Poor man. Ken Ham is being left behind by other creationists, which is of course not his failing, but of all those other faithless Christians. So he’s going to tell us where they are going wrong.

If you’re like me, your jaw dropped at that claim that …no form of evolution, including theistic evolution, can explain the origin of the male before the female, nor can it explain how a man could evolve into a woman. This is Ray Comfort levels of ignorance; we don’t argue that men evolved before women, or that the sexes evolved independently, or that men evolved into women. Those are creationist arguments. We all evolved together, our ancestors had male and female forms, and the first humans were the product of a gradual shift in populations. Anyone who tries to claim that evolution argues that the sexes evolved sequentially is abysmally ignorant, and this question about how women evolved from men is an example of a truly stupid question.

But why does Ham say the same thing twice? The first bit is quoting Answers In Genesis’s statement; the second is quoting the Assemblies of God statement, which AiG plagiarized. What he’s whining about, as he goes on, is that the Assemblies of God no longer claims that evolution can’t explain the origin of the male before the female, nor can it explain how a man could evolve into a woman. Assemblies of God has abandoned a stupid claim, while AiG still holds to that idea, therefore, to Ken Ham, Assemblies of God has abandoned the truth of scripture! Worse, nowadays they’re arguing for more tolerance on scientific matters, and reject the dogmatism that is the foundation of Ken Ham’s beliefs.

“As a result, equally devout Christian believers have formed very different opinions about the age of the earth, the age of humankind, and the ways in which God went about the creative processes. Given the limited information available in Scripture, it does not seem wise to be overly dogmatic about any particular creation theory. We urge all sincere and conscientious believers to adhere to what the Bible plainly teaches and to avoid divisiveness over debatable theories of creation.”

Uh-oh. That is a direct attack on Answers in Genesis. Ham is going to forever insist on promoting deeply wrong and ignorant ideas, and he’s still clinging to Ray Comfort’s misconceptions.

One must occasionally take a dip into the creationist literature, although I must admit I’ve been examining it with less and less frequency as time goes by. The problem is that they’ve never got anything new or even interesting, and they keep rehashing the same old nonsense, straining to make it start making sense.

So…The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism was recently posted, and it’s a good snapshot of the state of creationism nowadays. It has somewhere around 75 titles listed, and clearly there are a fair number of people wasting their time struggling to erect this facade of pseudoscience on the enterprise. I’m taking a step way back and asking what their current obsessions are — and nothing has changed in over 60 years.

An awful lot of the articles are about the age of the Earth. They are desperate to find a way to telescope all of history into 6,000 years, so an immense amount of effort is put into justifying a global flood about 4,000 years ago. Most of the articles are about re-interpreting geology or inventing novel physics to invalidate radiometric dating. I think they realize that their insistence on a young earth is absurd and unsupportable, but is also critical to their interpretation of the Bible, and they’re struggling to resolve their discomfort with reality by making lots of excuses.

Guys, it’s not working. There was no Genesis Flood. Give up. Try instead to remodel your interpretation of the Bible to fit geology and physics.

Probably the second-most popular topic is “baraminology,” their attempt to remake biological systematics in the Lord’s image. Their problem is that modern systematics is built on a solid foundation of statistics and mathematics and vast amounts of data, and they have to ignore almost all of it to make their case, and what little data they do use is ripped out of context and mangled unpleasantly to make weird examples of isolated cases.

I confess that I don’t get the point of baraminology. It’s all about grouping species into specially created “kinds”, but in a sense, we do that already with the real science of cladistics. The difference is that cladistics has a mechanism, descent with modification, while baraminology is presupposing a creator who built “kinds” on his personal and ineffable whim.

One topic that is notably absent from the program is Intelligent Design. This is a group that explicitly supports Young Earth Creationism, so it’s not surprising that the people who avoid publicly advocating for Biblical creationism (while supporting it privately) are excluded. There were a whole 4 articles that discussed capital-D Design, and they were all pathetic. For instance, one titled Testing the Cavefish Model: An Organism-focused Theory of Biological Design reported that cavefish would produce pigment when exposed to high-intensity light, and concludes These implications do not support the conventional view that beneficial adaptations arise through random mutation, unregulated genomic recombination, or accumulation of unguided genetic variation – regardless of time scales. Therefore, organisms are the agents in control of adaptations and diversification. Physiological adaptation does not refute evolution! When my students vanish off to more southern climes for Spring Break and come back with tans, should I treat that as evidence that evolution is false?

That paper had five authors, by the way, all from the ICR. What I conclude from that is that stupidity is additive.

