From the Leader of the New Creationists

Official New Creationists Newsletter

Fellow New Creationists, our strength to undermine science grows stronger every day!

As you know, I have just released my version of events in a new book. In this New Creationist document, I distance myself -and thus our ultimate goals – from “wild-eyed fundamentalists”. I stake claim to a position of “nuance”. I have taken a fundamental step in achieving the plan laid out in our mission statement; I have shown just how easy it is to Reach a Middle Ground.

In lieu of our stated first step to use Christian scientists to espouse our coy creationism, I have put myself in the forefront of political and media life to carry out this goal. I have spoken of my upbringing by a father who was a science teacher. This, fellows, is what the American people want. I have suggested my background makes me sympathetic to science. What I say must be viewed as a reasonable Middle Ground; I hate not science (as the public believes) yet I do not shy from entering theology into the discussion. QED.

As is par for the course, I have advocated “teaching both sides”, a key component in Reaching a Middle Ground, but I have furthered our cause by bringing a classic bait-and-switch back into the game. “Microevolution” is perfectly acceptable to all New Creationists. How can we reject it? We can’t. And so we actually embrace it. We are so amiable to science that we have taken the time to investigate – through Academic Freedom, no doubt – the important distinctions in biology. We have concluded (for the sake of the public’s eye) a most reasonable Middle Ground position. “Macroevolution” is simply the stuff of those religious New Atheists. They haven’t bothered to adopt a position as “nuanced” as ours.

We are the New Creationists.

Hitler was a creationist

From Mein Kampf:

Walking about in the garden of Nature, most men have the self-conceit to think that they know everything; yet almost all are blind to one of the outstanding principles that Nature employs in her work. This principle may be called the inner isolation which characterizes each and every living species on this earth. Even a superficial glance is sufficient to show that all the innumerable forms in which the life-urge of Nature manifests itself are subject to a fundamental law–one may call it an iron law of Nature–which compels the various species to keep within the definite limits of their own life-forms when propagating and multiplying their kind.

Unlike creationists, however, I will show some honesty about the fact that Hitler was a creationist: Creationism did not lead to Hitler. Furthermore, even if it did lead to Hitler, that does not make it false. It would be a fallacious point, a red herring to argue such nonsense.

Finding FTSOS

My stats page allows me to see what people have searched to find this blog. For the most part it’s something to do with Hubble or Andreas Moritz. (That second one makes me especially proud.) But every once in awhile I get an oddball in there. Today is one of those times.

is it ok to dislike creationists

Yes. Yes, it is.

Religions would squirm

Recent evidence suggests Europa has enough oxygen for life.

The global ocean on Jupiter’s moon Europa contains about twice the liquid water of all the Earth’s oceans combined. New research suggests that there may be plenty of oxygen available in that ocean to support life, a hundred times more oxygen than previously estimated.

The research says various openings in the top of Europa’s massive oceans could provide a pathway for oxidizers to deliver an oxygen content which could quickly exceed that of Earth’s oceans.

All this makes me wonder. What would the religions of the world do? What would they do if life was found elsewhere? I know many would adapt their teachings pretty quickly; they would ignore that a central part of their beliefs is that humans are special (the arrogance!). It may take a period of adjustment, but none of them would let go of what they’ve always believed. They’d just pretend like their holy book was ballparking its claims and move on (just like they do when they claim “days” really means “millions of years”). But what about the other guys? The creationists and likewise country bumpkins? While they tend to be some of the most dishonest people around, I do think they would maintain their point of view. Whereas most of religion would shift uncomfortably for a period, the more literal-minded mooks would squirm. They’d deny facts, twist evidence, make false associations and accusations. I guess I’m basically saying they’d continue exactly what they do now.

Ask yourself

Ask yourself, how much respect would you offer the idea that Earth is flat? Not much, though you may not outright mock the person promoting that idea. Most likely, you’d just ignore the guy and move on. But what if it wasn’t just one person? What if you had a huge swath of the country which thought there was legitimacy to this idea? Those people vote. Those people have a voice. They can tell their senator, no, we don’t want funding for NASA because it predicates its gravity boosts for its spacecraft on the idea that Earth and all the other planets are not flat. Do you think you might have a problem with flat-Earthers then? Do you think maybe you’d stop giving them the impression that what they thought was legitimate?

This is why scientists (and atheists) are so willing to laugh, mock, and dismiss creationists.

Giberson

Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk have a column stating that they are scientists and they believe in both God and evolution.

