Showing posts with label intelligent design. Show all posts
Showing posts with label intelligent design. Show all posts

9.04.2009

Helicopters Fly Over The Wall Of Separation

Governor Jindal of Louisiana, the creationist who has participated in an exorcism, is frequently touted as a potential Presidential hopeful for 2012. And while he didn't fly to Argentina to adulterate with a hot upgrade, he did use taxpayer money to be flown by helicopter to church services across his state.

Sound somewhat familiar?

Maddow nailed it:
Nevertheless, Jindal still has “a separation of church and state problem here,” reenforced Maddow. “… The governor has been sold to us as a fiscal conservative, a social moralist and an enemy of government waste. You know, none out of three ain’t all that bad, is it?”

5.17.2009

Note To Creationists: The Game Is Afoot

I'm glad to see science taking the offensive here; it's long overdue.



No more playing around. When the science guild is confronted by this nonsense, don't defend: attack their alleged "science," and then drill into their philosophy. Get average Americans to see that they start with the answers and work backwards, and we start with the data and push forwards. And any rhetoric the creationists want to use to make it seem like science is atheistic, remind them of this:

Any time they want to make a testable claim of their god, scientists are waiting to get the Nobel Prize. So who's game?

4.30.2008

"A Blood Libel On Western Civilization"

When talking about the creationists to people who don’t follow these controversies closely, I have found that the hardest thing to get across is the shifty, low-cunning aspect of the whole modern creationist enterprise.
I haven't posted anything on the creationist Expelled movie, mostly because the whole thing bores me really. The movie presents no new arguments (no surprise); and that creationists can be a bunch of deceitful, amoral hypocrites is century-old, arguably millennia-old, news.

However, I gleefully post this link to John Derbyshire's deliciously vicious National Review...uh, review..of the movie, since it's a conservative harshly criticizing the movie. It's unique so far of all of the reviews I've read, as Derbyshire points out that Ben Stein is betraying the Western Civilization Stein seems to think scientists (ie, liberals) are destroying. Best part (emphasis mine):
And now here is Ben Stein, sneering and scoffing at Darwin, a man who spent decades observing and pondering the natural world — that world Stein glimpses through the window of his automobile now and then, when he’s not chattering into his cell phone. Stein claims to be doing it in the name of an alternative theory of the origin of species: Yet no such alternative theory has ever been presented, nor is one presented in the movie, nor even hinted at. There is only a gaggle of fools and fraudsters, gaping and pointing like Apaches on seeing their first locomotive: “Look! It moves! There must be a ghost inside making it move!
All of the arguments made in Expelled are debunked here, should you want to take a look. I find it telling that my local theater only showed it for a week. Bring it home, Derbyshire...
Which other of our civilizational achievements would you like to sneer at? What else from what Waugh called “the work of centuries” would you like to “abandon … for sentimental qualms”? You call yourself a conservative? Feugh!

11.18.2007

NOVA's "Judgement Day" Online

You can watch it here. I thought it was excellently done. However, I was horrified that the WORST thing anybody in Dover could be called or be considered is an atheist. Haven't these people heard of Mormons?

And Bill Buckingham comes off as everything you would expect him to: a belligerently superstitious, ignorant, obdurate ex-junkie reprobate. He is a credit to his religion...

8.12.2007

I'm Sorry, But Your Local Weather Guys Are...Faulted...Severely

So I'll be the pudding stick. From Wikipedia on John Christy:
After earning his divinity degree he founded a Southern Baptist church in South Dakota before pursuing a career in science and teaching.
I've heard that before, in the ID/creationist field. And:
Unlike some other major climate data sets, the satellite data are constantly being refined and adjusted as new discoveries are made in the relatively new science of remote sensing. Notable adjustments were made to compensate for the effects of orbital drift and orbital decay, and most recently to correct an arithmetic error. Christy and Spencer use intercalibration between instruments on different satellites to adjust for instrument bias, then try to validate their data by comparing it to data gathered by weather balloons and surface stations.
That's apples and oranges, and it doesn't fly in my book. Sorry, but the more I read about these guys and their work (more than I cared), the less I'm inclined to accept them as serious scientists. And I checked up on this Wikipedia claim, and it's valid (again, long reading on my part). Poor, poor, poor science. Granted, I just have a Master's degree in an unrelated field, but the problems are there for all to see.

And as for Roy Spencer: he supports intelligent design. That doesn't mean his science on the atmosphere is wrong, but it does raise my suspicions...and my skepticisms as to his being a serious scientist. And his work suffers the same "apples and oranges" problem of Christy's. Although, from what I can tell, Christy at least supports teaching real science, ie evolution, in science classes, despite his noted fundamentalism.

There are plenty of questions to explore concerning our atmosphere and its future. I don't consider these two's contributions of much merit overall, nor do I think our understanding is complete enough to warrant extreme government intervention.

7.12.2007

Courtroom Foolishness Gets A Documentary

Nova is doing a special on the ID Dover trial.

You gotta love this quote of a quote by Judge Jones:

“It was a science class that everybody wished they’d been able to take when they were in school.”

Which is why ID lost.

6.18.2007

The Comical Farce Of Junk

There's been a lot of ID talk about "junk" DNA (a term I despise). The Questionable Authority dissects it pretty well. In essence, the pro-ID frauds made their bed and now they have to eat it: either you can postulate how the designer(s) work or you can't. If you can, get to work, formulate predictions, and test them. I would start with predictions about when or how certain biological mechanisms were inserted and where. Those seem like, you know, big ones...

I also like the new term "neo-Paleyians." Too funny...

6.05.2007

Embrace The Inconvenience

Michael Behe, the biochemist who started the whole Intelligent Design thing with his book Darwin's Black Box, has a new book out. In it, he uses mathematical models to show how "Darwinism" can't produce certain biomolecular binding sites.

Several early reviews trash his mathematics and poorly reasoned premises, as to be expected. But this argument threw me for a loop: the "designer," who/whatever that is, specifically made malaria. Yeah. The argument atheists have been throwing up for decades, he embraces.

How do you worship such a beast? Creators of biogenic plagues are not looked kindly upon by modern history; deliberate spreaders of them are the villains of much science fiction. Behe's argument is not only logically vapid, it reaches a conclusion that is totally anti-theistic.

Brilliant! Good show, old man!

5.17.2007

I Don't Think This Is What The Fundies Meant


A new ad campaign for San Fransisco adoptions. I'm guessing this is not the kind of press the Discovery Institute was hoping for.

3.09.2007

Irreducible Complexity is a Scientific Revolution!

That is, if you live in the 1920's. And the revolution was in the growing field of evolutionary biology, not in the scientifically vacuous political debate over intelligent design. I rediscovered this post from Talk.Origins that reviews how Michael Behe's "irreducible complexity" was predicted by geneticists almost 90 years before his vomit-inducing book "Darwin's Black Box." Amazing how a deluded religious kook can make a good pile of money claiming he found something that debunks evolution...something predicted by "evolutionists" decades before as a likely product of evolutionary processes (and a decade before the modern synthesis).