I tried looking at the more novel papers. Apparently, creationists tolerate a high degree of flakiness in their contributors. For instance, John DeMassa claims to have found Messages in the Genetic Code: The DRAm Form through the magic of numerology.

Does the Genetic code contain non-structural information or even intelligible messages? The present work offers a mathematical investigation of the genetic code using a novel numeric procedure applied to both nucleobases and amino acids found in standard code tables. The numeric two step procedure amounts to an atom count of all the atoms in standard genetic code tables and shall be called Compound Numeric Triangulation. The first step called Compound Numeric Indexing (CNI) converts the DNA codon table (purines and pyrimidines),the RNA codon table (purines and pyrimidines) and the 20 standard amino acids into representative index numbers. In this step, cytosine (C4H5N3O), for example, presents 13 total atoms (4+5+3+1) and would be assigned the index number 13. The codon CCC is assigned the CNI value 39 (13+13+13). Similarly index numbers are collected for the other codons in the DNA and RNA tables and substituted in place of the letter codes. The same procedure is applied to the amino acids. Three tables result. The code tables are next examined for reoccurring CNI values. For example, in DNA, the CNI value 39 is found 1 time but 46 is found 12 times. The patterns are next collected and arranged in ascending table arrays (39, 40, 41, etc.) with their respective frequencies and product totals. Since 46 occurs with a frequency of 12 it is entered into the table as its product (46 x 12 = 552). This general method is repeated for the RNA codon table and the 20 standard Amino acid to give a total of three new product table arrays. In the second step, called Numeric Triangulation, the arrays are subjected to the method of finite differences. In this step, adjacent product numbers in an array table are subtracted and the result is placed above and between the adjacent numbers. The process is continued until a triangle is formed. Historically, difference triangles have been used to determine properties of polynomials but other attributes were studied in this examination. The difference triangle for the 10 base product numbers of DNA released 45 additional difference triangle values to give a completed triangle consisting of 55 elements. For the RNA code table 91 numeric elements are produced and the amino acid table 78 numeric elements. Inspection of the triangle tables show number matches at their perimeters which was interpreted as a design element and potentially an assembly motif. Surprisingly, a three triangle composite structure elegantly assembles to reveal a graphed object. This shall be called the DRAm (DNA, RNA, Amino Acid) form. Again, surprisingly the DRAm form is an intelligible pictogram consisting of 224 number pixels. The 2-D picture is next transformed, using suggestive internal number patterns, into a recognizable, printable 3-D object. An interpretative process is lastly applied to the 2-D DRAm form to reveal a startling communicative interactive tool. Theological implications with respect to the question of design and origins will be reviewed and potential applications of this discovery will also be discussed.

Did you get that? He’s manipulating the genetic code into an array of numbers, and then converting those numbers into pictures. It’s important to note that he’s not looking at genetic sequences, but the code itself — so the pictures are going to be the same for every organism.

I had to look elsewhere for examples of his pictures.

I guess that settles it.

In other fun times, an engineer at Liberty University has A Mathematical Description of the Christian God.

The Christian God is one trinitarian God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Omniscience is all-knowing. Omnipresent is being everywhere at once. Omnipotent is all-powerful. Because the Holy Spirit has been revealed in the bible as reflective of different energy forms, He can be abstractly represented as energy in mathematical terms. Since power is the time derivative of energy, we can then cast the energy representation as a time derivative to make it power. When one integrates this equation from zero to infinity over all space and time, then we can get the mathematical expression of God’s omnipotence. We can also integrate information from zero to infinity and garner the effect of omniscience. Finally, we can also integrate time and space from zero to infinity and garner the effect of omnipresence. We can then multiplicatively place these three integrals together to describe the fullness of the omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. The notion of infinity from Blaise Pascal and David Hilbert is a critical aspect of the mathematical description of the Godhead.

I see nothing specific in that description to justify claiming that generic math describes a particular god.

Enough of that bullshit. I thought I’d browse for some one article that touched on my interests or expertise…but there was nothing about spiders or evo-devo. I was trained as a fish guy, though, so this article, Unresolved Issues in Hypothetical Fish-to-Amphibian Evolution by David Prentice, should contain some common ground that I could dig into.

Unfortunately, Davide Prentice is an unqualified nobody.

B. S. Physics, M.Ed. Curriculum & Instruction, M.A. Science Teaching

LA lifetime secondary certification in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, General Science, Mathematics

Taught on Creation and Apologetics in 13 countries

He’s a retired schoolteacher, which counts for something, but his background is an undergrad degree in physics from what, 40 years ago?

This is a poster presentation bringing together multiple problems with the idea that some ancestral fish evolved into some ancestral amphibian.

