I know, I know already. We’re getting creationist and religious ads appearing on the right sidebar.

Seed has farmed out some of their ad space to a generic ad provider, which doesn’t pay us much and which stuffs in ridiculous ads from any old desperate wanker who wants to buy some attention. In this particular case, I know the guy behind the ad: he was one of those obsessed cranks who, for a while, was sending me nagging emails every day demanding that I read his ReVoLuTiOnArY ThEoRy. I guess he got tired of the cold shoulder and decided to buy space on the web, a sure measure of exactly how much validity we should assign to his claims, i.e., none.

Anyway, I read his site so you don’t have to. Really, you don’t: these are ads paid for by impressions, not clicks, so every time you load this page and get served up that ad, you are costing him money. So don’t click on the ad at all, that’s what gives him a sense of accomplishment. The best thing you can do is visit Scienceblogs over and over again, bleeding away the money he sunk into the ad and transferring it to my pocket, and never once click on it.

Anyway, his schtick is really clumsy. He wants you to visit his page in which he makes lots of dramatic claims, and then in order to go on and read more, you have to give him a name and address and get on his mailing list. Don’t do it. It’s like signing up for a subscription to have moldy maggoty tapioca poured in your ear every day.

Here’s what he says if you were to waste your time clicking on his ad. It’s a prediction that Darwinism will expire in a few years.

It’s no different than the Berlin Wall in 1986, Enron in 2000 or the US financial markets 3 years ago: It’s a bubble propped up by academic theorists, atheist zealots, politics and shell games – not hard science.

All that needs to happen is for the right 3-5 scientists to step forward and expose the evolution industry for what it is…. and it’s not a question of “IF”, it’s only a question of WHEN. Darwinism has about 2-5 years left. And when the !@#$ hits the, fan it’s it’s gonna be quite a spectacle.

But that’s not the important part! The real crime is that the “evolutionists” never bothered to tell you how evolution REALLY works. The evolutionary process is neither random nor accident. It’s purposeful, it’s pre-programmed, it’s so ingenious and elegant it takes your breath away.

In fact the evolutionary paradigm I’m about to share with you was first proposed more than 60 years ago. It was an object of derision and ridicule until it won the Nobel Prize for Science in 1983.

No, he doesn’t actually share the secrets with you. You have to sign up for his ego-serving mailing list, and then he’ll tell you. Maybe. He was dunning me with email for a long time, and he never managed to say anything that made sense or even revealed a speck of biological knowledge. He’s an electrical engineer and he’s an idiot. Surprise!

By the way, there is no Nobel Prize for Science. There is a Nobel Prize in Physics, which was won in 1983 by Chandresekhar and Fowler for work on stellar evolution and the formation of elements; I don’t think that’s it. There’s a Nobel Prize in Chemistry, won by Henry Taube for work on electron transfer reactions; even less likely. Then there’s the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, won by Barbara McClintock for the discovery of mobile genetic elements; BINGO. McClintock’s work was certainly surprising, amazing, wonderful…and also difficult to understand, and I can tell you that I’ve always been dazzled by the astounding insight she brought to that work, but no, it doesn’t revolutionize evolution in any way. It’s all pure genetics, no magic, and certainly has no implication of a designer.

As for his claim that Darwinism is in trouble and will end in 2013 — <snore>. It’s a creationist cliche, and they’ve been saying this since before Darwin. Predictions that evolution is doomed have been collected by Glenn Morton in The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism.
The funniest one there is Dembski’s prediction in 2004 that “molecular Darwinism” will be dead in the next five years. The only interesting thing about these predictions is that they set a date for the next creationist-mocking party. See you in 2013!

People are still going to the ghastly Creation “Museum” in Kentucky — it’s actually doing a bang-up business. Fortunately, some of the people going are critics who can see its troubling flaws.

When I went, what leapt out at me was the intellectual dishonesty of the place; it mimics a museum, but it isn’t, and it pretends to understand evolution when it doesn’t. I walked through it with a little alarm bell in my head going “wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong” nonstop.

