in the concentration of dissolved nickel between the Proterozoic eon and the present day but conflicts with a recent analysis of banded iron formations that inferred monotonically decreasing maximum concentrations of dissolved nickel from the Archaean onwards. The abundance of enzymes using oxidized forms of nitrogen (N2O and NO3) also grows significantly over time, with one-third of nitrate-binding gene families appearing at the beginning of the expansion and three-quarters of nitrous-oxide-binding gene families appearing by the end of the expansion. The timing of these gene-family births provides phylogenomic evidence for an aerobic nitrogen cycle by the Late Archaean.

So I don’t get it. I don’t see how anyone can look at that diagram, with its record of truly ancient genomic changes and its evidence of the steady acquisition of new abilities correlated with changes in the environment of the planet, and declare that it supports a creation event or front-loading of biological potential in ancestral populations. That makes no sense. This is work that shouts “evolution” at every instant, yet some people want to pretend it’s an endorsement of theological hocus-pocus? Madness.

Scientists, you need to be aware of this. The David and Alm paper is an unambiguously evolutionary paper, using genomic data to describe evolutionary events via evolutionary mechanisms, and the creationists still appropriate and abuse it. If you publish anything about evolution, be sure to google your paper periodically — you may find that you’ve been unwittingly roped into endorsing creationism.

David LA, Alm EJ (2011) Rapid evolutionary innovation during an Archaean genetic expansion. Nature 469(7328):93-6.

Creationism evolves!

The existence of Ken Ham proves that creationism changes, therefore proving that it is not absolute, inerrant truth as he claims, therefore Ken Ham disproves creationism. QED. We can all go home now.

i-6abf94ac6ac557bc68600ff8785c3ad9-evolvingcreationism.jpeg

By the way, that’s not a bad diagram for illustrating the relationships of the various versions of creationism, except that the pedigree breaks down for Intelligent Design creationism, which is kind of a weird syncretic hodge-podge that accommodates both of the major branches of the creationist tree. It really ought to be shown as the warped, evil offspring of an unnatural act, an orgy of all of the critters in the bestiary. And then it also lies about its parentage (as would we all, if we sprang from such mindless chaos).

Ken Ham put to shame

Oh, sure, Ken Ham wants to build a life-sized Noah’s Ark…but he’s trying to get tens of millions of dollars of tax breaks to build a giant ark that won’t even float. Johan Huibers is building his own version, and even plans to sail it around the world. Sorry, but the video is entirely in Dutch, but at least you can witness his sophisticated building techniques.

Do the Dutch authorities demand some kind of inspection before they allow so-called boats to be launched? Because that thing looks like it will barely make it into the harbor before it capsizes.

Ken Ham needs to meet this challenge: I want to see him out there with a nail gun, tacking sticks and boards together with his own money, and then I want him to set sail into the Atlantic and meet Johan Huibers halfway, where they can argue theology.

Philosophers and the tone argument

A recent issue of the philosophy journal, Synthese, focused on creationism and intelligent design; the articles I’ve read from it have so far all been anti-creationist, or at least recognize that creationism is in deep conflict with science. It’s all interesting stuff, anyway.

But there’s a problem. This issue was assembled with two guest editors, Glenn Branch and James Fetzer, and represents well the consensus view on ID and creationism. The editors-in-chief, however, published a disclaimer in the print edition.

Statement from the Editors-in-Chief of SYNTHESE

This special issue addresses a topic of lively current debate with often strongly expressed views. We have observed that some of the papers in this issue employ a tone that may make it hard to distinguish between dispassionate intellectual discussion of other views and disqualification of a targeted author or group.

We believe that vigorous debate is clearly of the essence in intellectual communities, and that even strong disagreements can be an engine of progress. However, tone and prose should follow the usual academic standards of politeness and respect in phrasing. We recognize that these are not consistently met in this particular issue. These standards, especially toward people we deeply disagree with, are a common benefit to us all. We regret any deviation from our usual standards.

They actually used the tone argument! What’s also remarkable is that this is an academic journal, and if you read the papers, you’ll discover that no one is called a poopyhead, there is no broken crockery, and no rhetorical blood is spilled. It’s a gang of philosophers, for christ’s sake, people who can look on a flaming nitwit like Ray Comfort and ruminatively ponder the cognitive framework and perceptual concept-space of the crocoduck icon. Apparently, some creationists, like Francis Beckwith, were deeply offended at the criticism of their nonsense and screamed “libel!” at the journal, and the editors-in-chief covered their butts by disparaging their authors in print, instead.

One of the papers singled out for its wicked “tone” was the article by Barbara Forrest…and already your eyebrows should be rising. She’s one of the nicest people we’ve got combating creationism, who, while fierce, always goes after the wackos with a smile and good old Southern gentility. Here’s the abstract for her article. The rest of the article politely eviscerates the epistemology of intelligent design, but the tone is not at all excessive.

Intelligent design creationism (ID) is a religious belief requiring a supernatural creator’s interventions in the natural order. ID thus brings with it, as does supernatural theism by its nature, intractable epistemological difficulties. Despite these difficulties and despite ID’s defeat in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), ID creationists’ continuing efforts to promote the teaching of ID in public school science classrooms threaten both science education and the separation of church and state guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. I examine the ID movement’s failure to provide either a methodology or a functional epistemology to support their supernaturalism, a deficiency that consequently leaves them without epistemic support for their creationist claims. My examination focuses primarily on ID supporter Francis Beckwith, whose published defenses of teaching ID, as well as his other relevant publications concerning education, law, and public policy, have been largely exempt from critical scrutiny. Beckwith’s work exhibits the epistemological deficiencies of the supernaturally grounded views of his ID associates and of supernaturalists in general. I preface my examination of Beckwith’s arguments with (1) philosopher of science Susan Haack’s clarification of the established naturalistic methodology and epistemology of science and (2) discussions of the views of Beckwith’s ID associates Phillip Johnson and William Dembski. Finally, I critique the religious exclusionism that Beckwith shares with his ID associates and the implications of his exclusionism for public policy.