The Lamarckian idea that “form follows function” has been thoroughly falsified. The only explanation for characteristics of an organism’s phenotype is the content of its genotype rather than its need for new features.

That’s a really odd way to introduce your subject. “Form follows function” is not a Lamarckian idea, it’s architectural. Here’s a nice summary of the biological uses of the concept.

“Form follows function”, a principle coined by the American architect Louis Sullivan and first introduced to the field of biology by Kosak and Groudine, is associated with modern architectural design, underscoring the idea that the shape of a building or object should be based primarily upon its intended function or purpose. In biology, this principle is reflected in the close relationship between a specific biological structure and its purpose. However, owing to the complex nature of biological phenomena, sometimes it is very challenging to reveal the precise relationship between form and function of an organelle.

Not dead, but complicated. The rest of Prentice’s opening is even more wrong: we don’t talk about need for new features, and any modern biologist will tell you that the phenotype is a product of genes and environment. This is not an auspicious beginning, and it’s all downhill from there.

The new creatures would have to undergo random mutations in their DNA to produce at least thirteen major changes. They would have to (1) leave the water and come onto land, (2) acquire two radically different types of vertebrae (rhachitomous and lepospondylous); (3) acquire segmented backbones in place of a continuous notochord; (4) develop legs instead of fine, (5) develop a pelvic girdle where none existed before; (5) acquire a mechanism to propel themselves with the legs instead of fins, (6) develop muscles strong enough to support their weight on land, (7) develop a breathing apparatus geared primarily to air, (8) develop necks which are not found in fish, (9) acquire a different number and arrangement of bones in the skull, (10) develop eardrums for the first time, (11) acquire eyelids to keep the eyes from drying out, (12) change the method of fertilization from internal as in the alleged ancestral fish to external as in all known amphibians, and (13) acquire a mechanism so as to undergo metamorphosis, which does not occur in the putative ancestral fish.

Only thirteen? That’s an easy problem then.

Except he’s simply following an old creationist stratagem of listing a bunch of stuff, claiming each one is insurmountable, while not bothering to address any of them in detail. Leave water and come onto land is a great big bucket for a whole lot of changes, and that he thinks any of them are difficult tells me he knows nothing about biology. Develop legs instead of fin[s]; yeah, we have a good handle on many of the genetic changes involved in transforming fins into limbs. As for change the method of fertilization from internal as in the alleged ancestral fish to external as in all known amphibians, I have to ask if he’s ever heard of salmon? Most fish use external fertilization!

He’s also ignorant of basic concepts in paleontology.

In addition to the biological problems, the evidence from paleontology indicates that such an evolutionary process did not happen. Tracks of four-limbed creatures have been found in at least four locations around the world. They are dated 395 MYA. The commonly accepted “transition” from water to land, Tiktaalik, is dated 383 MYA. Even if the time scale were correct, this is 12 million years too late.

You know, Tiktaalik is not a direct ancestor of modern tetrapods — it is representative of a clade of transitional forms from the Devonian. This is a non-problem for anyone who has a non-literal understanding of a fossil series and understands the concept of populations changing and diversifying over time. From such ignorance and misconceptions, this non-biologist/non-paleontologist concludes:

In short, the biological and paleontological evidence indicates that the evolution of fish to amphibians never happened.

There’s a reason I’ve been less attentive to the creationist literature over the years: it’s stupid.

If you’ve never heard of David Rives before, you’re fortunate: he’s a lesser creationist best known for the well-fed, smug, toothy smile of a prosperous real estate agent, and that he was formerly married to Jenna Ellis, former lawyer to Donald Trump who is now facing racketeering charges. It’s always sad when two hellbeasts get divorced.

Rives runs a creationist ministry with a YouTube channel in which he claims to be “changing the narrative.” He’s not. But I had to watch this video, title “Secrets of the Arachnids.” Before you jump in, though, I’ll warn you that the first 20 minutes is incredibly boring: he’s interviewing a dorky arachnologist named David Nelson, and aside from the vapid interjections of Rives, it’s mostly painless, and mostly the kind of stuff you might catch dorky me saying — he’s definitely enthusiastic about spiders. At about the 22 minute mark, though, I lose all sympathy for him.

We learn that David Nelson is a professor at Southern Adventist University in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Oh god. It’s one of those places.

The Biology and Allied Health Department fully supports a biblical six-day creation and developed the Origins Exhibit, a museum-quality display that showcases topics such as irreducible complexity of the cell, the geologic column, the flood, and dinosaurs.

