He must be one of those very abstract types who never looks at data, doesn’t understand statistics, and has never heard of the word “normalized.” In a post that is a microcosmic analog of the whole Intelligent Design paradigm, Dembski completely bungles an analysis of Google searches to conclude that “international interest in ID is growing.” Andrea Bottaro shows that he screwed up thoroughly, and the conclusion is actually the reverse.

I wonder if Dembski will acknowledge the correction, and admit that international interest in ID is negligible or declining? Or will his mistake mysteriously disappear from his web page? Anyone want to place any bets?

Maybe I was too hard on Harun Yahya. As Wesley writes, plagiarism and theft are common practices among creationists—it’s even encouraged.

Authors such as George Macready Price and Henry M. Morris assembled many of the arguments together in various books. And, as I said, nobody cares if you steal it. In fact, others will be confused if you provide complete references and trace back claims to sources. That just isn’t done as a matter of course in this field, and, of course, it pays to pick up the social gestalt of your new career.

When among knaves and fools, do as they do.

Here’s a gorgeous educational site, The Virtual Fossil Museum. It has a nicely organized set of fossil galleries, all intended for use by the education community, and all appropriately credited. This is the way it is supposed to be done.

Unfortunately, that’s not the way creationists do it. Here’s a case of creationists caught red-handed in blatant theft.

[Read more…]

A reader (who will be nameless, unless he wants to confess in the comments) sent me a chunk of Coulter’s book, Godless. It’s worse than I feared. It contains the usual stock creationist crap presented at a rapid pace, full of the usual bald assertions of outright lies, intentional misinterpretations, and lots and lots of quote mining. Seriously, it looks like every paragraph contains multiple falsehoods or screwy manglings of science.

She claims Darwin’s theory is “one step above Scientology in scientific rigor“, that it is a “tautology“, that there is “no proof in the scientist’s laboratory or the fossil record“, and the only reason it’s still around is that “liberals think evolution disproves God.”

That’s all in the first paragraph of chapter 8, which focuses on evolution. Go ahead and follow the links up there; each one is to a short, simple refutation of Coulter’s claim.

Now picture a whole 27 page chapter packed with the same nonsense. I could do a sentence by sentence dissection of this abomination, but I’d have to write nothing but Coulter exposés for the next month. Forgive me if I pass on that.

Not only is it wrong through and through, but Coulter is a plagiarist. This is the book that William Dembski thinks “will propel [their] issues in the public consciousness like nothing to date“—well, yeah. Let’s propel the idea that creationists are dishonest and stupid right into everyone’s consciousness.

---

I just saw Coulter and Carlin on the Tonight show. Carlin was bland and harmless; there was no confrontation. Coulter was contemptibly smug, and Leno was a wimp who tossed off a few lazy questions and let her slide by. Of course he didn’t bother to mention the gross factual inaccuracies in her book.

She also clearly had an audience of fans there. They ate up every sneer and lie. No one is going to call her on them.

No, I don’t have Ann Coulter’s book yet (it is so annoying to want something cheap and easily accessible, yet have to refuse to actually pay for it on general principles), but since she’s hammering the talk show circuit heavily, we’re getting dribs and drabs of her amazing knowledge of biology.

John Hawkins: If you were to pick three concepts, facts, or ideas that most undercut the theory of evolution, what would they be?

Ann Coulter: 1. It’s illogical. 2. There’s no physical evidence for it. 3. There’s physical evidence that directly contradicts it. Apart from those three concerns I’d say it’s a pretty solid theory.

1) Darwinian logic is quite simple and clear. Here’s a short summary:

• If heritable variation exists, (which, of course, it does)
• if excess reproduction occurs, (also obviously true, or we’d be up to our ears in mice)
• if variants differ in their likelihood of survival and reproduction, (a little trickier, but still fairly obvious)
• then the relative frequencies of the variants must change.

There’s also the greater point that evolution, not just Darwinian selection, was derived entirely from observation and experiment. There’s a kind of empirical logic running throughout it.

Note that Coulter doesn’t say what is illogical about it.

2) The claim that there is no evidence for evolution is both absurd and dishonest. For a short summary of the physical evidence, see 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent (“short”, of course, being a relative term. That page is huge, but it is dwarfed by all the new data pouring in every month in the scientific journals.)