That’s the worst the evolution advocates could do? I think it’s obvious that the decision to publish a disclaimer actually wasn’t motivated by a concern about the tone at all, but was actually a surrender to the ranting ideologues of the creationist movement. All we can conclude from it is that the management at the journal is craven.

Brian Leiter is calling for a boycott until the editors-in-chief apologize, which is a rather mild demand. Branch and Fetzer have made a very strong criticism of the journal:

We are both shocked and chagrined that a journal of SYNTHESE’s stature should have sunk so low as to violate the canons of responsible editorial practice as the result of lobbying by a handful of ideologues. This tells us — as powerfully as Forrest’s work — that intelligent design corrupts. We regret the conduct of the Editors-in-Chief and the unwarranted insult to the contributors and ourselves as Guest Editors represented by the disclaimer. We are doing our best to make the misconduct of the Editors-in-Chief a matter of common knowledge within the philosophy community in the hope that everyone will consider whatever actions may be appropriate for them to adopt in any future associations with SYNTHESE.

Shame on Synthese. Let’s all hope the journal staff see their way to correcting their colossal mistake.

John Wilkins is maintaining and updating a list of comments on the boycott.

Dead scientists are the best advocates for religion

Tennessee legislators are debating the addition of creationism to their science curriculum, and apparently they’ve run out of reasonable excuses, so Redumblican Frank Nicely dragged in the corpse of Albert Einstein, stuck his hand up his bony thorax, and rattled his jawbone to make a speech.

I think that if there’s one thing that everyone in this room could agree on, that would be that Albert Einstein was a critical thinker. He was a scientist. I think that we probably could agree that Albert Einstein was smarter than any of our science teachers in our high schools or colleges. And Albert Einstein said that a little knowledge would turn your head toward atheism, while a broader knowledge would turn your head toward Christianity.

No, he didn’t say that. Einstein was a secular Jew.

But wait! He needs to quote more authorities! At least this one isn’t dead yet.

Now I want to quote one other person: Thomas Sowell. In my opinion, the smartest man in America today. I’ve read him for twenty years. He’s a genius, and he is a critical thinker. And he says, why in our colleges and in our high school, why do we spend so much time arguing two theories, the theory of creationism and the theory of evolution, when neither side can prove without a doubt that they are right, when there are so many cold hard facts that our children need to know that we could be spending that time teaching? So if I was a teacher, I would teach them both as theories, and let the child as he grows up make up his own mind. And I’d spend my time teaching them cold hard facts like two and two is four and pi r squared.

Creationism is not a theory, and has been refuted by the evidence. Evolution is made up of cold hard facts. I guess Thomas Sowell isn’t so bright after all.

Isn’t it cool how creationists can just make up any ol’ damned story and get away with it?

Why is the media so hateful to Ken Ham’s “museum”?

The man certainly has an ego. His new commercial features…Ken Ham himself. Speaking as a non-photogenic and not particularly heroically-voiced fellow myself, it’s a big mistake from a purely commercial perspective for creeeepy, neck-bearded, thin-voiced weirdos with a foreign accent to be doing ads, unless he goes for the wacky angle. And this one might just feed the Christian persecution complex by highlighting the way all the media thinks his little freakshow in Kentucky is dumb, but everyone else is simply going to have their impressions confirmed when good ol’ Kenny boy stands up to out-nasal even the standard American nasal voice.

Why is the media so hateful? Because his carny-act pretending to be a “museum” actually is a menace to scientific advancement, a cheesy pile of kitsch, and a haunted house putting on airs and trying to con people into thinking it is an educational institution. They aren’t being hateful, they’re being accurate.

The malignant Jack Cashill

Perhaps you have no idea who Jack Cashill is — he’s not a person of great consequence, but he is representative of the deranged right. I first ran across him as a creationist activist, which tells you right there that he’s a few bushels short of a hogshead. He was featured on A Flock of Dodos as the fervent but somehow, supposedly, reasonable political voice of creationism. He didn’t have two heads, he didn’t tie anyone to a stake and set them on fire, so by golly, he must not be that bad a fellow…which is an interesting phenomenon, that we so readily set aside significant intellectual differences when we humanize our opponents.

But Jack Cashill has gone on to grander and ever more insane things. He’s a regular contributor to Wingnut Daily, that awful online rag of credulous far right wing pseudojournalism, and he authors the kinds of dishonest hackwork that Teabaggers drool over. His latest effort is penning paranoid conspiracy theory books about Obama, and he’s in the news right now for an absurdly bad photoshop job: he or his sources edited a photo of Obama with his grandparents, snipping Obama out of the picture and then claiming that the photo of the three of them had been the real photoshop job. Too bad their hackwork was so awful that they managed to leave Obama’s knee in their so-called ‘original’ photo.

And now, hilariously, Joseph Farah, the kook who publishes WND, has openly admitted that they “publish some misinformation by columnists”, referring to Cashill.

I knew he was bad from the start. It ought to be a gigantic red flag on anyone’s credibility when they are peddling the kind of intellectual dishonesty that we see in creationism, and it’s no surprise when liars of that sort metastasize into politics.