It’s a temple of misinformation. While I enjoyed the early part of his interview, when he’s talking about survey protocols and cool spider facts, it then goes off the rails when he starts talking about teaching a course in venoms and claiming that all venoms are flawed, degenerate versions of physiologically adaptive molecules, and that they support the biblical claim of a Fall and a loss of ‘information’. No, they’re not. If you read anything about The Biology and Evolution of Spider Venoms, you’d know that the components of a venom are complex and diverse. It’s not just a collection of failed phospholipase molecules, but a set of numerous, specialized molecules produced by duplication and divergence. It’s absurd to claim that this is a sign of biological decay.

Spider venom can contain up to 3000 different molecules, suggesting that the prospecting of all extant spider species could yield ~10 million venom components. Spiders therefore comprise a hyperdiverse lineage of predators with venom that is far more complex than that of most other animals.

Here’s a taste of the detail in the analysis of the structure of venoms. They are beautifully unique and specialized, and the Nelson gomer throws all the information away to claim it’s all about a loss of information. Yeah, guy, when you ignore all the information, it looks like a loss.

ICKs are the most abundant cysteine-stabilized peptides in nature: they are found in the venoms of many spiders and other animals, and have also evolved diverse functions in plants, fungi, bacteria and viruses (Undheim, Mobli & King, 2016). A fundamental obstacle hindering the evolutionary analysis of ICKs is the pseudoknot motif and its disulfide bonds, which are largely responsible for defining the tertiary structure of these peptides. Amino acid substitutions can therefore accumulate with little impact on structure, leading to profound diversity (Olivera et al., 1995; Sollod et al., 2005; Kozminsky-Atias & Zilberberg, 2012; Sunagar et al., 2013; Sunagar & Moran, 2015; Undheim et al., 2016). This challenge has been addressed recently by the application of ‘structural venomics’ (a combination of venom transcriptomics, proteomics and structural biology) in Hadronyche infensa to shed light on ICK evolution (Pineda et al., 2020). This approach showed that most ICK peptides are descendants of a single weaponized ICK lineage that underwent duplication and structural diversification, giving rise to a variety of peptides with elaborate ICK folds following their recruitment as venom components (Pineda et al., 2020). The ancestral ICK toxin was proposed either to contain a fourth disulfide bond that stabilized its β-sheet (lost in some descendants) or the typical three disulfide bonds with the fourth evolving independently at least twice (Pineda et al., 2020). Domain duplication would then explain the dICK peptides (Pineda et al., 2020). Structural venomics thus provides evidence that gene duplication is an important process in the evolution of spider venom and other venomous lineages. Similarly, gene duplication was proposed as an explanation for the evolution of αLTX in Latrodectus spp. (Gendreau et al., 2017; Schwager et al., 2017). However, it is important to note that the confident reconstruction of gene evolution processes requires genomic data. Results based exclusively on venomic data sets need to be interpreted with caution as assembly artifacts and overinterpretation can easily blur the evolutionary signature and lead to false assumptions. At least one ancient whole-genome duplication event is also thought to have occurred in the lineage leading to spiders and scorpions, providing the foundation for extensive neofunctionalization (Schwager et al., 2017).

You can’t talk about the evolution of anything without talking about neofunctionalization — that is, the emergence of new capabilities in evolving molecules. The science of venoms involves deducing where each toxin component came from, and dissecting the functional effect of each one.

Horizontal gene transfer has contributed to the evolution of some venom components, including PLD in the family Sicariidae (Cordes & Binford, 2018). PLD was traced to a single proteobacterial ancestor, from which it appears to have radiated widely, at least partially facilitated by horizontal gene transfer (Cordes & Binford, 2018). Horizontal gene transfer has also been proposed to explain the origin of αLTX, based largely on the complete genome sequence of Parasteatoda tepidariorum (Gendreau et al., 2017; Schwager et al., 2017).

What exactly does David Nelson teach in his venoms course? I am mystified. He seems to be building everything on flawed premises and an utter ignorance of the scientific literature. Does he hide PubMed from his students? Because two minutes with that would show that their professor is lying to them.

I haven’t even mentioned venom delivery systems. Does David Nelson teach that these represent a loss of function from a prelapsarian ideal?

Southern Adventist University ought to be shuttered and burned to the ground. Those poor students.

I have read a whole book by Denyse O’Leary. I don’t recommend it. It was not a pleasant experience, ranking among the worst books I’ve ever encountered, which is saying a lot since she’s one of the stable of incompetents working out of the Discovery Institute. She doesn’t actually write, you see — she assembles collections of quotes with short sentences linking them and telling you what the author actually said, explanations that are often totally at odds with the authorial intent, but that’s OK, she got to name-drop a famous scientist or philosopher to ‘support’ her belief in dualism and psychic powers and life after death.

Here’s her bio.

