Because it’s worth repeating

Posted on May 15, 2010 by Michael

A creationist in one of the comment sections recently repeated this old canard.

the dictionary says (among other things) that a theory is:
1. contemplation or speculation.
2. guess or conjecture.

there i go? again?
you just seem pretty intent on disparaging arguments but not refuting them.

This is yet another point where atheists and other non-deluded people are willing to be honest, all the while watching creationists do just the opposite. It’s like it’s just so damn inconvenient to come to a straight-forward, truthful understanding of basic concepts for the religious that lying has become okay for them; the ends justify the means.

So it is worthwhile to repeat, for the nth time, just what a theory is and is not.

Insofar as my theory that ice cream is great can be considered a theory, yes, creationism is a theory. But it is not in any way a scientific theory. The requirements to reach this high level are rigorous. For starters, what predictions does creationism make? What experiments can be carried out to falsify the hypothesis? Can others repeat these experiments? Are there other plausible explanations? Are there better explanations?

The word “theory”, as any educated, honest person knows, carries far more weight in science than it does for the lay public. In truth, the word gets mixed up in casual talk within science, even sometimes becoming conflated with “hypothesis”, but no one really blinks because the context allows for the use of shorthand. Think to Richard Dawkins’ style of writing. He uses personification all the time, especially when discussing natural selection. He will start out with qualifiers and scare quotes – “Natural selection ‘wants’ to weed out the bad genes” – but as he goes on, the reader comes to an understanding of the fact that the good doctor is bringing evolutionary biology to life via a particular way of writing. It becomes obvious that it is inappropriate to apply anthropomorphic qualities to what Dawkins is describing – and it is context that allows for this.

But in public forums or political circles, there can be no assumed knowledge of science and what its terms mean; it is a danger to allow for the use of loose language without qualification. That is why it is so important to distinguish between the lay definition of “theory” versus its scientific definition. In science it references something which has evidence, has been tested, has journal papers all about it, and usually there is a high degree of consensus. The Big Bang, evolution, global warming, plate tectonics – these are all theories. Creationists have no theories. They have no evidence, no reason, no logic, no testing, no raw data, no way to interpret any sort of observation in a way that holds any scientific significance.

Filed under: Science | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Biology textbook calls creationism myth; father wants honesty banned

Posted on April 11, 2010 by Michael

An honors textbook being used at Farragut High School in Knoxville, Tennessee refers to creationism as such:

Creationism: the biblical myth that the universe was created by the Judeo-Christian God in 7 days.

That’s a pretty fair definition. The only possible problem could be that there are a number of other creationist myths. Check that – the only possible legitimate problem. Creationists, of course, will have other issues.

[Father of a Farragut High School student, Kurt] Zimmermann said the use of the word “myth” could “mislead, belittle and discourage students in believing in creationism and pointedly calls the Bible a myth.”

I would hope so. The Bible has no evidence for anything not trivial, nevermind creationism. Why would anyone want to believe in a haphazard, internally inconsistent piece of violent rubbish that has no connection to reality? It involves magic, talking snakes, incorrectly describes the Universe, and for some strange reason has some tyrant claiming to be three individuals while he’s really one and one aspect of his personality disorder is that of a Jew zombie. It’s ridiculous.

Next.

Filed under: Creationism | Tagged: , , , | 4 Comments »

I think he hit them all

Posted on March 25, 2010 by Michael

Dominic Speirs is a quack supporter. He’s been busy in the comments defending the greedy, immoral, scummy snake oil salesman Andreas Moritz, but he decided to branch out to Darwin.

Darwin didnt even believe his theory of evolution. And the word ‘evolution’ and ’survival of the fittest’ didnt turn up in his books until the 4th edition of origin of the species. (And both theorys were lifted from another man)
Darwin was influenced by his parents who were members of the Lunar Secret society. The Lunar’s agenda at that time was “to destroy in the mind of man the belief in god”. He was more easily convinced about the lack of a god/spirit by the death of his daughter.

But ultimatley he was a man of God/spirituality and by the end of his life believed firmly in God or some higher force which permeates the universe.

If this guy wasn’t in Andreas Moritz’s Facebook woo group, I might have to declare Poe’s Law. Not only does he trot out a mass of creationist misconceptions that have been addressed who-knows-how-many-times, but he gets the constant misspellings in there, too – it looks like he hit all the requirements of being a creationist. I’m thinking this sort of thing should become the gold standard for noting when a blog is starting to take off: once the egregiously cliche creationists start popping up, the blog is on its way.