3) The existence of evidence that contradicts evolution is a hard one to address when the critic can’t even bother to specify any. There are lots of instances of creationists claiming to have evidence contradicting evolution, but usually what we get is evidence contradicting their ignorant caricature of evolution. For instance, many argue that the Cambrian explosion is evidence against evolution—of course, it isn’t, but is simply an unusual and interesting phenomenon within the long history of common descent. It’s like saying that the Industrial Revolution is evidence against the facts of European history because it was a period of rapid technological change.

You know, when someone like Coulter has to flaunt their ignorance and lie to defend their thesis, you know there’s something wrong with it.

Because this letter from a lawyer complaining about the decision to have the anti-evolution sticker removed from textbooks makes my brain bleed. This was the sticker that said,

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

That sticker was nothing but sneaky creationist propaganda—it strangely singles out evolution for critical thought, it implies an inappropriate meaning to the word “theory” (that it is the opposite of a fact), and it’s clearly an attempt to sow uncertainty and doubt in the minds of schoolchildren in an area where there shouldn’t be any. It was thrown out by a judge, but this creationist lawyer is now trying to say that decision was wrong.

[Read more…]

The mighty Kent Hovind has struck out.

On June 5th 2006, Hovind pled nolo contendere as
charged to three counts: constructing a building
without a permit, refusing to sign a citation and
violating the county building code. Hovind was ordered
to pay $225.00 per count. The plea brings to an end a
5-year battle over a $50.00 building permit. Hovind
estimates he spent $40,000 in legal expenses on this
case. Meanwhile, the property taxes for Dinosaur
Adventure Land are in arrears in an amount of
$10,338.36 ($4,955.23 for 2005 and 5,383.13 for 2003
and 2004).

In both criminal and civil trials in the United
States, a plea of “nolo contendere” means that the
defendant neither admits nor disputes the charge or no
contest. It literally means “I do not wish to
contend.” Spiro Agnew famously approximated it as “I
didn’t do it, but I’ll never do it again.” This plea
is only recognised in the U.S. No formal plea is
required in civil matters where paper pleadings are
used.

This new book by Ann Coulter is going to be full of delectable idiocy, isn’t it?

Coulter devotes the last 80 pages to her full-scale attack on the theory of evolution and the utter dishonesty of what she calls the “Darwiniacs” and their refusal to face the fact that evolution is a patent absurdity, according to Coulter, credible only to those who will find any reason to deny the existence of God.

Great. Virtually every biologist in the world must be an atheist, then. Good for us! I’m sure this is going to be a bit of a shock to the readers of this weblog who understand and accept the evidence for evolution, but think they’re also Christians. You can all stop going to church now!

“The fundamental difference between our religion and theirs is that theirs always tells them what they want to hear,” Coulter declares.

“Darwinism never disappoints the liberals. They never say ‘Well, I’d like to have cheap meaningless sex tonight, but that would violate Darwinism.’ They can’t even say ‘I’d like to have cheap meaningless sex tonight with a goat, but that would violate Darwinism.’

This is true. Neither does Coulter, though. She also doesn’t get to refuse to screw goats because it would violate Boyle’s gas law. Is this a surprise? Evolution doesn’t pretend to be a set of moral rules. It’s a description of how populations of organisms behave over time, not how individuals should behave.

Why, without Ohm’s Law to restrain her, what’s to prevent Ann Coulter from indulging her wanton, bestial lusts?

If you have an instinct to do it, it must be evolved adaptation.

What if we don’t have an instinct to do it? I note that I seem to be lacking the instinct to have sex with goats. Unlike Ann.

Liberals subscribe to Darwinism not because it’s science, which they hate…

<spit take>

What?

…but out of some wishful thinking. Darwinism lets them off the hook morally.”

Actually, I use the Nernst equation to justify my immoral behavior. I reserve Darwinism for those nights I need an excuse to go dancing.

As fun as this book looks, though, I’m not going to buy it unless I can find it used. I hope the pages aren’t going to be stuck together.

Lehigh University is becoming quite active in asserting their opposition to ID. Wonder why?