Jerry Bergman is a fairly typical creationist: he’s a loon, and he’s dishonest. I debated him once to an utterly ineffectual conclusion, and it was like having an argument with a rabid squirrel — he makes no sense, he splutters out nutty fragments of angry rhetoric, and he’s ultimately of no consequence whatsoever. But he still has an audience, and he’s still out giving invited talks at churches all over the country. Next week, Bergman will be speaking in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and we’ve got a preview of what he’s going to say on the — duh duh DUHHH — Dark Side of Charles Darwin.

Part 1:

• Charles Darwin’s major goal in developing his theory was religious, he wanted to “murder” god (his words).

• He was active in “converting” all he could to his theory of origins.

• Darwin plagiarized most of his major ideas.

• Darwin was a racist of the worst kind and believed the lower races (the blacks) would go extinct.

• Darwin was opposed to helping the sick, but realized this idea would not go over well.

• Charles felt a wife was better than a dog (really!).

• He was severely mentally and physically ill, likely an agoraphobic.

• As a young man he was sadistic and loved to kill animals with anything he had: guns, sticks, even hammers!

Part 2:

• It is well known and well recognized that evolution is the doorway to Atheism.

• About 98 % of leading life scientists are Atheist.

• A major reason given to become an Atheist was evolution.

• The whole point of the evolution creation account is to demolish the theistic creation account.

• It takes more faith to be an Atheist than a Creationist.

• Dr. Bergman will cover the Atheist creation story as developed by Hawking and others to document this.

• Orthodox Evolution is defined as from nothing to everything purely by chance, time, and the outworking of natural law (which also originated by chance, time and natural law).

That first part is just incredibly poorly done, ahistorical, lying character assassination, and is totally irrelevant to the science. Even if Bergman were right and Darwin had been a diseased psychotic squirrel-murderer (Bergman does take that personally) with delusions of being Hitler, we wouldn’t care — the theory of evolution stands or falls on the quality of the current evidence, not the character of its founder.

Bergman’s sleazy attack on a Victorian gentleman’s character says more about Bergman than Darwin. Take that first claim, for instance. It’s a complete lie. Here’s what Darwin actually wrote about “murder”:

At last gleams of light have come, & I am almost convinced (quite contrary to opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable.

I think, if you have a basic grasp of the English language, you’ll recognize that in that passage Darwin is explaining that he felt guilty about arriving at a conclusion opposed by the clergy…not that he had the intent of founding a religion to kill god.

The rest is nonsense of equivalent stupidity. But I’m sure he will be well-received by the creationists of Milwaukee, who share Bergman’s derangement. I hope there are no hunters in his audience, though, who might be a little cranky about calling their interest in guns and hunting “sadistic”.

People keep asking me this question after the creationist event here in town — Mortenson spoke about how creationism is so much more egalitarian than evolution, and how the Bible talks about these wonderful things people did in the book of Genesis, like Cain going out and founding a whole city, by himself! At a time when the world population was 4, however, that doesn’t seem like a great accomplishment. Anyway, some people thought that far, realized that in the creationist conception of an entire world population arising from two people only, there was an obvious problem in the second generation.

Have no fear, the creationists already have an answer, as I explained before. Cain had sex with his sisters. The creationists are even proud of this explanation, and you can buy it on a postcard in their cheesy gift shop, which does make one wonder about their clientele a little bit.

The exhibit goes on to explain how this was OK, because Adam and Eve were perfect and carried no deleterious alleles that might have caused trouble when homozygous. They also chew us nonbelievers out for finding their stories a bit objectionable.

Since God is the One who defined marriage in the first place, God’s Word is the only standard for defining proper marriage. People who do not accept the Bible as their absolute authority have no basis for condemning someone like Cain marrying his sister.

And people who do not understand population genetics have no basis for arguing that a species can survive a population bottleneck of two.

It’s another frantically busy day, so I don’t have time to give you the full run-down on the misleading nonsense Terry Mortenson from Answers in Genesis gave last night, but I do want to give one example. In one section of his talk, he referenced an article in Scientific American which discussed a hominin find: the specimen called “Lucy’s baby”, the bones of an Australopithicus afarensis, who was 3 years old when she died about 3.3 million years ago. He showed this diagram of the fossil — in orange are the bones actually found, in white are the ones that had to be reconstructed and interpolated from other Afarensis specimens. Mortenson added his own labels on the left, though.

• shoulder blades like a gorilla

• inner ear like an African ape

• long curved finger like a tree dwelling ape

• voicebox like a chimpanzee

• brain capacity like a chimpanzee

He pointed out that many of the features described weren’t present in the bones from this specimen, implying that they were just making stuff up. Then what does he say? “Look at that: gorilla, ape, ape, chimp, chimp. They called this a stunning new human fossil, but all the evidence says it’s an ape.” I’m going to hold him to the same standard of scholarship they insist upon in their analysis of the Bible: when the Bible says their tribal god told Noah to bring two of every kind on the Ark, that means he could not have left any of the kinds behind. Mortenson plainly said that all of the evidence in this article says Australopithecus afarensis was an ape. Take a look yourself.