Ideas Man picks up on another aspect of the “museum”: it’s a temple to fear. Everywhere you go, it portrays violence and bloody conflict, not just as the legacy of our past, but something to prepare for right now. I pointed out the raving paranoia of Ken Ham earlier, and honestly, the museum is the product of a mind convinced that it is persecuted, that there shall be redemption in blood, and that mass murder really is justifiable if God says so.

The whole flood exhibit is particularly appalling. Look at the loving detail in this diorama; those are the sinners suffering and dying in God’s global punishment. There was a very cold video being shown there, portraying children playing innocently in a small village when the awful wave of the coming deluge rises on the horizon…and all are killed. It’s very weird that on the one hand, they portray secular life as depravity and drugs and sex and crime, but on the other, their god is an unholy monster who slaughters children — and that’s OK!

What the “museum” actually is is an effective exhibit of intellectual terrorism — you will accept its worldview, or you will die horribly. And if you already accept that view, you can smugly wallow in the certainty that all those elitist jerks who think they’re smarter than you will suffer.

Let’s ask ourselves, once again, what the museum actually does. If it in fact does something very well and if the thing that it does it does as a function of its central narrative, we ought to assume that that is its primary ideological function. It is from this perspective that we’ll understand the Museum as a work of art, an ideological work of art, art for the sake of ideology or, perhaps, better, ideology for the sake of ideology.

What exactly did the museum do?

It scared. It scared us because it’s scary. And it’s scary because it’s supposed to be scary.

So why is it supposed to be scary? How does its fear function?
Let’s see if we can hear anything from the horse’s mouth:

One of the things that Ken Hamm told us when he was was giving his presentation was along the following lines: “you know, a lot of people ask me why we have such a realistic scene of Adam sacrificing an animal right when you walk into the Corruption room, but actually that’s one of my favorite exhibits because it shows the importance of sacrifice. It shows that we need to sacrifice to live after the Fall.”

Did you notice the weird shift that happened there?

Sacrifice is an important theme in Christianity, right? Well, of course. After the Fall, we are all mortal and our morality means suffering. Our suffering means loss. Loss means economy and sacrifice. On the traditional account, Christ “pays the infinite debt for us.” In other words on the traditional account, self-sacrifice is the redemption of suffering.

That’s not exactly how it works in the Creation Museum’s logic: there, sacrifice is demanded because the world is a bloody place. We don’t see Adam suffering: we see Adam sacrificing. Christ’s death isn’t taken to redeem the suffering of Adam, it’s a grotesque mimicry of the sacrifice we saw him doing. Suffering is passive. Sacrifice is active.

It’s a violent world. The message of the “museum” is to revel in that violence, because it is God’s will. And you can help!

Here we go again, another creationist who doesn’t understand the evolution side of the argument at all. He’s criticizing the argument from bad design in a kind of backwards way.

I’ve never heard a Darwinist complain that the mind they use is the result of lousy design, that their mind is the result of a mindless, purposeless process and thus fundamentally untrustworthy as a reality-processor. (Would you want to buy a “word-processor” made by a random, purposeless process? Would you trust it?)

I’ve never heard a Darwinist complain they’ve been given a crappy brain never designed for abstract thought, or, indeed for thought at all. And yet, according to the self-same Darwinist, the brain is not designed for anything, just like the heart is not designed, the knee is not designed, the eye is not designed, etc. They all just popped out of the ooze, on their own, for no purpose, and if you’ve got problems with that, you’re not very Bright™!

I’ll complain! I have a very bad brain for the purposes I want to use it for. It’s pretty good, but prone to awkward mistakes, for deciphering behavioral cues and inferring intent in my conspecifics, which is still a useful skill, but other functions, like the ability to search out fruit and tubers, or to coordinate a hunting party, or to detect predators lying in wait, I’ve let slide out of a lack of utility. I’d like a brain that could hold more than half a dozen numbers at once in my head, or that wasn’t prone to perceptual errors, or that could process written information a bit more efficiently than this linear, one-word-or-phrase-at-a-time parsing. I wish I had a memory that could accurately record events and scenes, rather than storing a few key hints and reconstructing the rest. I’d like a brain that was actually evolved for doing mathematics naturally, rather than requiring years of discipline and training to acquire the skill artificially.