But this always raises a question for me: how do people get this crazy? PZ Myers talks about Reality Rejection Syndrome.

It isn’t just creationism; those beliefs have a surprisingly high correlation with denial of climate change, denial of HIV’s role in AIDS, anti-vax nonsense, rejection of the Big Bang, dualism, etc., etc., etc. At the root of these problems is discomfort with modernity and change, resentment of authority, anti-intellectualism, and of course, goddamned religion, which is little more than a rationalization for maintaining barbarous medieval values. So, yeah, face the facts: creationism isn’t just a weird reaction to bad science instruction and those annoying godless liberal college professors — it’s just one symptom of a deep-seated mental derangement.

That seems to describe Speirs pretty well. He’s not simply into woo and silly creationist beliefs (read: lies); he despises all that is founded in science and modernity. He’s like a Republican without the nasty social libertarian streak (as he has thus far indicated; the night is young).

Mr. Jay Gatsby offers a similar analysis:

Instead, fundamentalist American movements seek to redefine and protect their culture in an age of mass culture and state-based morality creation. Especially after WWII the state’s role in the creation of the ideals of morality has expanded at a planetary rate. Fundamentalist groups, knowingly or not, reject this principle and use religion as a cultural basis.

The religious ideals on which Speirs rests are likely either Christianity or New Age, amorphous woo. The first is likely just based upon 1) statistics and 2) the fact that he embraces the crazy. But I lean towards the latter because these woo fans don’t like to be pinned down; they reside in vagueness. As MJG puts it,

What is most curious about fundamentalist groups is their lack of clear definition. Fundamentalist identity is not based on what is. Instead, the groups define themselves against the “other;” what is “not” takes precedent over what “is.”

This describes no group better than the generic woo-worshipers. As one said to me in an email,

I bet your spirit guides are really hopeing you will knock this off so you can just get on with your life.

“Spirit guides” is so vague, it would be impossible to mount a coherent argument against it/them. I don’t mean to indicate that religions are rational or anything – they aren’t – but the more learned followers of mass religion are able to at least mount a case for their crazy beliefs (however weak the case may be). The woo supporters aren’t even interested in doing that; their interests rest in rejecting what’s popular and embracing a minority…nothingness.

Filed under: Creationism, Pure bullshit | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Arbitrary number celebration!

Posted on February 27, 2010 by Michael

For the Sake of Science has reached 100,000 hits. Yay several zeros! Here’s the proof.

Of course, a creationist would point out that I never actually saw “100,000”, so there’s no way I can say I ever hit that number. I mean, maybe the stat tracker had an error, right? Really, this whole post is just faith. According to creationist logic.

Anyway.

Filed under: Administrative | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

Hitler was a creationist

Posted on November 18, 2009 by Michael

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.

Filed under: Creationism | Tagged: , | 3 Comments »

Ask yourself

Posted on August 12, 2009 by Michael

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.

Filed under: Creationism | Tagged: , , | 7 Comments »

Creationists hate honesty

Posted on August 3, 2009 by Michael

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’.

Filed under: Creationism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments »

No, they can't

Posted on July 24, 2009 by Michael

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?

Filed under: Creationism | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Rosenhouse

Posted on July 13, 2009 by Michael

Very frustrating, but entirely typical for creationists. They have a single intuition, that functional systems do not evolve gradually by undirected processes. Virtually all of their scientific arguments are based on attaching poorly understood jargon to that intuition. They have no real understanding even of what the questions are, much less what to do to find answers.

Rosenhouse

Filed under: Creationism | Tagged: , , | Leave a comment »

The same evidence

Posted on July 11, 2009 by Michael

We all have the same evidence in front of us. We just have different interpretations.

For instance, most scientists believe we think with our brains. But that’s merely one circumstantial interpretation. We can never know if we really think with our brains. Why not another organ?

I submit that we actually think with our kidneys. These amazing little machines are, at their core, a microcosm of humanity. We humans are always striving to become better and better people. We want to get rid of the parts of ourselves that are no good and better manage and improve the parts of ourselves which are beneficial. Kidneys do exactly this.

Our kidneys help to filter our blood, improving its quality and use. They also are key in getting rid of a lot of our waste – namely urine.

Humans are always thinking of how to gain in quality and discard internal waste. Our kidneys have long known just how to do this. It makes sense that our ability to think would be intricately linked to an organ which displays the very same attributes we constantly seek in our lives.

Right?

Filed under: Creationism | Tagged: , , , , , | 3 Comments »

« Previous Page — Next Page »