Scholars agree that A. afarensis was a creature that got around capably on two legs. But starting in the 1980s, a debate over whether the species was also adapted for life in the trees emerged. The argument centered on the observation that whereas A. afarensis has clear adaptations to bipedal walking in its lower body, its upper body exhibits a number of primitive traits better suited to an arboreal existence, such as long, curved fingers for grasping tree branches. One camp held that A. afarensis had transitioned fully to terrestrial life, and that the tree-friendly features of the upper body were just evolutionary baggage handed down from an arboreal ancestor. The other side contended that if A. afarensis had retained those traits for hundreds of thousands of years, then tree climbing must have still formed an important part of its locomotor repertoire.

Like adult A. afarensis, the Dikika baby had long, curved fingers. But the fossil also brings new data to the debate in the form of two shoulder blades, or scapulae–bones previously unknown for this species. According to Alemseged, the shoulder blades of the child look most like those of a gorilla. The upward-facing shoulder socket is particularly apelike, contrasting sharply with the laterally facing socket modern humans have. This, Alemseged says, may indicate that the individual was raising its hands above its head–something primates do when they climb.

Further hints of arboreal tendencies reside in the baby’s inner ear. Using computed tomographic imaging, the team was able to glimpse her semicircular canal system, which is important for maintaining balance. The researchers determined that the infant’s semicircular canals resemble those of African apes and another australopithecine, A. africanus. This, they suggest, could indicate that A. afarensis was not as fast and agile on two legs as we modern humans are. It could also mean that A. afarensis was limited in its ability to decouple its head and torso, a feat that is said to play a key role in endurance running in our own species.

Even looking at the simple illustration, you can see evidence that this animal had differences from other apes — look at those femurs! The article also makes it clear that they were using new data from this one specimen in addition to data from other A. afarensis specimens to reconstruct morphology.

It doesn’t say anything about a voicebox (the fossil included a hyoid bone) or cranial capacity; I guess Mortenson’s summary was a composite of multiple sources, which is fine, but it is something which he considers unforgivable if scientists do it.

But this article does plainly state that the fossil “has clear adaptations to bipedal walking in its lower body” — it’s merely highlighting the differences from modern humans because the similarities are well known.

Anyway, now you get the tone of the evening. Mortenson kept bringing up scientific studies in between his bible verses, and in every case he mangled and distorted and lied about them, while the audience tittered at those wicked evilutionists. He also brought up Piltdown man (a hoax that was discredited by scientists) and Nebraska man (a bit of newspaper sensationalism that never made it to the scientific literature), and claimed that every hominin fossil was the product of imagination and fraud.

You don’t believe he could have been so dishonest? We don’t have a recording of last night’s talk, but here’s an audio recording of the very same talk given a few months ago. It really is nearly exactly identical, and if you dare to suffer through it, you too will see what a disreputable fraud the entire Answers in Genesis enterprise is. When I was listening to this guy, I marveled at him — I couldn’t tell whether he was ignorant, incompetent, or a professional con-man. I suspect it was a ripe and pungent combination of all three.

I sat through another horrid performance from our creationist visitor, Terry Mortenson. He lied and lied and lied for a couple of hours again, and once again refused to answer questions. Once again, I twittered my way through it. My student, Kele Cable, was also there, and he has a blog entry where he lists all of the fallacies from Mortenson’s talk from last evening.

One amusing thing tonight was that a couple of nice Christian ladies had a ‘conversation’ with me. Have you ever considered the possibility that Christianity is true? Have you weighed what you have to gain from life with Christ against the Judgement? Have you ever read the Bible? They were completely oblivious to the possibility that I have considered their evidence, and found it silly.

I also had one nice Christian woman ask me why I wanted to kill all the Christians. She said she read it on my website.

I’m gonna have a cuppa tea right now. It probably would be better for me to have a beer to relax, but there isn’t enough alcohol in the world to blot away all the stupidity I listened to tonight, so I’m not even going to try.

I just suffered through a few hours of Terry Mortenson, Answers in Genesis stooge, babbling and lying on stage here in Morris. I’m going to recuperate for a while with a nice cup of tea and a little light reading, so don’t expect me to post on it now. You can browse my twitter feed for the short choppy reactions I put up during that horror, and I’ll try to summarize it tomorrow.

Although…he’s also speaking tomorrow night. I suppose I’ll have to suffer again, Christlike, for you.

---

Oh, by the way: the most annoying part of the event is that they announced at the beginning that there would be no Q&A, because Mortenson’s voice was giving out. Then cancel the crappy lecture part, and turn it over to questions! The guy is giving 7 lectures in two days — I think we’ve have our fill of this loon just standing up there and lying at us.