We really do have very untrustworthy brains. The capacity for abstract, rational thought is a byproduct of general cognitive capacity, and doesn’t come easily to any of us. We have to work at it, and some of us, as is well demonstrated by creationists, never quite get the hang of it.

We even build crutches for brains. Math is a crutch. Science is a crutch. Philosophy is a crutch. Artists, too, use learned heuristics to get their minds to operate reliably in that unnatural mode. We rely utterly on these kinds of intellectual tools to focus our brains efficiently on problem solving, rather than doing what comes naturally, which usually involves snarfing down cheeseburgers and having wild monkey sex with other bipeds.

So yeah, we have crappy brains never designed for abstract thought. What we have are brains shaped by the exigencies of survival — we have big brains simply because of chance and the fact that having a smaller brain, in our peculiar niche, meant you either died or didn’t get laid. We make do. We haven’t been gifted with brains that would be better suited to our current urban/technological lifestyles.

Same with hearts, knees, and eyes. The current forms have been sculpted by time and chance to be good enough to keep us alive. All of them show signs of suboptimality, I can safely say as a fellow who needs glasses, has to watch his blood pressure and cholesterol, and has been plagued with a wobbly knee since he was a teenager. I’ll keep my back, prostate, and teeth in reserve, if we really need more examples of problematic ‘design’.

I’ll leave the strawman claim of derived structures popping whole and complete out of some mysterious ooze out of the argument, too. That’s just stuff you say when you’ve got a particularly stupid, malfunctioning brain. Although, actually, it does make my argument for me…

Last week, the hilarity was that Rand Paul refused to say how old he thought the earth was. The new chew toys are creationist apologists for ignorance trying to justify it, while also refusing to state how old they think the earth is. The amusement lies in the way these guys puff themselves up into a state of moral superiority while claiming that scientists are dogmatists…because, you know, they know stuff.

I don’t know the age of the earth, but I know that someone who thinks that someone who doesn’t know the age of the earth should have a position on the age of the earth anyway is a dogmatist. What else could he be?

This is the curious thing about people who hold to Darwinism: they demand that people with no scientific expertise hold scientific opinions. But on what basis? Many people can’t hold them on a basis of scientific knowledge, since they don’t have sufficient scientific knowledge to hold them. There is only one basis upon which they can hold them, and it is the basis upon which Darwinists demand they hold them: on the basis of authority.

Nah, it’s simpler than that. We read the books — even the simple books for the lay public — and they describe the evidence for the age of the earth, and they also explain how the data is used to explore deeper into geology. I’m not a physicist or geologist, but it’s relatively easy to get an overview of the host of data used to support estimates of the age of the earth, to see the degree of detail geologists have at hand, and it’s also even easier to see that working geologists and physicists, people with in-depth training in their fields, are not arguing over whether the earth is 6000 or 4.6 billion years old; the issue is settled.

It’s not dogmatism, it’s pragmatism. The depth of science is so great that no one brain can even grasp the whole of a single subfield, so we trust our colleagues — at least, we trust them as far as they demonstrate cooperation with the tacit rules of the institution of science, which safeguard to some extent the reliability of a scientific claim. The relevant scientists say the earth is 4.6 billion years old, and they are all willing to show their work, so I’ll provisionally accept it until I see a reliable source provide cantrary evidence. A cowardly creationist who won’t even set a rough date is not a reliable source.

It’s fine if someone doesn’t know how old the earth is, if it’s not at all relevant to what they do. I don’t do spot checks on plumbers and carpenters and electricians who come by my house, making sure they know the date of the Permian extinction before I let them do their job. But there are a couple of situations where I think it is appropriate to insist on some basic understanding.

If you are a scientist of any kind, you’d better be aware of the general location in space and time of your planet. It’s not too much to ask, most of us went through a nerdy phase (lasting practically our entire life) in which we devoured all kinds of general knowledge, and we kind of figured out how old the earth is in 4th grade. If we were a bit slow. We also puzzled out that the planet was a rough spheroid in an elliptical orbit approximately 8 light-minutes from our sun. Other kids might have been accumulating baseball knowledge or memorizing the lyrics to pop songs, but Our People learned other things.