We are scientists, grateful for the freedom to earn Ph.D.s and become members of the scientific community. And we are religious believers, grateful for the freedom to celebrate our religion, without censorship. Like most scientists who believe in God, we find no contradiction between the scientific understanding of the world, and the belief that God created that world.

Most of the article is just an emphasis on this basic statement. I was hoping to get a substantial post out of this when I first saw it, but I’m scavenging here.

We are trained scientists who believe in God, but we also believe that science provides reliable information about nature. We don’t view evolution as sinister and atheistic. We think it is simply God’s way of creating. Yet we can still sleep soundly at night, with Bibles on our nightstands, resting atop the latest copy of Scientific American.

It isn’t surprising that they use “and” rather than “or” between sinister and atheistic. Christians love to associate atheism with all sorts of evil things. Don’t believe it.

Our belief that God creates through evolution is a satisfying claim uniting our faith and our science. This is good news.

This is only good news for those who have long realized that religion and science are at odds, but who wish to bring the two together, ignoring all the issues raised. For instance, how can one maintain that prayer can affect the natural world, yet then ignore the scientific studies which show that, no, that is not true. Or, alternatively, claim that science cannot measure the supposed effects of prayer. Of course it can! The claim is that X occurs in the natural world. If that’s the case, it is always subject to study using the scientific method. The natural world (i.e., reality) is science’s realm. Enter your fairy tales into it and you leave the safe haven of the supernatural, mythical world.

There is nothing satisfying about a claim uniting Christianity (or any religion) and science. One makes claims about the natural world without evidence while the other is predicated on the very idea that evidence is absolutely critical in determining the truth of anything, especially counter-intuitive or improbable claims. There are only two gods which can work with science: a hands-off deity and a god which only works through natural laws. The first is pretty harmless. The claim is simply that God X set the Universe in motion. That temporarily satisfies the first cause-question, though it quickly falls apart when one asks “Well, what created God X?”. The other god, the one that works purely through natural laws, is only superfluous. This one can have theology around it and thus can be quite dangerous. However, as far as science goes, its use is as good as me saying that fairies guided every particle into place at all times. There’s no evidence for my fantastic claim, but it doesn’t technically interfere with what science says. But, of course, a god which causes virgin births, turns water into wine, and floods the entire Earth is far from being compatible with science. Very, very far.

Huh, look at that. Turns out even the short dumb things the New Creationists say can generate a lot of rebuttal.

The prof

A blogger once noticed that people who don’t like PZ Myers refer to him as “Paul Zachary Myers”. Now there’s a new level of contempt. Mark Looy of Ken Ham’s staff will only call him “the prof”

…He was standing with the prof and 10-12 SSA members, and I stopped to hear what was being said—especially since the prof was being filmed at the time and that was creating some congestion.

I actually counted twelve instances of Looy using “the prof” to reference PZ. He slips up and writes “the professor” once. Perhaps his heart soften for just a moment. But at no point in Looy’s post (or Ken Ham’s surrounding post) does “PZ Myers” appear. They even refuse the often creationist-preferred “Paul Zachary Myers”. Looy, Ham, and ilk seem to have decided that the best way to express their deep, vitriolic hatred of PZ is to be as humanely impersonal as absolutely possible. Whatever. They still know shit about science.

The Prof

If some blogger can morph this with an image of PZ, that would probably garner a few hits.

Creationists hate honesty

It’s long been known that creationists love to quote-mine. They’ve long done it Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Gould, Albert Einstein, and plenty of other scientists in order to support their positions. No one is really all that surprised when they keep doing it again and again.

So it is nonchalantly* that I present yet another example. This time it’s Creation “Museum” supporter Tom Estes.

So I have been wondering; why do atheists have such animosity for Ken Ham? He is attacked so viciously, so often by atheists that I wonder if they have pure, unadulterated hatred for the man. And again I wonder, why? Before I go on, I want to share this cartoon that was drawn by Jennifer over at http://blaghag.blogspot.com.

Okay, got it? Estes is looking to support the idea that atheists simply hate Ken Ham. The hatred is so intense it’s even unadulterated. So what’s he do? He reposts a cartoon. Here’s what he featured.

PZHam1
PZHam2-1

PZHam3

To see the rest of this cartoon, visit the Blaghag.

This seems to support Estes point quite well. Clearly, the cartoon is indicating the pure desire of atheists to express their unadulterated hatred for Ken Ham. But wait!