Oh, dear…today is the day the clown from Answers in Genesis is speaking at the elementary school in Morris. I guess I’ll be going, even though Terry Mortenson is a goats-on-fire flaming moron. Here he is in all of his pursed-lipped pretentious glory.

Anyway, I’ll be attending his 6:00 lecture — “Dinosaurs: Have You Been Brainwashed?” — and the 7:30 exercise in idiocy — “Noah`s Flood: Washing Away Millions of Years”. The schedule is online; I may get more than my fill today, so I don’t know that I’ll go to any of the Monday events. It’s a disgrace that such a fool was invited here.

I will have my iPad with me and will be live-twittering the event (look for the hashtag #creoass). I’ll also post a summary here. Don’t expect much — this guy is classic old-school dead-brainless creationism: 6000 year old earth, Flintstones was a documentary, all of geology is explained by the flood, unbelievable stupidity.

One possible saving grace is that the Morris Freethinkers will be meeting next Saturday at the Morris Public Library from 3-5pm to have a panel discussion about the event. Everyone is welcome. We’ll be tearing his inanity apart.

People are still whining at me about Martin Gaskell, the astronomer/old earth creationist who didn’t get a job at the University of Kentucky. I’m afraid you’re not going to convince me; I wouldn’t hire the guy under any conditions, because he endorses very bad science.

How bad? Well, read his defense of Genesis. Even though the version on the web has apparently been edited since the controversy began, it still contains some telling revelations. Clearly, the fellow he views as one of the best sources with views similar to his own is Hugh Ross; he’s cited frequently, and is praised as a good source with some reservations. Ross is an old earth creationist, one who has accepted the evidence of physics and geology that the Earth is 4½ billion years old, but completely rejects all of the major conclusions of biology.

“The Fingerprint of God”, Hugh N. Ross (1991, Promise Publishing Co.: Orange, California, about $10). Discusses the important implications of modern cosmology (at approximately the level of a university introductory course) for Christian faith. Includes discussion of the history of philosophy and a very brief (note form) discussion of the problem of suffering and evil and an excellent discussion of Genesis 1 and 2. Lots of references to the literature. Ross is an astrophysicist. He is weak on biology and geology. Note that this book (and the next one) predate the discovering of “dark energy” driving the acceleration of the universe.

“The Creator and the Cosmos”, Hugh N. Ross (1993, NavPress, about $10). This has quite a bit of material in common with his earlier book, and is at the same level, but is more up to date. If you’re really interested in the theological implications of modern astronomical discoveries, Hugh Ross’s books are a good place to turn. Many Christian astronomers have praised Ross’s books.

Dr. Ross has a very useful web site (http://www.reasons.org/).

This was the big red flag for me. Anyone who can endorse Hugh Ross has credibility problems, because Hugh Ross is an incompetent fraud — “weak on biology”? Heck, the guy is a raving idiot on biology. Here’s how bad he is:

Notice how he pompously declares that biology must have a mathematical foundation, and then fatuously announces that he knows from the frequency of negative mutations that evolution is impossible…as if no biologist had ever considered the possibility of using math to quantify selection, drift, or mutation rates. As if Wright, Haldane, and Fisher had never existed. We have an entire subdiscipline of population genetics that has considered these issues and modeled them mathematically; Ross is speaking out of appalling ignorance.

Note also who he is sharing a podium with: Kent Hovind. They aren’t arguing with each other, either — they’re accomplices in crime.

Furthermore, since Ross claims evolution is impossible in anything but bacteria, he’s got to provide his own alternative explanation. Noting that we have all these transitional fossils for horses and whales, here’s his explanation:

God loves horses and whales. He knows because of their huge size and small populations that they will go extinct rapidly. When they do, he makes new ones.

This is what Martin Gaskell chooses to endorse, and fails to see any of its logical failures. UK was wise not to bring this disreputable loon into the fold, and I think it’s a shame that they caved in and bought off his lawsuit.

I’m so sad. It sounded so charming: “This special evening begins at 6:00 PM with an inspiring message about love and the biblical view of marriage from Creation Museum founder, Ken Ham”. If only I could learn about romance from a sleazy fundamentalist atavism with a neck beard.

Sadly, some people who did know about it, and who paid the $71.90 in advance, and showed up to hear Ham’s special squeals of wisdom, got expelled.

Unfortunately, we were told at the door that we would not be allowed entry.

They explained to us that the Creation Museum Date Night was a “Christian environment”, therefore the presence of two men eating dinner together would not be allowed. The very sight of this would “add an un-Christian element to the event” and “disrupt the evening for everyone”.

That would be unchristian. Jesus always showed up for dinner with a hot chick on his arm, you know.

It’s also not a real Date Night without suspicious guards and security checkpoints. I know when I’ve been out of town for a few days and want a quiet evening to spend with my wife, we always start by threatening to tase each other.