If you are a politician, you don’t need to know the scientific data directly, but you’d better be competent to delegate, and you’d better know who in the scientific and engineering community, and that means it’s a good idea to have some information about the scientific consensus. You don’t want to appoint somebody to head the department of energy who thinks the power grid taps into electricity from the sun, or that oil was created in situ in the last 6000 years. It matters when Rand Paul runs away from a basic scientific question, because it means he doesn’t have the competence to judge who will be a good advisor or not. It also tells us that he does not have the political courage to fight for good science-based policy.

The third category is most appropriate here: if you are a creationist who regularly complains about “Darwinists” and promotes intelligent design creationism, yet declaims at length that you are so abysmally ignorant that you can’t even make up your mind whether to trust elementary geology, then nothing you can say about any science is trustworthy. It’s fine to admit that you are an empty-headed goober who hasn’t bothered to look up any relevant science at all, but when you set up a soapbox and pontificate about the insupportability of “Darwinism” from your platform of self-admitted lack of knowledge, you’ve upgraded yourself from silly schlemiel to arrogant putz.

---

One other hilarious addition: this inane creationist has posted a citation that he thinks supports his agnosticism on the age of the earth: it’s an articled describing how astronomers are revising the estimated age of the solar system — between 4.566 billion and 4.567 billion years old. Oh, yeah, baby — a little more uncertainty, and 0.000006 billion years will look reasonable!

I cannot stand the Huffington Post, that bastion of Newage folly. I really despise the Intelligent Design creationists. So when Huffpo gives space to creationist cretins, I’m done with them. Even worse, it’s an idiot creationist parroting the same old story, that Hitler was Darwin’s fault. I’ll mention just one paragraph of this dishonest bunk.

Hitler’s ideas, Dr. Berlinski carefully notes, “came from many different sources but no honest account will omit Darwin.” A reading of Mein Kampf makes that clear. Certainly, Berlinski says, the men who formulated Nazi ideology “weren’t reading the Gospels.”

Here you go, a link to Mein Kampf on Project Gutenberg. Go to town. Search for Darwin — nothing. Or evolution — that is there, but only used in the sense of “higher” and “lower” organisms, and some bizarre notion that nature abhors crossbreeding. God is all over the book, as is Christianity, even if we do grant that Hitler is pushing an idiosyncratic version of that cult.

If you really want to find the roots of Nazism, look to Houston Stewart Chamberlain, author of the “gospel of the Nazi movement”, who hated Darwinism. No honest account will omit Chamberlain…but then, the Discovery Institute writes no honest account.

This is appalling. This video of a supposedly secular high school biology classroom will show you what we’re up against.

These students are simply expressing uninformed incredulity — they can’t imagine how anything could have evolved. And the incompetent apologist of a teacher, who is sympathetic to creationism himself, isn’t doing his job, which is to explain to them exactly how biology explains these phenomena. Instead, he makes excuses: “How could I say to a student, ‘your ideas are trash’?”

It’s not hard. One student at the end says this:

How can like an African-American person evolve from a white person? We’re different skin.

Hey, student! Your ideas are trash!

So’s your teacher if he can’t address these trivial questions. You must be able to tell your students when they are wrong if you’re going to teach at all.

This is a scanned page from a Christian science textbook published by Bob Jones University. I think they’ve been listening to too much Insane Clown Posse.

We’re all just mindless zombies here at scienceblogs, but somehow, BJU is even more brainless. I swear, a creationist could walk by right now and I wouldn’t even drool. But even in my decaying state, and as a biologist, not a physicist, I can answer this one.

Electricity is not a mystery on the level this book is discussing. There is a lot we don’t know about fundamental particles, but we understand the principles of electromagnetism so well that we can use it to build hair dryers and Large Hadron Colliders; to make the argument that we are mystified by it is lying to the kids.

The common creationist argument that we can only know what we directly perceive with our unaided senses is also nonsense. One could argue that we don’t really see people, what we do is gather photons that have been perturbed, we think, by a body, and infer the existence of a person…but that’s sophistry. It is no less ‘seeing electricity’ to say that I can hook up a current meter to a couple of wires and see a needle move in response to the flow of electrons.