PZHam4

PZHam5

As it turns out, the cartoon is actually showing that, yes, atheists don’t like Ham very much. He misrepresents science as much as humanly possible. That’s a bad thing. But the point is a far cry from unadulterated hatred. It’s a play off the whole Expelled debacle combined with PZ Myers’ love of squid and squid-like creatures and a mockery of Ken Ham’s silly beliefs about dinosaurs. It’s a bit of fun, and in the end it shows something decidedly less cool but clearly more welcomed – everyone being civil to each other. Estes chopped off this portion of the comic (adding a link back to the front page – not the original post – of the cited blog). He’s just another creationist. He’s willing to ignore what’s inconvenient to him in order to support his position. It’s sort of like the entire concept behind Ken Ham’s bad “museum”.

*Doesn’t it seem like “chalant” should be a word? Instead of “So it is nonchalantly that I present…” it would be way better to say “So it is without chalant that I present…”. Just sayin’.

No, they can't

Yet another person thinks evolution and creationism can live side-by-side.

The image of the Virgin Mary is reported to have been seen on a tree stump in the village of Rathkeale, and thousands of people have flocked there. And yes, this is quite absurd.

But is it more preposterous to believe that that piece of timber, and the willow tree from which it came, and the eye that beheld the wood, arrived in this world entirely by accident?

For in this, the 150th anniversary of the publication of ‘The Origin of Species’, that is what we’ve been endlessly told this year.

Before Darwinian dogmatists sneer the words ‘intelligent design’ and ‘creationism’, let me declare that I embrace neither concept. But nor do I reject them.

There it is. I’ve been talking about it for awhile now, and here’s a prime example. It’s a New Creationist

I’ve been reading up on this subject recently, especially Ernst Mayr, Dawkins and Darwin, and what strikes me most is the sheer act of Darwinian faith which is required for us to accept that natural selection was the prime engine that conjured the vast complexity of modern life from its birthplace in the methanogenic oceans of the pre-Cambrian.

It actually doesn’t take any faith whatsoever. There is ample evidence for evolution, and specifically for natural selection. The only way the author of this piece would think it took faith to accept evolution would be if he was really a sneaky, coy creationist.

Now life as we know it depends on proteins. But even a relatively simple molecule such as insulin, consists of 51 conjoined amino-acids, with a molecular weight of 5808: nearly 6,000 times the weight of a hydrogen atom. And an average living cell contains 100 million protein molecules, involving perhaps 20,000 varieties of protein.

Do you remember those problems back in grammar school where you’d need to pick out the irrelevant part? Suzy and Tom went to the store at 7 in the morning. Tom got 2 packs of gum and a soda. They both returned at 4:30 later that day. For how long were Suzy and Tom gone? It isn’t important that Tom bought anything. No one cares. So in turn, one wonders why the author told us the weight of insulin, not to mention that weight versus a particular atom. Maybe he’s trying to compare complexity. If so, he failed.

Moreover, there are several hundred thousand types of protein, all of them impossibly complex. How were these made by accident? To say that such order is implicit in all of nature — as some scientists do — is begging the question, the equivalent of saying matter is intrinsic to materials.

There’s the problem. This guy thinks it was all “by accident”. He also seems to think, as creationists commonly do, that complex molecules have always existed in the form in which we see them. That is not the case. Evolution is a slow, gradual process. Until creationists understand that – and they usually willfully do not – no progress can be made with these people.

This logically means that there must have been many competing proto-life forms. Just one — apparently the one that depends upon DNA — survived. But how did the dear old double helix come into existence? For DNA doesn’t function at all unless complete. It’s either the final, impossibly complex but useful article, or it’s incomplete and utterly useless. So, no simple evolution here.

Competing lifeforms would not last long in an environment where other lifeforms already exist. That’s one reason we don’t see life spontaneously come into existence – the formation of any molecules will be quickly used up by existing life.

This guy goes on to state the common creationist idea that life must exist complexly immediately upon its inception. Again, no. Interestingly, this all seems like a non-sequitur: many life forms should exist, but only one does, so how did it come into existence, it couldn’t because it’s complex. Weird.

Human-triggered speciation has never occurred, despite separations of thousands of years. The dingo of the Australian desert is five millennia removed from the Arctic wolf; yet they can still interbreed. Similarly, Northern Dancer could have bred with a Connemara.

Dogs? Or all this?

Thought of the day

Maybe the worst thing about creationism isn’t that it’s absurdly ugly but simply that it is false.