I got a request from Alonzo Fyfe for any written material to counter Intelligent Design creationism that is geared for the younger set, 12-14 years old. I figure there are enough people reading this that some might have suggestions.

Along the same lines, I’ve long thought that a collection of little pamphlets written for people with short attention spans and no background would be useful tools for both promoting biology and atheism — anyone heard of such things? Or are we all long-winded, pretentious babblers?

Aww, the creationists are criticizing me. It would be so darned hurtful if they actually had valid complaints, but as usual, it’s all half-truths, misrepresentation, and selective quoting … and projection. It’s amusing how their complaints are more accurately reflected back at them.

[Read more…]

A scientist, Charles L. Rulon, debated an ID creationist, and here are the opening remarks he gave to justify joining in the debate. He first gave a list of reasons to not debate, which I’ll summarize in my own words here:

[Read more…]

Be careful, Nathan Zamprogno. The background research behind compiling a list of all the insane things Kent Hovind believes can be very hazardous to your mental health.

Reading the list can be very entertaining, though, so thank you for the sacrifice of some of your psychological stability.

Eamon Knight finds an irritating debate (you can listen to the podcast) between a real evolutionary biologist, Jerry Coyne, and a theologian and a philosopher, and … Paul Nelson of the Discovery Institute. The first three are all pro-evolution (although I found the theologian to be annoyingly apologetic for religion, naturally enough; Denis Lamoureux is a weird and obnoxious kind of Christian who seems to use science as a tool to proselytize) and Nelson fulfills the stereotype: he opens the debate with a quotemine and gross misrepresentation. He claims that W. Ford Doolittle rejects common descent. He claims that this notion that “all living things share a common ancestor” is being challenged; unfortunately and misleadingly, he puts the emphasis in the wrong place. Doolittle would say that “all living things share a common ancestor”. Doolittle argues that there was a large pool of organisms down near the root of the tree of life that liberally swapped genes among one another, so that you can’t trace life back to a single common ancestor — you can trace it back to a large population where species distinctions were greatly blurred.

Misrepresentation of legitimate scientists it’s about all Nelson brings to the debate. It’s an excellent example of why it’s a waste of time to treat these kooks as fair and equal and trustworthy.

For another example, Nelson claims that one justification for pushing ID is that our past understanding of biology was flawed (not that he says anything that ID contributes to our current understanding). He claims that when he was in school he was taught that “cells are just bags of enzymes”, and that ID has revealed all these amazing, unexplainable “molecular machines.” Nelson is about my age or younger; when I was taught cell biology back in those same dark ages, I certainly was not taught any such nonsense. Compartments and transport, for instance, were major parts of the curriculum.

It’s not just that these creationists don’t understand biology — it’s that they actively lie about biology. Don’t trust them.

---

Mike Dunford has another recent example of Nelson mangling a scientific conclusion.

The National Education Association is having their annual meeting in Philadelphia right now, and guess who’s there?

Answers in Genesis!

It’s rather like finding the Mafia has a booth at the police convention, but there they are, with lots of pictures, proudly peddling creationist dogma that is not legal to teach in public schools, and which can get school districts embroiled in expensive lawsuits, to teachers. This has been going on for years — there is a retired teacher who rents the booth, and AiG ‘donates’ huge quantities of freebies, so they don’t have an “official” presence, but they still have people advocating what, to a teacher, should be considered criminal activities.

I’m mystified why the NEA would allow this — any teacher in a public school who followed the advice of these clowns could land their school in very hot water, not to mention that they would be misleading and miseducating their students. Are there any teachers now at NEA who could let us know if there is any counterprogramming going on? Has anyone tried to inform the teachers visiting the AiG booth that teaching creationism in school spells big trouble? I’d also be curious to know what the attendee reactions are like: AiG is only saying positive things about their booth, of course, but I can’t imagine that no teachers are loudly arguing with those idiots.

A rather unsavory character, Dr Johannes Lerle, was jailed in Germany for violating their laws against neo-Nazism and Holocaust denial. I discussed this earlier this week, and as
Gerard Harbison and Andrew Brown have recently pointed out, he was not a very nice man at all…a bit of a kook, really.

[Read more…]