That second paragraph is a horror of gobbledygook. Apparently, they think electricity is something like oil, a substance lying in large deposits that must be harvested and poured into your hairdryer to make it work. A current, as mentioned above, is produced by the movement of charged particles, nothing more or less. The sun produces moving charged particles, so it is a source of electricity, and the movement of the earth generates an electromagnetic field, but I can also do the zombie shuffle across the carpet to build up an excess of charged particles and touch the cat to allow them to flow, creating electricity myself, like unto a God. I do not have to create particles to make electricity, I just have to make them move.

Also, if that little girl did not use electricity, she would be dead. All of the cells in your body create charge imbalances by pumping charged ions across their membranes, and using the flow of ions back across those membranes to create chemical energy — they are machines that convert chemical energy into electricity that is used to power little dynamos that create stored chemical energy. We also use the gated movements of charged ions to generate electrical currents in our nerves and muscles, which is how we think and move.

Isn’t it nice how clearly religion is shown to be a science-stopper? Just take common questions, declare them a mystery and that no one has an answer, and presto, religion becomes an authority. An authority stuck at a dead end.

(via @jbrownridge)

Hold onto your hats, don’t be too shocked, but a creationist has lied about science. I’m constantly getting email from fundagelical groups insisting that I must obey and join their One True Faith, and I got one from the Worldwide Church of God aka Radio Church of God aka Grace Communion International aka whatever the heck they’re calling themselves this week. They’re kind of a quirky, long-separated splinter group of the Seventh Day Adventists with their own idiosyncratic theology, but one thing they definitely are: stark raving mad young earth creationists. I was sent this bizarre article, “Cavemen are people, too!”, that grossly misrepresents the science of the recent neandertal genome sequencing. Here’s their summary of the work:

What did the scientists find? Simply put: Neanderthals are human. There was virtually no difference between the two codes. The few differences they did find were so slight that researchers say that they are functionally irrelevant–and that if more Neanderthal genomes could be compared there might be no differences at all!

But that is not all the scientists found. The data suggests Neanderthals are as closely related to humans as Chinese are to Germans, or French to Javanese. Furthermore, the genetic material analyzed indicated that Neanderthals and humans interbred and produced offspring that interbred–and regularly.

Uh, no. Did they even read the paper?

The work by Pääbo’s team found that Neandertal’s were distinct and different from modern humans in a small but significant number of ways; they were our close cousins, but they were also a separate and unique population. The differences were small — 78 genes were identified that were fixed to a different form in modern human populations — but they definitely weren’t irrelevant: everyone is rather excited about the genes associated with the development and function of the brain that differ between the two. The stuff about being related to Chinese, Germans, etc. is totally garbled. What the researchers found is that there was some transmission of Neandertal genes into human populations that were ancestral to Europeans and Asians, but not to Africans. They did not find evidence of regular interbreeding — they found that Neandertals made a small contribution to European and Asian DNA, on the order of 1-4%. And most of this was a result of a few early interbreeding events in the small but rapidly expanding population of modern humans expanding out of Africa.

They didn’t understand the paper at all, and got most of the conclusions completely wrong. You can guess what they conclude, though.

Did you get that? All those supposed pre-man, caveman bones are actually just plain old human skeletons.

It is a startling admission for evolutionists because it throws a monkey wrench into conventional evolutionary theory.

And then they’re off and running. All those prehuman fossils? Either man or monkey, nothing in between. Transitional fossils? If there aren’t any differences between man and ape-man, than there can’t be any. It’s all just “DNA passed down from generation to generation” (Yeah? So?).

The heart of their argument is that one class of ancient hominids had so few genetic differences from us that their differences are negligible, and therefore evolutionary theory is all wrong. It’s bizarre; don’t they realize that we expect that the genetic differences between sibling species recently separated will be much smaller than those between species separated by long periods of time? The discoveries in the Neandertal genome are what we expected, and fit just fine into evolutionary theory.

The author of this little piece instead decides that “science proves the Bible correct”, and that the Neandertals were actually the pre-Flood Nephilim, part of the mob of evil, warring bad guys who motivated God to kill everyone except Noah and his family. Same ol’, same ol’.