That’s rather blatant

I guess I’d always thought Wingnut Daily would at least put up a pretense of rationality (it’s a paper-thin pretense, obviously, draped over a great massive lump of lunacy), but no—they’ve just published a hoary old heap of old-school creationist apologetics. It’s all about Barry Setterfield’s long-disproven claim that the speed of light has been detectably decreasing in recent history. This is completely bogus: here’s a short refutation, or you can go for the longer dismantlement. This stuff is over 25 years old, and it’s pure garbage…but that’s no obstacle to being eternally perpetuated in the great Church of Scientific Ignorance.

Get your own research, creationists!

One of those annoying habits creationists organizations have is the appropriation of legitimate scientific research to ‘support’ their claims. They almost never do, actually—the creationists have to misrepresent the science, and often they even offer interpretations flatly contradicted by the contents of the paper. For an excellent example, here’s the author of a paper on ERVs complaining that Reason To Believe’s use of her work was unjustified.

I eventually decided to reclaim my research from the people who have consistently tried to distort the science to support their own agenda. I checked a few months ago and found my paper in the RTB archives. I emailed the website’s creators, explained that they had misunderstood the meaning of my paper, that it actually provided evidence in support of evolution, and politely asked if they could please remove it from their site. I repeated my request a couple of times. I never received more than a bland message in reply saying that they would look into it.

She has also posted a summary of her work that shows she was testing evolutionary predictions, and that the evidence fit the predictions of evolutionary biology, not the ones Reason To Believe (an old-earth creationist group) wanted.

You know, I’ve seen a fair number of creationists misrepresenting scientist’s work to fit their conclusions, but I’ve never seen the reverse, where a scientist grabs some creationist’s hard-earned data and claims it supports evolution. I wonder why?

Oh … I forgot. It’s because the creationists don’t have any data! Silly me.

You’ve missed your chance

I told you that Answers in Genesis was trying to hire a geologist. You’ve blown it now, they’ve gone and hired a real pro.

The addition of Dr. Snelling confirms AiG’s continued efforts to meet the highest standards in its research in creation studies, according to AiG President Ken Ham. “Dr. Snelling’s stature among the scientific community should be an unequivocal sign to the academic world and the media that serious research is being conducted at AiG and its museum,” Ham said.

Oh, sure: “Snelling’s stature among the scientific community” is a significant indicator. Let’s see…

Oh, my gosh—Ken Ham was telling us the truth! This is a sign to the academic world and the media about what kind of serious research they’re doing!

Council of Europe’s anti-creationism recommendation

The Council of Europe has put up a wonderful motion for a recommendation. Can anyone imagine this being discussed in the American senate or house of representatives? The Republicans would howl in fury against it, and the Democrats would rush to bury it, lest they offend the Republicans and annoy the ignorant members of their electorate. (The Council of Europe, by the way, is not the same thing as the Council of the European Union or the European Parliament, so it’s not really comparable to our congress. Europe says some very sensible things, but Europe is also very confusing.)

[Read more…]

How desperate can they get?

Bill Dembski is touting some strange ID-positive blog as a sign that there is a “growing number of non-religious ID proponents” — alas for poor Bill, when you glance at the blog, it’s some random guy making a post about once a month, whose background is as a musician and professional crackpot. His sole qualification as a “scientist” seems to be that he signed up to post on that ID web forum, ISCID. You should read more on Stranger Fruit, and Afarensis reveals that rather than touting his non-religious credentials, his unique claim to fame is as an “ID Pleasurian,” believe it or not. How will we ever deal with the growing number of sex-positive, porn-friendly ID proponents?

Oh, and he’s resentful that I actually have a blog category titled “Kooks.” Probably because he presciently knew that if ever I commented on William Brookfield, that’s the category I’d pick.