Denyse O’Leary is a freelance journalist based in Victoria, Canada. Specializing in faith and science issues, she is co-author, with neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul; and with neurosurgeon Michael Egnor of the forthcoming The Human Soul: What Neuroscience Shows Us about the Brain, the Mind, and the Difference Between the Two (Worthy, 2025). She received her degree in honors English language and literature.

I read the one she co-authored with Beauregard, which was bad enough. I won’t even dare to touch the one co-written with that twit, Egnor. I’m also not interested in sticking an immersion blender in my ear and turning my brain into a bloody froth.

If you don’t believe me that she could be that bad, you can get a non-lethal taste of her style and content at a blog out of the Discovery Institute called Mind Matters. Her latest post there is titled The Mind has no History, in which she attempts to tell us that the human mind leapt into existence fully formed by recounting a few examples from history. I had hopes that a history of the mind that claims the mind has no history would be short and, optimally, blank, but she does her O’Leary thing instead and slaps together a series of non-sequiturs, unaware that every word refutes her thesis.

She begins with the tremendous news that philosophers disagree with each other on the nature of consciousness, implying that dualism is shaking up the world of academic philosophy.

Briefly, the leading theory has been trashed as “pseudoscience.” Tellingly, so far as one can make out from reading the letter signed by over 100 angry prominent neuroscientists, a big issue is that that leading theory is not as friendly to “abortion rights” as they might wish. (If the theory is correct, humans may enjoy prenatal consciousness…)

Oh, right. Another of her big obsessions is abortion, and she thinks bringing up weird ideas about how the mind works is useful to justify the argument that embryos might possess a fully function mind. Sorry. Reading O’Leary often quickly throws you into the maelstrom of incoherence that is the religious anti-abortion world.

What follows, though, is a grab-bag of long quotes from the scientific literature in which we see evidence of the long history of the development of human technology, with the characteristic O’Leary misinterpretation. For example:

Usually, Neanderthal Man takes it on the ear for being less evolved than us but, more and more, no one can figure out why. Here’s a find from Neanderthal cooking from somewhere between 70,000 and 100,000 years ago:

Then she quotes an article from phys.org about the discovery of a Neandertal hearth in Portugal. I don’t know anyone who argues that Neandertals were less evolved than other species, an idea that doesn’t even make sense in evolutionary theory, and I don’t think anyone is surprised that Neandertal used fire, given that we know that Homo erectus was cooking food over a million years ago.

Next, she googled up an article about excavating wooden beams from 476,000 years ago.

Nearly half a million years ago, humans were building wooden structures, of which only a very few have been preserved:

Interesting. And…? Denyse O’Leary is the one arguing that human intelligence is sudden and binary, finding old artifacts showing that ancient hominins could carve wood is not the surprise she thinks it is. It’s a weak argument, so she asks Casey Luskin to back her up. That’s desperation!

This rare find shows that some of the very human-like forms in the fossil record — perhaps Neanderthals which lived at this time period — were actually much smarter than we thought. In any case, this kind of evidence does not support the idea that early humans were unintelligent brutes and that we are descended from intellectually primitive precursors.

Uh, that gives the game away. The scientists aren’t the ones claiming that early humans were unintelligent brutes. What’s going on is that O’Leary is steeping in the assumptions of creationist culture, and whenever it’s pointed out that her biases are invalid, she takes that as evidence that she was totally right all along.

So she finds another anecdote.

Roughly 600 limestone balls (spheroids) , the size of plums, have been found alongside tools at a site in northern Israel, dating from 1.4 million years ago. What were their makers trying to do?

I don’t know. So Homo erectus was shaping stones? Is this a revelation? Maybe they were playing, or practicing, or maybe they were just bored. How does this support O’Leary’s thesis? She doesn’t say.

She has one more example, though, and she comes so close to getting it.

Researchers: Neanderthals invented process to produce birch tar. The tar can be used for glue, bug repellent, and killing germs. This finding tracks growing recognition of Neanderthals as intelligent. Why didn’t Neanderthal culture — and other human cultures — advance more quickly? Tech progress is not a stepladder. Much depends on specific discoveries.

Maybe Victorians thought Neandertal was unintelligent, but then, they thought everyone who wasn’t white and British was inferior. We’re well past that, I hope, except in the creationist community.

Think about her last two sentences. Technological progress depends on specific prior discoveries, it is true, which means it is like a ladder, with each step building on previous steps. She undercuts her own claim, that the mind has no history, by focusing on technological advancements that actually do have an obvious history. That’s Denyse O’Leary for you, though: she piles up observations she does not understand and then simply decides they all support whatever conclusion she wanted.